Play at the plate

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I don't suppose it would sway your opinion to learn that Ohio's lead interpreter is Kyle McNeely, current chair of the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee? Nah, didn't think so.

And your sarcastic tone is Why?

rcaverly posted "I hate to wake up a dead horse, but I asked for an interp from my state (Ohio) through our local interpreter. They recently ruled that the two infractions (D obstructs the O; then the O MCs the D) are to be treated in the order in which they occurred in that they occurred to different runners."

You responded and neither of you used the name Kyle McNeely and I certainly don't track his whereabouts.

What ever happened to that young umpire that worked in the Far East, without a Ego problem.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with your point about "never in 28 years." Still, it would be nice to iron out this wrinkle. Given its rarity, we might not get anything from NFHS.

I don't suppose it would sway your opinion to learn that Ohio's lead interpreter is Kyle McNeely, current chair of the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee? Nah, didn't think so.

Like his predecessor, Rumble, Kyle has made some questonable rulings. When he is speaking on behalf of FED, I accept whatever he says. When he is "musing" I take some of it with a grain of salt.

[MikeStrybel]

I suggest that until Elliot Hopkins offers a clarification, the rule book penalty should stand. As far back as I can remember, Fed always penalizes the team causing the infraction in the worst possible way. While I agree that the separate plays should remain so, they have a history of protecting the team that suffers most.

MC supersedes obstruction.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I suggest that until Elliot Hopkins offers a clarification, the rule book penalty should stand.

1. It's not the rule book penalty, it's your (and apparently Carl's) interpretation of what "MC supersedes obstruction" means.

2. Fortunately, in Ohio, we now have a more sensible interpretation that has the force of rule.

[MikeStrybel]

Okay. I cannot argue with your need to believe what isn't there.

"You wouldn't have a game without rules, so the obvious answer is that the rules define the game."

Enjoy your season.
------------------------------------------------------

For the rest of the board, I have been wrong plenty of times in my life. I do not pretend to be an expert on all things baseball and comment only when I believe it is relevant. If Elliot Hopkins publishes a clarification of the MC rule that contradicts my thoughts about it, I will happily concede and employ the proper penalty(ies) when appropriate. This is not a contest. I have been umpiring for a few decades now and enjoy communicating with those who want to help make us all better - on the field and off. It is my hope that our discussion leads to improvements in officiating, nothing more.

Rain and 36 degrees here today. First game of the season is scheduled for tomorrow. Does Honig's sell thermo waders?

Have a great season, guys.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. It's not the rule book penalty, it's your (and apparently Carl's) interpretation of what "MC supersedes obstruction" means.

Mike, what I think is happening is two different approaches to the rule. One would be yours which is the more modern, post 2006 viewpoint. The other would be Strybel's, old, dated and pre-2005.

2. Fortunately, in Ohio, we now have a more sensible interpretation that has the force of rule.

This would be the more philosophical one, would it not?