"Slinging the bat"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

Should I ask what UC stands for, or does it matter, since I am not in sync with Simply on the subject?

Unsporting conduct.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with STB's interp on this issue. A2D.

[MikeStrybel]

9.01c & d cover Unsportsmanlike Conduct (UC) issues. I haven't seen a player 'sling' his bat after hitting a pitch in many years. Still, if it is an issue, the rules allow for you to penalize the act.

I have to admit being a bit confused why Bob tolerates belligerence from a select few here. The OP was asked by someone who wanted help but was met with condescension and outright antagonism. Some of you forget what it was like to start out or have a play that was beyond your grasp (even the pros admit that they are occassionally challenged by non-routine plays). The internet affords some insulation, especially when using a screen name. If you were teaching a clinic and an umpire asked such a question, would you ridicule that person face to face? That seems like rather 'unsportsmanlike conduct'.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

9.01c & d cover Unsportsmanlike Conduct (UC) issues. I haven't seen a player 'sling' his bat after hitting a pitch in many years. Still, if it is an issue, the rules allow for you to penalize the act.

The preponderance of sporting officials I see fall into the category of "easy way to the fee", i.e. that are not interested in using the rules to cover issues that aren't defined by some interp they can lay their lazy hats on. God forbid they protect a catcher from getting his clock cleaned by using UC which clearly allows for that use. God forbid they use their heads for something more than a place to strap their mask on.

No, easy peasy money and this forum is full of easy peasy types.

I have to admit being a bit confused why Bob tolerates belligerence from a select few here.

Which is the very reason this forum has so few new posters. The word is out, plain and clear, the reputation is set in concrete and new posters typically get rung up by the forum Big Dogs and they take a hike. There are too many forums where the moderation is clear and even handed and don't have the reputation of one-sided, "in crowd" slanted moderation.

The OP was asked by someone who wanted help but was met with condescension and outright antagonism. Some of you forget what it was like to start out or have a play that was beyond your grasp (even the pros admit that they are occassionally challenged by non-routine plays). The internet affords some insulation, especially when using a screen name. If you were teaching a clinic and an umpire asked such a question, would you ridicule that person face to face? That seems like rather 'unsportsmanlike conduct'.

It's forum talk and it's the second part of the awful reputation this place has.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

The preponderance of sporting officials I see fall into the category of "easy way to the fee", i.e. that are not interested in using the rules to cover issues that aren't defined by some interp they can lay their lazy hats on.

I don't know about the baseball world, but in the football and wrestling world that I've worked in, the officials are there because they love the sport. I've yet to meet an official that is there for easy money. Indeed, most of us _lose_ money doing this. I don't know how many hours of PTO I use every fall to leave early to officiate a JV game or Jr High game. Or the Saturdays I lose officiating wrestling tournaments instead of spending it with my wife and daughter.

Usually when people aren't interested in using some rule, it is because they are afraid of conflict (don't want to argue with the coach) or because they don't really understand it. I don't think I've ever seen laziness as an excuse.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

The preponderance of sporting officials I see fall into the category of "easy way to the fee", i.e. that are not interested in using the rules to cover issues that aren't defined by some interp they can lay their lazy hats on.

If you're not making up interpretations with no basis in the conventions, intent or accepted practices of your sport, then you are lazy and money-grubbing? Somehow, I'm really doubting that you are ignorant enough to actually believe that.

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

God forbid they protect a catcher from getting his clock cleaned by using UC which clearly allows for that use.

How does the UC rule "clearly" allow for this, when it makes no mention of it, there's no rule covering it and there is no official interpretation directing us to call it that way? Clear? As mud, maybe. Or, maybe, clear only in the mind of the person creating a ruling out of thin air.

[MikeStrybel]

I already cited the relevant rules for OBR. In Fed, 3-3-1c or m discusses bat throwing and pertinent penalties. I like what Florida says about Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
From the FHSAA: "7.2 UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
7.2.1 “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” Defined. A student who commits an act of malicious and hateful nature toward a contest official, an opponent or any other person attending an athletic contest shall be guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct. Such acts may include, but are not limited to, profanity, striking or threatening a contest official; physical contact with an opponent which is beyond the normal scope of competition; spitting on a contest official or opponent; directing gender, racial or ethnic slurs toward a contest official, an opponent or any other person attending an athletic contest; or other such acts deemed to be unacceptable conduct according to the principal of the member school the student attends or this Association."

I don't know if other states have taken this step but it would be interesting to read how they define it.

The NCAA has several misconduct rules as well. Besides acts against game personnel, they penalize acts that bring disrepute on the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

From the FHSAA: "7.2 UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
7.2.1 “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” Defined. A student who commits an act of malicious and hateful nature toward a contest official, an opponent or any other person attending an athletic contest shall be guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct."

So riddle me this, how does an accidental act get punished by a rule that is directed at "malicious and hateful" actions?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

9.01c & d cover Unsportsmanlike Conduct (UC) issues. I haven't seen a player 'sling' his bat after hitting a pitch in many years. Still, if it is an issue, the rules allow for you to penalize the act.

I have to admit being a bit confused why Bob tolerates belligerence from a select few here. The OP was asked by someone who wanted help but was met with condescension and outright antagonism. Some of you forget what it was like to start out or have a play that was beyond your grasp (even the pros admit that they are occassionally challenged by non-routine plays). The internet affords some insulation, especially when using a screen name. If you were teaching a clinic and an umpire asked such a question, would you ridicule that person face to face? That seems like rather 'unsportsmanlike conduct'.

Mike,

I must be reading a different thread than you. I just wnet back and re-read the first page of this thread, and the OP was "met with" an opinion, a "dead-on" rule cite, followed by an explanation.

There was a "good natured ribbing" post, then a troll interjected w. some tangential comments designed to stir up argument. The OP than asked for further clarification and received it.

I'm not sure which part of that you consider "belligerent" (other than possibly the troll).

JM

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So riddle me this, how does an accidental act get punished by a rule that is directed at "malicious and hateful" actions?

It appears that the FHSAA did. The rule I noted is a step towards defining unsportsmanlike conduct for their baseball administrators and officials.

For the rest of us without such guidelines from their state association, you will find accidental bat throwing under the section dealing with Bench and Field Conduct. 3-3-1c states that after a warning any player on the team warned will be ejected for similar conduct. Under 3-3-1m any deliberate bat throwing will result in an immediate ejection. I wrote about these things earlier.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mike,

I must be reading a different thread than you. I just wnet back and re-read the first page of this thread, and the OP was "met with" an opinion, a "dead-on" rule cite, followed by an explanation.

There was a "good natured ribbing" post, then a troll interjected w. some tangential comments designed to stir up argument. The OP than asked for further clarification and received it.

I'm not sure which part of that you consider "belligerent" (other than possibly the troll).

JM

John,
I included specifics rules for OBR and Fed regarding bat tossing as well. I noticed several people who, rather than simply answer the OP's question decided to chide him for not knowing. They are there for you to read.

In an effort to move the discussion along, I posted what another High School association states about Unsportsmanlike Conduct. It seemed to be well constructed and appropriate.

[UmpJM]

Mike,

The thing that "cracks me up" about the FHSAA definition is that, while what they describe I would certainly consider "unsportsmanlike", MY threshold for "unsportsmanlike" is WAY below "hateful and malicious".

Heck, I've dumped a kid for "drawing a line" on me, though I considered it neither hateful nor malicious - just inappropriately disrespectful.

Plus, how the hell do I know what one or another HS principal deems an "unacceptable act"? Does it vary from a fundamentalist Christian school, to a parochial school, to a public school?

Profanity (G*d d@mn!) gets the hook, but obscenity (F#ck y*u!) and vulgarity (You're bull$hit!) don't?!?!?

I know, I'm just having a little fun with what they wrote. While I believe it "well intentioned", I am singularly unimpressed.

It's really what the UMPIRE judges an unacceptable act, informed by the criteria defined in the FED book.

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by umpjm (nee coachjm)

mike,

the thing that "cracks me up" about the fhsaa definition is that, while what they describe i would certainly consider "unsportsmanlike", my threshold for "unsportsmanlike" is way below "hateful and malicious".

Heck, i've dumped a kid for "drawing a line" on me, though i considered it neither hateful nor malicious - just inappropriately disrespectful.

Plus, how the hell do i know what one or another hs principal deems an "unacceptable act"? Does it vary from a fundamentalist christian school, to a parochial school, to a public school?

Profanity (g*d d@mn!) gets the hook, but obscenity (f#ck y*u!) and vulgarity (you're bull$hit!) don't?!?!?

I know, i'm just having a little fun with what they wrote. While i believe it "well intentioned", i am singularly unimpressed.

It's really what the umpire judges an unacceptable act, informed by the criteria defined in the fed book.

Jm

+1

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mike,

The thing that "cracks me up" about the FHSAA definition is that, while what they describe I would certainly consider "unsportsmanlike", MY threshold for "unsportsmanlike" is WAY below "hateful and malicious".

Heck, I've dumped a kid for "drawing a line" on me, though I considered it neither hateful nor malicious - just inappropriately disrespectful.

Plus, how the hell do I know what one or another HS principal deems an "unacceptable act"? Does it vary from a fundamentalist Christian school, to a parochial school, to a public school?

Profanity (G*d d@mn!) gets the hook, but obscenity (F#ck y*u!) and vulgarity (You're bull$hit!) don't?!?!?

I know, I'm just having a little fun with what they wrote. While I believe it "well intentioned", I am singularly unimpressed.

It's really what the UMPIRE judges an unacceptable act, informed by the criteria defined in the FED book.

JM

I agree with most of what you wrote. I still think it is a valuable tool for new umpires though. Some here seem to have forgotten what it is like for rookies to confront a new play or behavior. For those new umpires, such definitions are as useful as the ubiquitous, 'make final decision on points not covered by the rules.'

The NCAA has similar guidelines but games governed by OBR are a puddle for many rookies because they lack such definitions. Experience usually gets you through the mire but the guidelines cited are helpful not perfect. According to Jim Evans and J/R, few things about our rule book are.

The supplements issued each year by the Fed and NCAA are often ignored by those who profess to 'know enough to get the job done' but forget that the purpose is provide clarity. The FHSAA tried. Maybe they didn't achieve what some of us would like but it must be good enough since they kept it verbatim for the next year.

As an aside, the Sox-Yankees game saw Ozzie look like a clown again. Tichenor rung up Konerko on a knee high strike. He nailed the call. Ozzie came out to chew on him and wound up looking ridiculous for arguing balls and strikes. If Tichenor had been back in Trips that 'conversation' would not have happened like it did. A lot of rookies watch things like that and believe they should emaluate them.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

It appears that the FHSAA did. The rule I noted is a step towards defining unsportsmanlike conduct for their baseball administrators and officials.

....

Mike,

To be fair, I must say there is one "diamond in the rough" from the FHSAA "definition" - to me, anyway.

It is:

...physical contact with an opponent which is beyond the normal scope of competition;...

That may be the best "definition" of malicious contact that I've ever read.

It's not going to be very "helpful" to a "new guy", because it offers no criteria by which to judge what IS "...beyond the normal scope of competition...".

But, that 's pretty much what I think the FED/NCAA MC rule IS.

JM

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best
God forbid they protect a catcher from getting his clock cleaned by using UC which clearly allows for that use.

Originally Posted by BretMan

How does the UC rule "clearly" allow for this

Good Lord, man, if you don't understand the absolute power of UC, then there is nothing I can do to assist you.