"Slinging the bat"

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Carelessly releasing a bat where injury and harm can occur is a violation of UC in OBR.

Now, somebody is slinging something...

Can you offer a rule, interpretation or case play that supports this notion?

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best
Carelessly releasing a bat where injury and harm can occur is a violation of UC in OBR.

Originally Posted by BretMan

Now, somebody is slinging something...

Can you offer a rule, interpretation or case play that supports this notion?

UC is judgment, interp is what I consider UC. Carelessly releasing a bat where injury and harm can occur is UC.

Next.

[DG]

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

[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.

[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 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.

[bob jenkins]

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

Thanks Coach.

I will point out that several posts were deleted in this thread well before the comments from Mike and STB. Maybe they read them before they were deleted.

And, we all have different thresholds for what should be allowed, and it's human nature to think our own actions are "more okay" than others. So, we react mopre when our own posts get deleted. :shrug:

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Carelessly releasing a bat where injury and harm can occur is a violation of UC in OBR. UC is judgment, interp is what I consider UC. Carelessly releasing a bat where injury and harm can occur is UC.

That's what I figured you'd say, since that is the only possible thing upon which you could hang your hat. I sincerely doubt you will find any documented interpretation endorsing that ruling.

Next time we see a batter in a Major League game get fooled on a pitch, lose his grip on the bat and have the bat helicopter away from the plate in such a way that "injury and harm can occur", I guess we'll see that batter ejected.

Or maybe not.