Feinting to First

[Coach Dykhoff]

Gotcha

[Coach Dykhoff]

It seems like you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong with documentation. It apprears that the two sections of the rule contridict each other. Agree to disagree.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

It seems like you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong with documentation. It apprears that the two sections of the rule contridict each other. Agree to disagree.

As neither a coach nor umpire, I'll side with the umpire when the two disagree.

[Coach Dykhoff]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

As neither a coach nor umpire, I'll side with the umpire when the two disagree.

Parking lots make decisions... j/k

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

It seems like you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong with documentation. It apprears that the two sections of the rule contridict each other. Agree to disagree.

It's not as much as proving one side wrong over the other, it's a matter of reading a complete rule, putting all it's pieces together and applying it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

So this rule has nothing to do with it?

=====

MLB RULEBOOK

8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—

(k) The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball;

=====

My understanding (and I might be wrong):

A "Dropped" ball will never cross the foul line. So, 8.05(k) is correct.

A "Slipped Pitch" might or might not cross the foul line. If it does, it's a ball; if it doesn't it's either "no pitch" or "balk" depending on runners. so, 8.01(d) CMT is correct.

So, the rules don't conflict (although they could be clearer).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

It seems like you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong with documentation. It apprears that the two sections of the rule contridict each other. Agree to disagree.

No, it's not agree to disagree. You think that this sentence has NEVER been discussed at the various clinics across the country.

Quick question - which of you has been to an umpiring clinic? This isn't exactly the only semi-ambiguous spot (or awful grammar, etc) in the rulebook. This is one of the things we cover at clinics. Feel free to hold on to your incorrect interp, since you've not been to one. Any umpire who has will call this right. You'll still think he's wrong because you've not discussed this with the people who make such interpretations. It's not agree to disagree - you are being told the correct answer, so it's really you insisting on being right in the face of the correct answer.

[Coach Dykhoff]

I bet you are a real joy to work with on the diamond.

I have seen this call, called both way so that crap about it being called the right way is dumb. Just because someone has been to a clinic doesn't mean they know the rule properly, just the interpretation of the one holding the clinic. I have been to coaching clinics that still have a batter lifting their back elbow.

I gave you a section that stated a dropped ball is a balk (How many dropped balls go foul from the set?). Another section was given that a ball must cross the foul line. I go by words in documents, not he said/ she said.

Apperantly you have something against me or coaches all around, because you have tried to bash me in two threads. That is fine but anything you have to say to me from now on will fall on deaf ears.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

I gave you a section that stated a dropped ball is a balk (How many dropped balls go foul from the set?). Another section was given that a ball must cross the foul line. I go by words in documents, not he said/ she said.

And you were given the reason why the ruling is contrary to what you think, yet that's not good enough for you.

Tell you what, next time this happens in one of your games, pull out your rule book, go out to discuss the ruling with the crew while you wave your highlighted section at the umpires.

You'll find out in due time what they think of your assessment of the situation.

[Coach Dykhoff]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

It seems like you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong with documentation. It apprears that the two sections of the rule contridict each other. Agree to disagree.

This was said.

It was good enough for me.

[DBull]

Originally Posted by asdf

Tell you what, next time this happens in one of your games, pull out your rule book, go out to discuss the ruling with the crew while you wave your highlighted section at the umpires.

You'll find out in due time what they think of your assessment of the situation.

In my game he will be reading the highlights on the bus (or where-ever)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

I bet you are a real joy to work with on the diamond.

What's with the personal attack?

I have seen this call, called both way so that crap about it being called the right way is dumb. Just because someone has been to a clinic doesn't mean they know the rule properly, just the interpretation of the one holding the clinic. I have been to coaching clinics that still have a batter lifting their back elbow.

The clinics (generally) are held by people who are getting their direction from TPTB. When something is a bit muddy in the rulebook (this sitch is CERTAINLY not the only place), it gets talked about. It gets pushed up the ladder for "official" rulings. SOMETIMES (although not nearly fast enough for any of our taste) it even gets fixed or clarified in the rulebook. But you need to realize that if an umpire is actually trained, and not just some local yahoo that umpires because he can't play anymore, they are going over situations just like this, getting official interps. I know this particular one has been mentioned more than once in clinics I've attended. That interp, which most of us here have heard, far outweighs a coach reading the book and seeing an apparent discrepancy, and then guessing.

Apperantly you have something against me or coaches all around, because you have tried to bash me in two threads. That is fine but anything you have to say to me from now on will fall on deaf ears.

Where did I bash you? I do "bash" things people say, especially when they are as uninformed as what you said in this thread. But I don't believe I've personally attacked you, other than my gradually increasing suspicion that you are a pseudonym for someone that trolled the area and was booted the very day you showed up.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

This was said.

It was good enough for me.

Of course it was good enough for you... YOU said it. Good grief.

[Coach Dykhoff]

But I don't believe I've personally attacked you, other than my gradually increasing suspicion that you are a pseudonym for someone that trolled the area and was booted the very day you showed up.

I get what you are saying. Ask a administrator/ moderator to do a IP check and that will put the issue to rest.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Coach Dykhoff

I get what you are saying. Ask a administrator/ moderator to do a IP check and that will put the issue to rest.

that's been done and while it can "prove" one side of the issue, it can't "prove" the other.