About the 234 known OBR errors
 

Bob Jenkins gave me some good advise just a while ago and mentioned that one of the first things they will tell you at an umpiring clinic is that there are 234 some-odd known errors/inconsistencies in OBR. I'd just like what some of the more egregious ones are

Well, it starts with 1.01 (see if you can figure it out) and goes from there.

Evans dosuments them (but I don't know if there's a "list"), if you can get a hold of that.

Well, aside from calling baseball a game - no it's not it's LIFE golldarnit!, most teams have more than 9 players, and if the DH allowed, there are 10 in the actual lineup if that was what the definition was driving at. More clues! More clues!

Yes, according to the rules we should be sending away any extra players exceeding nine. Where are all the "call it by the letter of the rules" people on that one?:confused:

Probably content in the knowledge that later in the rules, it states that leagues are allowed to utilize a designate hitter.

Contact Jim for the list. Time and space don't permit that here.

So if we list the errors, which we have done in the past, where will it get you? The rules are the rules and when we officiate an OBR game, errors or not, we enforce the rules as written. It's kind of like being a cop. Even if he knows the law is wrong, his job is to enforce it, not interpret it.

So don't worry about the 242 (yes, 242) iniquities in the OBR 2011 rulebook, just follow them and let the "experts" sort out the problems.

But he wants them all listed NOW!!!

Actually I just asked for some of the more egregious ones to be listed. I know I stumbled into the wrong forum. This is a place for umpires to discuss things with umpires and I was really out of place. I can see how it was annoying.

One final observation. It is obvious that even former MLB players don't know how the rules are to be interpreted. Even rules that say things in what appears to be plain English are not always what they seem. There are gurus who publish these interpretations and they seem to be kept secret. I contend that this is not good for the game. How are coaches supposed to teach kids how to play the game when former MLB players are confused by plays and rules interpretations are kept secret? If anything, this experience has lessened my appreciation of the game. I really don't know what I am watching anymore and it is harder to get into the game. I used to think ball four earned you a walk to first. But I suppose that it not always true, depending on what edict comes down from on high. Sorry to have been such a pain.

~Sigh~
 

I am not sure what I hate most:

Trolls or,

What if's . . .

I know Larry fits both groups.

T

But what if he's...

:D

The rules and interpretations aren't secret, but many coaches and players don't care to know them.

Case in point: Last week I had a rec game under FED rules that ended on a text book interference call when R2 collided with F6 fielding a batted ball. Offensive coach went ballistic, complaining the fielder was in the baseline, his runner had right of way, never, EVER, seen such a bad call, yada, yada, yada. When I told him that if he would look at the list of rules myths posted at the concession stand and the rules reference that supported my decision, he responded with, "Well, I'm not going to look it up!"

The rules are there for all to see, but only umpires care to read them.

Well, the interpretations are not necessarily secret, but they do seem to be locked away in a holy tabernacle that only the high priests have access to - unless you want to part with $150 for a book that may not ne available to the general public or attend some special clinic to get one. For example, I have read in a book on OBR that the PU will typically call a ball hit in back of the plate a foul ball, even if it goes into fair territory because he is blocked from a good view on most of those plays. Does that come from an umpire's manual? It is no wonder that such a convention gets *******ized by the hoi polloi into the myth that a batted ball that hits the plate is foul.

It doesn't matter where the ball hits, but it's location when it's first touched. Ergo, I don't care where it hits, but where the catcher fields it.

I don't believe that any book says that. Perhaps you're misremembering something. Which book says that? It certainly does not come from an umpire manual.

mb, I believe it was in Nemec's book, not certain though. Or maybe SI's book on Knotty Problems.

Here is one from the J/R quiz that I think they got cometely wrong:

R3, R1, two outs. Ground ball up the middle, just past the pitcher's right side. The shortstop gloves the ball in front of second base and attempts to tag the sliding R1 instead of tagging the base. The tag is missed, but R1 slides past the base without touching it. As R1 scrambles back to the base, the shortstop tags him before he is able to return. R3 scored before the tag was applied for the third out (a 'time play'). The defense appeals that R1 missed second base, hoping to get a force out-an 'advantageous fourth out' - to negate the run.
The appeal is upheld; R1 is out and the run cannot score since the third out is now a force out.
The appeal is not allowed, the run scores.
The umpire should simply call R1 out for being out of the baseline, thus avoiding this whole mess.
The correct answer is "b" (the appeal is not allowed, the run scores), at least according to how professional umpires are likely to officiate this play. In theory, Jaksa and Roder agree with answer "a" (the appeal is upheld; R1 is out and the run cannot score since the third out is a force out), but felt it necessary to write the rule as it is likely to be enforced on the field, as in answer "b." The problem lies in the fact that the Official Rules do not specifically define what constitutes an appeal. As our quiz question shows, when appeals meet force plays, the rules are especially inadequate.

Imagine how strong an umpire you will be when you can see plays like this and get them right! You will not only get them right, but will amaze those around you by being able to give specific reasons for your ruling."

Well, I think Rule 7.12 says it is a third out force play and no runs score. Everybody knows that if a batter hits a grand slam with 2 outs and misses 1B and if the defense makes the appropriate appeal at 1B, that it reverts to "force play or batter makes third out at first" situation and no runs score. How is the J/R example any different? The R1 missed 2B in a force out situation and was out on appeal where you can tag the runner or the base, it is still a force. Say the F6 missed the batted ball grounder and the ball went into CF. R1 now at R2 gets up after his slide and continues on to 3B without ever touching 2B. Tagging the R2 now standing on 3B or throwing to 2B and stepping on the base would result in an out. And since it was a third out force out, no run would score, correct?

Troll!

C'mon, how is that post "trolling"? J/R is apparently a respected rewrite/commentary to the rules. They contend that I can "amaze" all observers by making the call they suggested and that I can give a reason for the call. "Hey, Blue, that was a force play, what gives with allowing the run"? "Well, J/R says that is most likely the way they would call it in The Show". I imagine that explanation would go over big.

R1 was scrambling back to the base.

He's still R1, and he would be out only if the appeal were granted. But otherwise you're correct.

mb, I can't really see what "scrambling back to a (forced) bag has to do with it. Let's say the SS makes the same play on the grounder with R1 and R2 and one out. He makes a tag attempt on the passing R1 who obviously misses the bag. He then steps on second for what he thinks is an apparent force out and then wheels and throws to 3B where they catch R2 rounding the bag too far. To F6's amazement, he discovers R1 was ruled safe because he was scrambling back to the bag and had to be tagged (??). Is there a rule that can be quoted that says the force is off when a runner slides past a base without touching it and attempts to get back, or does that just come from the J/R interpretation?

Let's try a similar play at first. Batter hits a slow roller between F1 and F3. F1 fields it but is off-balance and begins to stumble. While stumbling and falling F1 attempts to tag B/R who successfully avoids the tag but in doing so it messes up his running cadence such that he runs over 1B without touching it. F1 is able to crawl over and tag 1B barely before the B/R is able to check his momentum and come back to 1B. Is B/R safe because "the force" was off and he had to be tagged instead?

Perhaps "phony" is a better term. We've seen this M.O before....seemingly innocent questions from someone remotely related to baseball that evolves into more pointed and very specific questions accompanied by inane research which then turns into arguments with this novice who suddenly is an expert.

He's been here before.

Larry1953,

B is the correct answer as R1 acquired 2B when he slid past it, therefore removing the force at 2B. It can't be an appeal for a missed base as the base was not tagged; F6 tagged R1 not the base. Since R1 acquired 2B and R3 scored before the third out was made, the run counts.

Can you cite a specific rule in the book that supports that, or is acquiring a base by sliding past it but not touching it something covered in an umpire's manual in the tabernacle that the fan or coach does not have ready access to?

Ad hominem attacks such as calling someone a "troll" or a "phony" do not constitute a valid "argument".

I am certain that the rules say it does not matter if you tag the runner or the base for a missed base appeal, even if the runner is standing on another base. Typically, the play is made to the base, but it can be made by tagging the runner as well. This point was made by several members in another thread about an MLB play where the runner rounded second and did not retouch it on his way back to first.

1. My comments are legitimate and relative...not "Ad hominem" in any regard.

2. I am not engaging in an argument, rather I was making a suggestion to Tim C.

3. I would never argue with you. I don't argue with trolls or phonies. They are always right.

You're right, but that wasn't the intent. The intent was simply to point out his opinion of your presence here so others could evaluate and determine whether or not it was worth responding to your queries.

So, yeah, he isn't really giving you a valid "argument." Then again, he doesn't care to.

@nopachunts

I think what you are referring to as an "acquired base" when a runner slides past it and misses it applies only in the case of a runner attempting a steal and he is immediately attempting to return. In that case, the fielder has to tag the runner and not the bag (for a missed base appeal). However, in the J/R case, R1 was forced to 2B by the batted ground ball and he can be forced out at that base by either tagging him or the base before he touches the base. No runs can score when the third out is a force out. At least that is what the plain English of the rules say.

Define troll or phony since you always profess to know everything.

One who acts like Steven Tyler.

Oh yeah, that probably defines ad hominem, too.

OUCH!

FWIW. I'd rather be a troll or phony as I deem it several rungs above hypocrite. It's a rather boring read when most of the posts are of the cyberbulling, guttersniping variety. Placing blame at the feet of one person only encourages the privileged few to feel a sense of immunity.

I don't visit here very often since I'm now the primary caretaker for my elderly parents. I also recently donated a kidney to my younger sister so she can hopefully add a few more quality years to her life. Ad hominemly speaking, just your average day in the life of a phony troll.

"I can't really see what "scrambling back to a (forced) bag has to do with it."

"B is the correct answer as R1 acquired 2B when he slid past it, therefore removing the force at 2B. It can't be an appeal for a missed base as the base was not tagged; F6 tagged R1 not the base. Since R1 acquired 2B and R3 scored before the third out was made, the run counts. "

It is called continuous action by J/R. Most umpires understand this situation very well.:)

I think you might be referring to J/R's concept of 'unrelaxed action'.

Although many umpires embrace the concept of unrelaxed action, from what I understand at least one of the pro schools does not. They teach that a runner can be appealed for a missed base even when he's scrambling back to it, using the strict language of 7.10(b) as justification.

I was merely trying to explain to the obtuse "Larry" what the difference was between appealing a runner scrambling back to a base and appealing a runner with a "clean miss" advancing to the next base. I agree that J/R had already explained that.

For my part, I like the idea of unrelaxed action: IMO, a missed base appeal should occur after playing action has ended, not when a runner is 4 feet away and scrambling to get to the "missed" base. I admit that the rules provide scant support for this opinion: it just seems to me to be better baseball.

In actual play, I probably just wouldn't "hear" an appeal during unrelaxed action. ;)

What if R1 slide past (not touching) the base as F4 bobbled the throw. R1 gets up and tries for third where he's tagged out. Do you now allow an appeal that he missed second? How (or why) is that different from the OP?

(And, to Larry -- this has all been discussed many times before with some taking one side and some the other and no, to my knowledge "official" ruling. J/R, and all other "authoritative opinion" has been wrong before.)

Bob, In your scenario is the base ever tagged by a fielder in possession of the ball? If R1 has slid past 2B without touching it and then went to 3B and 2B was tagged by a fielder and the ball, I would allow an appeal for a missed base.

In Larry1953's scenario, 2B was not tagged by a fielder and the ball.

In both plays, the runner is tagged out during "live action" and then the defense appeals that R1 missed second (it's assumed that the appeal is correctly performed).

To remain obtuse, the play was on a forced runner. The rules say such runner can be put out if either he or the base he was forced to is tagged before he touches said base and no run can score if such force out is the third out.

Many times you see F3 snag a liner while diving toward 1B while R1 is off the bag simply with his lead. 1B then crawls over a foot or two to tag the bag. Technically this is an appeal play and 1B hardly has the time to make a verbal appeal. As part of continuous action with BU being aware of the circumstances, the runner is always called out if he does not make it back in time. It seems to be a similar situation with the OP where the runner is scrambling to get back to 2B and the BU knows he missed the bag.

You can't use dissimliar plays to justify each other, Adios Amigos.

But would you allow an appeal when the action was "relaxed" as was the situation in the J/R case to acknowledge a (forced) fourth out that would by rule negate the run?

An appeal needs to be "clearly intended". That happens when F3 touches first after catching the fly -- it's the only reason he does it, and everyone knows why he's doing it. It doesn't (usually) happen when F4 tags R1 who slid past second -- that looks like a tag of someone who is off the base, and not an appeal.

Understood. But in the J/R case, the defense makes a relaxed play appeal, indicating their appeal intentions on what had just transpired. I suppose the crux of the matter is that J/R interprets that you cannot make a fourth out appeal at the same base the same runner made the third out. I can see the rationale in that.

Yes. It's different (in J/R world) because the appeal occurs during relaxed action in your case but not the OP.

IMO, it's not any feature of the tag of R1 that matters, but the nature of the appeal. I have a problem with granting an appeal during a runner's effort to correct his baserunning error.

I'm ambivalent about this issue, and glad it rarely arises. I've already noted that J/R world is pure interpretation here, and I respect umpires who insist on a stricter interpretation of the letter of 7.10(b). I just think J/R is more in the spirit of the game than such an interpretation.

Here's a bigger problem case for me: tie game, bottom of the last inning, bases loaded, 2 outs. Batter grounds to F6, who flips to F4 for the third out. F4 bobbles the ball as R1 slides past 2B without touching it. After R3 crosses the plate, F4 gathers the ball and tags R1 off the base for the third out. Do we allow an advantageous 4th out appeal in this case? If so, we go to extra innings; if not the game is over!

Depends on ruleset:
In FED, all the defense has to say is R1 missed 2B. Play the next inning.
In OBR, a proper appeal has to be made. Depending if the appeal is made properly or not, we may be going home or playing the next inning.

What if in both cases, that instead of tagging the runner, F6 tags the base while shouting "that's still a force!"? Hard to see how he could suppress the ingrained urge to tag the runner off the bag, but it would seem a proper way to negate the run.

F6 would get more credence if he/she told the BU the runner missed the base. Then the appeal would be apparent. BTW, no shouting needed.

That's not a force because the runner is assumed to have touched the base unless / until there's an appeal.

And, the various answers to all these questions depends on whether you subscribe to J/R's interpretation.

I, for one, don't, in this instance.

Thanks, Bob. I think I've finally seen the light, at least as far as the J/R rationale goes. I think the scenario you described about the bobbled throw could quite possibly happen. It would be interesting to see what the on field call would be. I'm not quite sure how J/R can admit that the rules "theoretically" support the no run out call but then come up with an opposite interpretation. Rules aren't really a "theory" of anything. They are logical posits from which deductions can be made. Anyway, thanks for your replies, they were very helpful.

Simply Caught Off Base for the 3rd Out
 

The force, catch or tag, was removed with a loud emphatic safe call at 2B.
The runner must be tagged out while off base.
No missed base appeal allowed.

OBR 7.08e, 7.08j and 4.09a

That wasn't mentioned in either scenario. Umpires don't make a loud, emphatic safe call if the runner misses the base when a play is being made at that base, do they?

No, they don't.

Another "error"
 

Another obvious rulebook error/inconsistency: Rule 1.04 where it specifies minimum distances of 325 down the lines and 400 to CF. I doubt there are more than 5 or 6 parks now that comply with that rule. Kinda stupid just to leave it in there for 50+ years when it never meant anything except maybe to slap Charlie Finley on the wrist.

Here are the facts:

Only one ballpark in MLB does not comply with the Left Field minimum distance, and that is Houston's Minute Maid Park, which is 315 down the LF line.

Only three ballparks in MLB do not comply with the Center Field minimum distance; Petco Park in San Diego (396), and both PNC Park in Pittsburgh and AT&T Park in San Francisco (399). That is pretty close...well within tolerances.

Only three ballparks in MLB do not comply with the Right Field minimum distance; Petco Park again (322, which is like 350 in other parks, as the ball does not carry), Camden Yards in Baltimore (318), and PNC Park (320).

The distances stated in 1.04 of the rule book are there for guidelines, and not as a hard and fast rule that requires enforcement. Ballparks must be configured based on space availability and the fit with its surroundings.

Fenway is officially 310 to the Monster, 390 to straightaway center (420 to the deepest part of the Triangle), and 302 to Pesky's pole. There are some that question the "official" measurements down the lines, though.

The rule said something about no park built after 1957 or so could have less than the specified dimensions. The new Yankee Stadium does not comply nor does the atrocity in Tampa. Fenway was obviously waived dating as it does back to 1912. I am not certain of the date Charles Finley pulled his stunt of having a right field fence on wheel to mock the short porch in RF. The point is that the rule was very specific as in NO STADIUM, etc, etc when it could have said "any stadium built or modified after 1957 must have the dimensions approved by MLB". Obviously that rule was followed with the boring wave of symmetric cookie cutter stadiums from the 60's: Shea, Busch, Astrodome, the Vet, Fulton Co, Three Rivers, Riverfront, et al. But the fact remains that many of the new parks with retro-quirkiness do not comply with a strict reading of the plain English of the rule.

The Baseball Guru - Fans Speak to Joe Mock, Ballpark Dimensions

This is a pretty good answer regarding the waiver of Rule 1.04. The year was actually 1958 and it was probably due to the 250 foot line at the LA Coliseum with the high screen that Wally Moon took advantage of with his "Moon Shots". The article said Cincy got a waiver, I am not sure if the Great American Ballpark was mentioned in the list. Not meaning to be argumentative, it's just that the rule brings up a lot of wonderful baseball history.

Cincy's waiver was for the last year(s) of Riverfront Stadium/Cinergy Field. They took out the center field seats and moved the wall in to make room to build GABP. Part of the waiver was to put in a mini-Green Monster in center field.

You are persistent....I'll give you that.

My father would categorize this as a "WGAS" type of discussion--Who Gives a S**t? :D

dilligaf

No, you do not.

JM