batter accidentally kicks foul ball

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Oh, stop your whining. Nobody is twisting your arm to read any of this. If you don't like it - don't read it! Grow up.

These are the places to "over think" things. If not here - then where?

Discussions between umpires on technical matters are often academic for the purposes of understanding nuances and rare interpretations. That's why one of the STUPIDEST things an umpire can say in an internet discussion of a rule between umpires is "That would never happen in a game" or "I've never seen that happen in my life". That is code for "I really don't understand the details of the rule."

I can tell you from considerable experience that when these kinds of issues are discussed in actual discussion meetings, it usually drives a lot of people crazy. Not only is the rule rather clear, you are trying to pick nits in order to get some understanding for something that is very unlikely to take place. I think our job as umpires should be to get and call the obvious, not worry about things that may never happen in the depths of our minds. So you can think this is the place to discuss such a nuance, but that does not take away from the fact that it still drives people crazy. You can disagree with that take, but this is true on many levels for many officials/umpires that I have come in contact with over the years. There always seems to be "that guy" that has to discuss or bring up things in a meeting when no one but him is confused about the situation. Or appears to be confused, but really is not confused. Now another thing I also find interesting, most people here that came to your defense, certainly are not here having the conversation with you either. Oh well.

Peace

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I can tell you from considerable experience that when these kinds of issues are discussed in actual discussion meetings, it usually drives a lot of people crazy.

That's the difference and beauty of the internet - these type of discussions do not have to waste your time if they don't interest you - much unlike an umpire meeting where you have to sit and endure something of no value or interest to you. At a meeting, the audience is held hostage. That is not the case here.

You can't be guilty of wasting people's time here. Because they don't have to be here. They can pick which threads to read and not to read. They can create their own topics. Complaining about wasting people's time in an internet forum is just plain idiotic!

Besides, I disagree with your characterization that this discussion is some esoteric, never-can-happen, not important topic - as evidenced by the conflicting views/interpretations on something that is not all that unusual, in my opinion. Nobody is picking nits here. It's a discussion of "intent" and interpretation of "intent" on a rule that REQUIRES a determination of "intent".

BTW, I don't need nor care for people to come to my defense. The fact that you even have to mention that speaks volumes of the tone of this forum.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

That's the difference and beauty of the internet - these type of discussions do not have to waste your time if they don't interest you - much unlike an umpire meeting where you have to sit and endure something of no value or interest to you. At a meeting, the audience is held hostage. That is not the case here.

You can't be guilty of wasting people's time here. Because they don't have to be here. They can pick which threads to read and not to read. They can create their own topics. Complaining about wasting people's time in an internet forum is just plain idiotic!

You are right; no one has to be here at all. And because it is the internet, no one has to tell you that everything you say on a site like this is not silly or stupid either. It does go both ways.

When you post anything on the internet, you will get comments from time to time that are not to your liking. Now you can either get used to that, or go somewhere else too.

Now I do not feel you are really wasting my time, but I felt your issue was silly and kind of juvenile. Just an opinion, I am sure you are a great guy but not sure why you are splitting hairs over words on what is once again, a rare situation that will not happen to most of us anytime soon.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Besides, I disagree with your characterization that this discussion is some esoteric, never-can-happen, not important topic - as evidenced by the conflicting views/interpretations on something that is not all that unusual, in my opinion. Nobody is picking nits here. It's a discussion of "intent" and interpretation of "intent" on a rule that REQUIRES a determination of "intent".

BTW, I don't need nor care for people to come to my defense. The fact that you even have to mention that speaks volumes of the tone of this forum.

Again, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you really cannot tell what someone does accidentally or intentionally in relation to kicking a baseball then I have to wonder about you as an umpire. In basketball for example it is rather obvious when someone tries to intentionally kick a ball or use their leg to contact the ball which is illegal in all cases. And that is a very common occurrence in that sport. You are talking about something that would be likely very easy to see or to identify, especially at the lower levels. And if you saw it one way and a coach for example saw it another way, that is after all why you get paid the big bucks. But if you want a perfect example or understanding that everyone here or anyone is going to agree with, you are not going to really find one. One thing experience has taught me is to trust my judgment and experience. Maybe that is what you should do and call what you see and stop trying to find a key to follow that the people you work around might not agree with either.

I guess at the end of the day I am just wondering why you do not trust your own judgment and call it how you see it.

Peace

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess at the end of the day I am just wondering why you do not trust your own judgment and call it how you see it.

... because I'm wondering if there is some interpretation that trumps one's opinion of intent.

If you're not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area - then just say so - and the discussion would be over.

If your answer is: "I just call it the way I see it." Fine.

The reason they have interpretations (and they do exist) is to provide guidance and consistency to rulings that are not always obvious.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

... because I'm wondering if there is some interpretation that trumps one's opinion of intent.

If you're not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area - then just say so - and the discussion would be over.

People have told you what the rule was and did not give you one. You would think that alone would make you see the light bulb above your head.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

If your answer is: "I just call it the way I see it." Fine.

The reason they have interpretations (and they do exist) is to provide guidance and consistency to rulings that are not always obvious.

My answer is, the rule was shown to you in black and white. Since we are telling each other what we should have done, you should have said, "OK" back on the second response and let it die. Hardly anyone would have said anything to you at that point.

Peace

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My answer is, the rule was shown to you in black and white.

If it's all in black-and-white, then I wonder why a mountain of interpretations and official rulings exist.

I'll mail you an English-Portuguese dictionary. I'll expect you to be able to speak Portuguese fluently. After all, it's all in black-and-white.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

If it's all in black-and-white, then I wonder why a mountain of interpretations and official rulings exist.

I'll mail you an English-Portuguese dictionary. I'll expect you to be able to speak Portuguese fluently. After all, it's all in black-and-white.

This particular rule is very clear. I did not say all rules and all wording was perfect or did not need further interpretation or further explanation. But there is nothing about this rule is confusing unless you do not understand what intentional and accidental means. If you were asking about another rule and another situation, then OK. But you asked about one of the most clear and concise rules and seem to have trouble with the wording and asking for something that does not need much interpretation or casebook understanding.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Hmmm... wondering if that'll work... I doubt it, but I'll try... here goes:

Originally Posted by David Emerling

If you're not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area - then just say so - and the discussion would be over.

I'm not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area.

[Dave Reed]

jchamp,
From the LL 2008 RIM:
6.05 -- A batter is out when -
(h) after hitting or bunting a foul ball, that runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is dead and no runners may advance;
INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:
⇒ Notice that intent only applies to a batted ball in foul territory. If the batter unintentionally deflects a foul ball, he/she is not out, but the ball is dead (foul ball).


Presumably you judged that the contact was not intentional. Clearly it is a foul ball.