Running Lane - Whose Call?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then I looked at our mechanics from my state (They do not use NF Mechanics BTW) and it does have the PU (they call U1) states that they should be prepared to rule on runner's interference with no one on base. In 3 Person with a runner on 1st base there is no reference to runner's interference as the PU is going up the 3rd base line and gets prepared to rule on a play going to 3rd base.

Jeff:

I have never seen a published mechanics manual that has PU rotate to third when the ball stays in the infield. If the ball goes through the infield, there won't be a RLI call to be made.

[jicecone]

Rut, I truly believe you argue with yourself every morning about whether or not it was the right decision to wake up.

In the close to 30 years I have been involved with officiating Baseball, I can't recall one time, or situation where RLI is not best called by PU. OK, for your sake, I too, have never read any book or manual that stipulates it his call either but, get real here.

I am more than sure that Carl does not need me to defend him however, I can't think of anyone else that contributed more to the art of officiating amatuer Baseball than Carl Childress. BRD is by far THE BEST manual I have ever read to get a through understanding of the differences between the different levels of Baseball rules. For you to imply that his writings including (BRD), are of little significance in the development of officiating in this world, just goes to show that maybe your spending way more time with your OTHER sports than you realize. Believe me, Carl's contributions to officiating Baseball will long outlive your ranting and raving on this or any other forum you are on. It is obvious from your writings that the only person you have respect for, is JRutledge.

FOR SURE

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Rut, I truly believe you argue with yourself every morning about whether or not it was the right decision to wake up.

In the close to 30 years I have been involved with officiating Baseball, I can't recall one time, or situation where RLI is not best called by PU. OK, for your sake, I too, have never read any book or manual that stipulates it his call either but, get real here.

Thanks for proving my point. So it is an opinion as to who has this call, not something in writing. Nothing wrong with that position, just admit that is the fact of that position, that is all.

Originally Posted by jicecone

I am more than sure that Carl does not need me to defend him however, I can't think of anyone else that contributed more to the art of officiating amatuer Baseball than Carl Childress. BRD is by far THE BEST manual I have ever read to get a through understanding of the differences between the different levels of Baseball rules. For you to imply that his writings including (BRD), are of little significance in the development of officiating in this world, just goes to show that maybe your spending way more time with your OTHER sports than you realize. Believe me, Carl's contributions to officiating Baseball will long outlive your ranting and raving on this or any other forum you are on. It is obvious from your writings that the only person you have respect for, is JRutledge.

FOR SURE

I am glad you think it is the best book. Just pointing out that not many I come in contact with use it or reference it in their experiences or background. And no I trust a lot of people; it is just not people that only come to a discussion board. There are things in my 18 years of officiating (working college in all of them and state finals 3 times as well) that come from all different places. And I have learned that even people at the same level have differing opinions. And I have paid a lot of money to hear those you watch on TV say things that are different. So fine if you want to buy into Carl's book that is your right. I just don't see it as law nor would not bank on it considering that most people would look at me strange if I reference this book as the standard for all things HS or college baseball. I equate his book to Roger Redding in football. It was a great book for college football and rulings, but were often seen as wrong as it relates to HS and no one of significance uses it, (meaning any of my bosses or crew members or clinicians in my state) but some guy that I would not work with swears by it. Carl seems like a great guy, but just because you write a book does not make you the authority or the only person people should reference. There are too many people out there that have experience and positions to also listen to. There is and a former NBA official in my area and people do not agree with everything he states about officiating basketball (and I have adopted his philosophies in my game) and I have enough sense to know that everyone may not simply agree. And as it relates to officiating, my friend has more juice than Carl ever had.

Follow whomever you wish.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Jeff:

I have never seen a published mechanics manual that has PU rotate to third when the ball stays in the infield. If the ball goes through the infield, there won't be a RLI call to be made.

Well I am still looking for a "published" book to say that the PU has all the running lane calls as well. So show me where it says that very point and I will concede that point all together. But remember I said that my state does not use any published mechanics book and made that very clear as well. We have not received any mechanic book from any sport from the NF in about 8 or 9 years. This is why I referenced my state's mechanics and what we were told to do as it relates to our mechanics. Also, the CCA book does not say anything to suggest that only the PU can or should be the only one to make this call. I do not work pro ball and had no desire to so I cannot speak for what they ask for or require.

Again, if you are going to debate this issue, at least you could follow along with the point you seem to not agree with. It is not hard. Heck I am still waiting for one reference to any published book from your position that the PU is always the only one that makes this call. Once again, I did not say they should not call this or that they are the main person to make this call.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I am still looking for a "published" book to say that the PU has all the running lane calls as well.

PBUC "Red Book," Sec. 2.9(1), p. 15

CCA, 7.6.4, p. 67

FED umpire manual, XV. 2-Man Mechanics, p. 40, #6.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So show me where it says that very point and I will concede that point all together.

I doubt it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

PBUC "Red Book," Sec. 2.9(1), p. 15

Thanks but I do not work Pro ball.

Originally Posted by mbyron

CCA, 7.6.4, p. 67

Applies to a runner on first base. The BU in two person would not be in position to make such a call.

Originally Posted by mbyron

FED umpire manual, XV. 2-Man Mechanics, p. 40, #6.

Don't use those mechanics so interesting but honestly do not care what they do.

Originally Posted by mbyron

I doubt it.

I will concede when you give a reference to what I am talking about. When someone says “always” that means “always” not some of the time, not part of the time, always!!! I was told a long time on this forum to not use always and never and they were right then and they were right now. But I give you credit for giving a reference, more than someone trying to shill to sell a book for sure.

Help me with the CCA reference. I have the 2011 CCA Manual and not the 2012 and I am looking at 7.6.4, which includes a runner on first base and not what I was talking about with no one on base which is likely the only situation in 2 Person for this to even be viewed by a BU. Then you did not include other mechanics like in 3 Person where you can have a BU at first with runners on base. Obviously the PU is the only person in a two person system that can make that call with the BU in B position (inside the diamond at the start of the play). It does not say what you suggest in any way. It does say that the PU has responsibility for a play at 3rd base potentially and you have all plays at home. All the book says is that the PU has secondary responsibility for a swiped tag and pulled foot at first base. It does not say anything about RLI.

Now the play that would be appropriate to this discussion is 7.5.4 in the CCA Manual (again 2011) does not mention anything about who has a call on RLI. Now 7.5.4 is a play to the shortstop and not a bunt or play that would likely involve some kind of RLI, but no reference to "The PU always has interference" on the line. Sorry, not there. I have looked over and over this book more than I have previously just to find one reference to always, but not such evidence has been found. And then you I would have to believe that the CCA had such an epiphany to then add this to the book when it was previously not present, which goes back to my original point. If this is an opinion just state it is an opinion. But do not say it is clearly listed in every book and the wording does not support such opinion.

Do not use NF Mechanics at all and do not have their book. Can you quote those references for this discussion?

Thanks.

Peace

[briancurtin]

Is this really happening?

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

Is this really happening?

Agreed.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Steven Tyler]

It's just the nature of the beast. It will die, and become extinct in a few days, or until it mutants into something more vial.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, if you are going to debate this issue, at least you could follow along with the point you seem to not agree with.

Excuse me? Let's go to the video tape for your rationale:

In 3 Person with a runner on 1st base there is no reference to runner's interference as the PU is going up the 3rd base line and gets prepared to rule on a play going to 3rd base.

I say again: I have never seen a published mechanics manual that has PU rotate to third when the ball stays in the infield. If the ball goes through the infield, there won't be a RLI call to be made.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I am still looking for a "published" book to say that the PU has all the running lane calls as well. So show me where it says that very point and I will concede that point all together. But remember I said that my state does not use any published mechanics book and made that very clear as well. We have not received any mechanic book from any sport from the NF in about 8 or 9 years. This is why I referenced my state's mechanics and what we were told to do as it relates to our mechanics. Also, the CCA book does not say anything to suggest that only the PU can or should be the only one to make this call. I do not work pro ball and had no desire to so I cannot speak for what they ask for or require.

Again, if you are going to debate this issue, at least you could follow along with the point you seem to not agree with. It is not hard. Heck I am still waiting for one reference to any published book from your position that the PU is always the only one that makes this call. Once again, I did not say they should not call this or that they are the main person to make this call.

Peace

Excuse me. My mistake. I thought you could read.

1. I gave two citations from a "published book," the mechanics manuial used by all Texas high school umpires. Here's another, from the National Federation Umpires Manual, under General Duties and Responsibilities of the Plate Umpire, page 40 in the 2010-2011 (latest) edition: "6. With a throw from near home plate, observe the batter-runner’s position in relation to the 3-foot running lane. If the batter-runner is not in the lane and interferes with the throw, call interference and the batter- runner out."

That mechanic represents another victory for, well, he said modestly, me. From my book, The Umpire's Answer Book, published in 1988 by Referee Enterprises. (You have heard of them?) I wrote: "Let's get this point clear: What I'm about to say is not in any rulebook, but it's a 'rule' nonetheless because it has been codified via the decisions of thousands of umpires in tens of thousands of games played all over the world. The running lane should enter an umpire's decision-making process only when the throw is being fielded to from behind the runner. For example, when the third baseman throws off line to first and the first baseman goes for the ball, don't look down to see where the BR's feet are; if you do, you're on your way to blowing the call. The intent of the rule is to keep the BR from screening the fielder behind him from the first baseman in front. Keep it that way in your games and you'll never get into trouble."

My assertion is not yet in a rule book, but it is in the rules lexicon of the NFHS. See on-line case book play #7, 2010, where Hopkins says the BR may interfere by being out of the lane and hit by "a ball fielded and thrown from behind him." And the mechanics manual, 1995-96, says running-lane interference is possible "with a throw from near home plate."

A note is in order: That "mechanic" has been in every FED manual since 1995.


2. I carefully explained, in words almost of two syllables or fewer, that to a vetern, trained umpire, "always" means that it is the assigned umpire's call. He will make it unless he asks for help. Typical pregame at the upper levels: "Smitty, I've got BR interference in the lane." That umpire will ALWAYS have that play except when he passes it off to U1.

3. The point of the Wendelstedt stories should be obvious. Lots of beginning umpires lurk around the Message Boards. Whom are they to believe? I've always taught that posts written by recognized authorities should carry some weight. I always included my qualifications. I don't remember you from the old days. Apparently, you arguments were not of sufficient weight to plant them as a permanent part of my memory bank. That's just a guess, but it's based on your performance in this thread.

4. I said you could have the last word. I lied.

4, NOW you can have the last word. And you cannot trap me into replying by misrepresenting what I've said. I stand by my posts in this thread. You can be like the Affirmative side in the old system of debate: They always spoke last.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

4. I said you could have the last word. I lied.

No you didn't. Jeff WILL have the last word. Jeff ALWAYS has the last word. Even when the debate is well settled and the positions proven, Jeff will have the last word.

Just wait.

(And so I don't have to wait and read that last word, let me say now, "told you so.")

[tcarilli]

Fellas recall that Mr. Rutledge wrote this in post 28

..honestly I was not looking for opinions on this.

Why continue?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Fellas recall that Mr. Rutledge wrote this in post 28

Why continue?

It is called having a conversation. I did not ask the original question. I know what I would do or talk about in pre-game or at meetings. I do not need this conversation to shape my previous experience or understanding of mechanics. Guys like you really surprise me when you do not seem to realize that someone asking a question and giving their opinion with facts of what is written are two different things.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...Guys like you really surprise me when you do not seem to realize that someone asking a question and giving their opinion with facts of what is written are two different things.

Ok, I'll bite. You have defined very narrow parameters for this conversation. You have said that you, to paraphrase, were not looking for an opinion on this. Given that the word conversation means, amongst other things, exchanging opinions, I quit the conversation and wondered why others continued.

If instead this was debate, you set the parameters in such a way as no-one could possibly meet your objections within those parameters, then only you could emerge from the debate "victorious." You insisted over and over again on the word always, you even bold the word in one post. While most of the rest of us were much less strict. Given that nothing in officiating, or life for that matter, is always, because of various contingencies when finite manuals or rules meet infinite possibilities. You can't ever be wrong, mistaken, whatever word you like here, when you insist on always. You have essentially asked those of who are in disagreement with you to prove a negative. We can not demonstrate that amongst the class of all mechanics manuals ever written or to be written that the PU will always have responsibility for RLI. This is a logically impossibility. Instead many of pointed out the difficulty in giving this responsibility to the BU in any #-man system. You claimed that the BU would not have a problem in sharing this responsibility equally with the PU. We argued that there are many reasons why the PU should have a more than equal share of this responsibility. Your response was, basically, I don't care. Why can't you baseball guys ever get it straight that all responsibilities should be shared equally all the time? We offered an opinion to that and you responded that you didn't want our opinions.

I mostly certainly understand the difference between asking questions and giving opinions, I, and others, I think misunderstood your intentions until you made them clear. You were not seeking an answer only to express your opinion. Fair enough. When your intentions became clear, there was no need to continue the conversation. You gave a response that, for all intents and purposes, means I don't want to talk about this anymore. I heard that message loud and clear, hence my response in post 29. I was surprised that others did not understand your message, as I think you intended it.

Please note that I have only referred to your writings and my interpretations of those writings. I prefer not to make arguments ad hominem, and work hard not to.