Interesting Read...
 

...from a sportswriter's perspective.

Replay, rosters and the nine rules that baseball needs to change - Tom Verducci - SI.com

No takers, huh? Well, maybe I can get some dialogue going. Some of his suggestions have merit.

He really offers nothing new with The Phil Cuzzi Rule. Many others have screamed for expanded IR, a replay umpire, etc., and Joe Torre has said MLB is looking into expanding IR. If there really is going to be reviews of fair/foul on the lines, I don't see a real need for MLB to spend money on a Hawkeye-like system. With multiple cameras catching different angles of a ball's location with respect to the line, all in crystal-clear high definition, that would suffice.

The Barry Bonds Rule is unnecessary. If the batter doesn't move and allows the pitch to hit him in a protected area, 6.09(b) already covers that. And why penalize a batter for getting hit in an elbow pad if he attempted to avoid the pitch, but it caught the pad anyway?

I actually like the J.C. Martin Rule. I've often wondered why batter-runners are liable for interfering while running to first base on a bunt, but scoring runners on a ground ball hit to third or a fly ball hit to left can veer well into fair territory with no concern for interference. Heck, the way the rule is written, the BR can hinder a throw from first to home by staying in fair territory, but not from home to first. Either lose the runner's lane, or modify the rules to require the BR to stay in foul territory to avoid hindering that first-to-home throw, as well as to require scoring runners to stay in foul territory to avoid hindering throws coming from the left side of the field.

I have no problem with the Jorge Posada Rule either. Sure, the PU could just not grant the catcher Time when requested repeatedly, but why go there? Just limit those time outs, not only for catchers, but for any defensive breaks to discuss base coverages, etc.

No way would I support The Johnny Damon Rule. How can you fault a batter for interference when he has no control of where a piece of his bat goes? That's just absurd. Fielders have to deal with bad bounces, wind, sun, etc. Flying debris is just another hazard that can't occur with intent.

I'm all for the Sam Holbrook Rule, although I wouldn't use the controversial IFF call as a clear reason why outfield umpires are totally unnecessary. I would add the missed Foul call by Angel Hernandez that was corrected by Tim McClelland as another example. And if IR is truly going to be expanded to cover Fair/Foul down the lines and catch/no catch in the outfield, what the heck are those umpires going to do? All of their responsibilities--HR or not, Spectator Interference, Fair/Foul, and Catch/No Catch--would all be subject to review. So they would lose all the value they supposedly add.

I could add to the Doug Melvin rule. The writer wants uniformity? How about having all teams play under the same rules. If I am not mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am, but Major League Baseball is really not two separate leagues anymore. There aren't two league presidents, two league offices, two groups of league umpires. It is all under one umbrella now. So why is there a DH for some games and no DH for others? That would be like the AFC allowing two-point conversions and the NFC not allowing them.

Keep the DH for both leagues or do away with the DH for both leagues. But make it the same for everyone.

The good thing is that the Hawkeye system will be perfect for fair/foul that actually lands near the line. However, it won't help at all for fair/foul that hits a fielder's glove in flight. Nor will it help in fair/foul ground balls at the bases.

The runners lane rule was originally put in to prohibit the runner from intentionally crashing into the first baseman thereby preventing a putout. At one time, this was legal. They failed to address the rule when the bases were put entirely in fair territory. This is why there are interpretations concerning when the runner can leave the lane in order to touch the base. They should rewrite the rule preventing the crash and other intentional acts by the runner.

The DH is open to both leagues within MLB. The NL chooses not to use it. The DH rule will never go away. If anything, the NL will eventually adopt it.

I'll bite on a WBC rule
 

Each team must make 9 US born position players available for the WBC. I'm tired of teams like Italy and Australia embarrassing the US team because MLB has chosen to opt out of the WBC. I'm also tired of US baseball teams who fail to make lucrative offers to US born players out of high school in favor of foreign players who avoid the draft and sign directly with MLB teams.

Wow
 

Heavy handed moderators again.

~Sigh~

T

Too bad you can't try to get along with others.

This would be nice if the teams actually had 9 US born position players.

Your right however, you can't write an article about 9 Rules if you only have 8 to whine about.

Another whining sports writer who doesn't know the rules, probably never played past LL and feels that everything in life has to be fair. Who cares what sports writers think or say, anyway?

Using six umpires is a good idea. The problem is, they use the two additional ones the wrong way.

They belong on the warning track.

Lets get this politically correct. You need 11 umpires for each game.

6 on the fieild.

1 in each Dugout

3 in the press box. (1 to tell them the rules, 1 to explain the rules and 1 to discuss the rules and explanations.) This assumes a broadcast crew of three of course. However, in some cases you may need up to 3 for each Birdbrain, oh, Im sorry I meant to say broadcast announcer.

I would LOVE to have an official help me with the broadcasts, both baseball and football. Every one that I have asked has turned me down. An official would help me at least sing on key. :D

This is difficult to do well. The broadcast official needs to be able to explain rules to non-officials in an accurate yet accessible way, and to do it on the spur of the moment. That takes you down below 5% of officials in my experience: few of us are Mike Pereira.

Then he or she must be able to discuss a situation in a game without throwing the game officials under the bus. That adds another layer of difficulty.

And, of course, you have some states (like mine) that prohibit officials from speaking to the "media" about contests and officiating. So you'd need special permission to do that here.

The rules are the same.

The DH is optional. The election is by league.

#5. "The Jorge Posada Rule" is the only one in this article that I argee with.

Limiting catcher's trips to the mound makes some sense.

And there is the difference between a sportscaster and official. One has integrity and the other would bury his own mother under the bus, for good ratings.

Jorge's trips have allready been limited so that takes care of that problem.

This all assumes you're using a current MLB umpire. If you use a former umpire in the same way that FOX uses Pereira, there wouldn't be any concerns that you point out.

Didn't a network put Steve Palermo in the booth a number of years ago?

Why not have the HP umpire wear a mike so he can explain rulings to the press box and fans, like the ref does in football?

I believe this is done in Japan, too.

Not worth the hassle. How often would an umpire have to use it in a routine game? Calls that would need an explanation don't happen all the time as they do in football.