Brain Teaser question

[Mountaineer]

It may just be me but is it really necessary to show impatience with people that don't "get" a particular rule? Everyone doesn't learn at the same pace. What is simple to one person is difficult to another. Gosh, I think we are just a few steps from being like the baseball forum.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, what this discussion is showing is that you are having a hard time comprehending a simple softball rule.

I understand what the rule is. Hell, I already know the answer to the scenario I posted. I'm mostly facilitating what was supposed to a be friendly discussion. I agree with all your rulings. Did I say I didn't?

As often happens, a tangent developed where we started discussing a poorly worded rule. You can't see how poorly worded it is because you know what it is supposed to mean. I know what the rule is trying to say. But I still insist (and I think many would agree with me), that it is poorly worded for what it's trying to say.

The three situations that I posted, regarding pitcher substitutions, highlight how an umpire might stumble in resolving them where reference to the written rule doesn't seem to give him clear guidance.

It is an elementary substitution rule and your refusal to accept it speaks volumes.

Oh, here we go ...

Where did I say I didn't "accept" it? I'm simply claiming that it is poorly worded.

Hell, it's not the first poorly worded rule. I've never read any rule book that didn't have it's fair share of them.

WTF is so hard to understand that a pitcher is no different from any other player on the team when it comes to substitutions or defensive positioning?

Oh, is that what it says?

To answer your question on the front page, this discussion proves the answer is YES, softball really is that different and you prove it often.

You're funny!

You get so angry and defensive during discussions. You're so predictable.

You're one of the only people I've ever conversed with who takes
the rules so personal, as if we were discussing how ugly your daughter was.

Relaaaax ...

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

You're one of the only people I've ever conversed with who takesthe rules so personal, as if we were discussing how ugly your daughter was.

Does she look like her mom or her dad?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Apologies in advance for long rant.

Let me see how this works. You come to this board with a scenario. You receive detail response (as requested). An umpire comments that s/he does not understand the wording of a particular rule, but is quickly provided clarification by JEL.

Now, you pick up this banner and immediately break down the context of the sentence. You know as well as I that rules of any sport or sanctioning body are not written in a manner to not be read in full.

You offer different scenarios on a subject that is as simple as the infield fly rule, but for what purpose? You say to show how an umpire would stumble over the wording of the rule. I don't think may will if they take the rule as presently worded as a whole and apply it to the scenario at hand. If an umpire does miscontrue this rule, my opinion is because of pressure applied by a coach upon an umpire who has not been properly trained. So let's not confuse that umpire to the point of succumbing to that pressure.

That brings me to my next point. Having a discussion is fine. Presenting TWP and nearly impossible "what if" is also fine. And I can play the part of Devil's Advocate with the best of them.

However, there are times when these discussions need to be closed and under control so someone isn't going to catch the beginning and/or middle of the conversation and walk away with the wrong impression. This board often has posts about an unresolved disagreement among umpires at a meeting. If it happens in a closed and controlled environment, just think what can happen with the same discussion on here.

Dave, when you first came to this board, you did so acknowledging little to no experience with softball rules. If memory serves me correctly, it was because your daughter began playing and you wanted to understand what was happening on the field. Because you are a baseball umpire and knowing that the game and rules are different, I understood your reasoning. Problem is, IMO, too often you try to apply baseball rules, interpretations, philosophies and logic to the softball game and associated rules. And occasionally when they do not fit where you believe they should, you continue to argue in spite of precise and accurate responses from Tom, Steve, Steve, Larry, Larry, Glen, Bill, Brett, Sam, Sean, John, Dave, Mike, etc.

It is not anger or impatience. It is frustration. As I and others are occasionally reminded by some, this is not a closed debate. There is little room for argument for argument's sake after the original scenario and responses are noted. Yeah, there are clarifications and noted differences among the rule sets and interpretations and yes, some of us read things differently. That doesn't make it wrong, just different. However, even when there are different readings, once a clear, maybe even authoritative, explanation is given, is it beneficial to continue any contradiction just because you can?

Like I said, these threads are not closed discussions or debates. There are many people who umpire the games of various associations and sanctioning bodies that read this board. While some of us do it for enjoyment, entertainment, there are quite a few who have little or no formal training available to them.

While we have a good time with the banter and occasionally try to fool the next guy, others use these discussions as an educational tool to further their knowledge of the rules and game.

This is where the frustration occurs. There is nothing wrong with a good and even sometimes heated discussion. But the discussion should be more than just whining about wording someone may or may not understand. When many of us discovered this board, there were more damn IFR questions than possible scenarios including TWP. I would like to think that the reduced number we see now is a result of previous discussions.

Simple rules should be kept simple in discussion and conclusion. There is no reason to cause consternation for those seeking information and have someone sign off this board more confused than when they logged on. Leave the hard and heated discussions to the tough rules with multiple applications.


BTW, if you ever saw my daughter, you would have a hard time.........even thinking it was possible for someone to consider her less than attractive let alone ugly.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JEL

Of all the rules that befuddle the mind (or mindless as it may be), this at least for me ain't one of them. This is under the "substitution" section. If a defensive coach wants to make the change, he is allowed to do so.

You're right, this rule appears under the substitution section.

Is it a substitution when the defense has F4 and F1 switch positions in mid-inning? That's not a "substitution", it's a position change; no more than if F4 and F6 swapped position.

The offensive coach may try and say "she has to pitch to at least one batter."

So, is there ever a point in time when a pitcher (whether pitching because of a substitution or because of a position change) ever is "required to pitch"?

The ruling is "No coach, The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat"

The rule uses the phraseology, "required to pitch".

When is a particular pitcher REQUIRED to throw the next pitch, if ever?

If an umpire is uncertain how to answer the above question, and he references the rule, how does the rule help him answer it?

I dunno, that seems pretty simple to me.

Is it possible this is all clear in your mind because of your understanding of the game and how it is supposed to be called, rather, than your understanding of this particular rule?

Put yourself into the shoes of a fledgling umpire who is learning this stuff for the first time.

A team changes pitchers and then, changes their mind. The other coach objects and says, "They can't do that! She has to pitch."

The new umpire is unsure what to do. He opens his rule book and looks for guidance.

All it says is: "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side is retired."



David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Problem is, IMO, too often you try to apply baseball rules, interpretations, philosophies and logic to the softball game and associated rules. And occasionally when they do not fit where you believe they should...

I haven't uttered the word "baseball" in this discussion. I have not criticized your rulings - I think they are all correct.

You are reading too much into my background and subscribing to me, an agenda, that simply exists as a ghost in your own mind.

The problem is that you know a lot about baseball rules, probably more than the average softball umpire. You are frequently aware of these differences, as I am, also.

Since you raised the subject, allow me to clarify my position on the issue that you have now decided to raise:

1. Softball umpires, who have a certain degree of familiarity with baseball rules, have to be careful not to confuse the two. There are differences!

The same could be said of a baseball umpire who has familiarity with softball rules. You have to be careful.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be a baseball/softball thing. It could be ASA/NFHS/AFA/NSA/NCAA/ISF/USFA/USSSA type of thing

2. There are always going to be poorly worded rules. If one does not have a solid background on why a rule exists or some official interpretation regarding that rule, they can be easily tripped up by a poorly worded rule; whereas a more experienced umpire has a difficult time seeing the poor wording because his mind has already concluded (almost always correctly) what the rule is trying to say without really having an appreciation of how poorly it's saying it.

Sometimes "clarifications" of rules do more harm than good with equally poor wording.

Believe me, softball doesn't have a corner on this market.

* * *

Everybody has their "thing." In the world of umpiring, my "thing" is the firm belief that rules can be made better, or, at a minimum, more understandable. If you simply must subscribe an "agenda" to me, it would be that.

I am critical of bad rules, poorly-worded rules, or ill-conceived interpretations.

Although it was not my intent for this thread, we just happened to have stumbled across what I happen to consider a poorly-worded rule. I didn't say that it was necessarily a bad rule, or that there are any ill-conceived interpretations of this rule.

It's my opinion that it is poorly-worded. Simply that and nothing more.

Mike, I think you have more of a problem with me than the things I have to say and it shows in everything you write. You have a difficult time with the message because you want to shoot the messenger so desperately.

Oddly, I don't seem to have this problem with others.

By the way, the comment about "your daughter" was a metaphor. Hell, I don't even know if you have a daughter, let alone if you're even married.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[JEL]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Is it possible this is all clear in your mind because of your understanding of the game and how it is supposed to be called, rather, than your understanding of this particular rule?

Put yourself into the shoes of a fledgling umpire who is learning this stuff for the first time.

A team changes pitchers and then, changes their mind. The other coach objects and says, "They can't do that! She has to pitch."

The new umpire is unsure what to do. He opens his rule book and looks for guidance.

All it says is: "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side is retired."



David Emerling
Memphis, TN

You can do it in softball, but not in baseball. I can't say exactly how it is all clear in my mind, but I am certain reading the rule books has clarified it.

Now for the fledgling umpire thing.

I have 4 children who roll eyes, sigh and leave the room when mom and I start discussing ball rules. They have no interest! The girls have flown the nest now, but I still have a 13 year old son at home. He has played ball for a couple of years, but now is a middle school wide reciever, and wrestler. Anyway, he just became our (me and the mrs) "guinea pig". This is how it went;

Son, you are the umpire. Mom puts a pitcher in to pitch, but she throws the first two pitches way over the batters head. She then asks for time and tells you "I am gonna put in another pitcher". I run out hollering "she can't do that, this pitcher has to face one complete batter!" I then ask him "what are you gonna do? He replies (as I thought he would I don't know, maybe ask my partner.") Then I had him read rule 4-6-D and asked him "now who is right?" He said "mom is, dad you are wrong!"

This is a bright kid, but he has never umpired, or had much baseball/softball desire.

I think if the rule stated , "The pitcher is (remove the word "not") required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side has been retired" there would be no confusion because that statement would be very similar to the (FED) baseball rule which states "..the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute for that batter, until such batter is put out, or reaches first base, or a third out has been made."

As 4-6-D is written, it still to me, and my offspring, is not confusing.

Not trying to flame, argue, or fan the inferno here, but you did state you understood what was meant, but that the WORDING was confusing. I ask then how could 4-6-D be worded better? Mike has already in another post asked for rule change/clarification suggestions he can propose for 2008. Maybe this could be your input.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JEL

...I think if the rule stated , "The pitcher is (remove the word "not") required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side has been retired" there would be no confusion because that statement would be very similar to the (FED) baseball rule which states "..the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute for that batter, until such batter is put out, or reaches first base, or a third out has been made."

As 4-6-D is written, it still to me, and my offspring, is not confusing.

Not trying to flame, argue, or fan the inferno here, but you did state you understood what was meant, but that the WORDING was confusing. I ask then how could 4-6-D be worded better? Mike has already in another post asked for rule change/clarification suggestions he can propose for 2008. Maybe this could be your input.

Smart boy!

I have made barely over 500 posts in the Official Forum, a vast majority of those posts in the baseball section.

Mike has made nearly 6000 posts in the Official Forum, a vast majority of them in the softball section.

We both started posting here within 3 months of one another, so I don't really see how I can be such an annoyance to him. In comparison, I barely participate at all. I could easily be ignored and it wouldn't effect a thing.

I'll say two more things, then drop the subject, and simply agree to disagree about how "well" worded this rule is.

One of the points of the initial scenario was to make sure that the softball umpire's ruling (ASA-wise) was not influenced by some residual baseball knowledge that might be lurking around in his brain.

The problem with the wording of the rule is not the word "not" - if you can follow me. It is the use of the word "until."

"The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side is retired."

This strongly suggests that a time does come when the pitcher is required to pitch.

The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter has been faced. I mean, isn't that what it says?

And then what - he's then required to pitch?

Even the term "the pitcher" is somewhat nebulous.

Who? The new pitcher who just swapped positions with the 2nd baseman? Or, the substitute pitcher - who just entered the game from the bench? Does it matter?

Notwithstanding all the outstanding umpires in this forum who understand this rule (and your son!) I still think there are many umpires who scratch their head when reading this rule.

MGKBLUE stated, earlier in this thread:

"After all the years of umpiring, I still do not understand what this means. The statement is very vague and ambiguous."

He never posted again on this topic.

My guess is that there are a lot of MGKBLUE's out there. Sometimes umpires who have lots of experience, especially those who get deeply involved with the rules and interpretations, don't see the forest for the trees.

They know what the rules are and they know how they are applied. They've progressed to the point where they do not rely much on the written rule any longer. Others do!

It's dangerous to stubbornly maintain that a rule is clear (because it's clear to you!) when there is evidence to the contrary.

I could never understand why people actually get angry about these discussions.

And I'm not referring to you, JEL.

Thanks!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Dakota]

Actually. the sentence about the pitcher is not required to pitch, etc., is one of the parts of the ASA rule book I like to make fun of.

I know what they were trying to say, but they really mucked up the wording of the sentence.

What they are trying to say was "A pitcher may be replaced with a new pitcher at any time whether or not the pitcher has thrown a pitch."

Instead they said that the pitcher is not required to pitch until the side has been retired. How the heck does the inning end if the pitcher doesn't pitch?

Making fun of the goofy sentence is one thing. But the intent of the sentence is pretty clear.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Oddly, I don't seem to have this problem with others.

That's because I have been busy with a tournament, and having the pleasure to meet ArgoDad. Very nice guy!

If the point you are trying to make is the rule book, any rule book, is poorly worded, well, that's kinda like saying much of the night sky is black -- except for the parts that aren't. Even if well written, there will be a jillion interpretations of those rules. You, me, the fence post, everyone will have their own experiences -- whether life, on the field, in a classroom or in the psycho ward -- to color their take on damned near anything.

Besides, if you are going to criticize the construction of phrases, sentences or paragraphs in the rule book, I would challenge you to examine the construction of your posts in this thread. Any grammar teacher worth a damn would give you a failing grade. This is beyond the cliche "the pot calling the kettle black."

Frankly, my experiences with your posts have led to a very finite amount of credibility. Sadly, this thread has greatly diminished that amount to something infinitestimal. The simple act of poking fun at the possibility of someone's daughter being ugly was enough to turn me off.

Proud stepfather of some beautiful kids, inside and outside, I am

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Actually. the sentence about the pitcher is not required to pitch, etc., is one of the parts of the ASA rule book I like to make fun of.

I know what they were trying to say, but they really mucked up the wording of the sentence.

What they are trying to say was "A pitcher may be replaced with a new pitcher at any time whether or not the pitcher has thrown a pitch."

Instead they said that the pitcher is not required to pitch until the side has been retired. How the heck does the inning end if the pitcher doesn't pitch?

Making fun of the goofy sentence is one thing. But the intent of the sentence is pretty clear.

The kicker is that the sentence shouldn't be there to begin. The ONLY reason it exists is due to the folks I referred to earlier. The people who try to "out think" the rules or insist on inserting their beliefs and rules from other games.

If you check the rule book where legal substitution is involved, you will not see any particular defensive position mentioned other than in this particular sentence. IOW, any legal substitution or re-entry may take place during any dead ball period.

That should be the end of it. Unfortunately, as shown by this thread, it is not. So, what it comes down to is the dummying down of a rule presentation to accommodate the few who believe they know more than everyone else.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Instead they said that the pitcher is not required to pitch until the side has been retired. How the heck does the inning end if the pitcher doesn't pitch?

The actual wording: The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side has been retired.

Stop and think about it. The key is "NOT REQUIRED TO". The rule does not state that the pitcher CANNOT pitch until the first batter completes their time at bat or the side has been retired.

The inning ends because the pitcher (whomever he, she or they may be) does pitch until the defense records three outs.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The actual wording: The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side has been retired.

Stop and think about it. The key is "NOT REQUIRED TO". The rule does not state that the pitcher CANNOT pitch until the first batter completes their time at bat or the side has been retired.

The inning ends because the pitcher (whomever he, she or they may be) does pitch until the defense records three outs.

Yeah, like I said, Mike, I know what they were saying. But the first time I read this, I did have to re-read it to figure it out - since the obvious meaning of the sentence is not possible. It didn't make my head explode, though. I just had to read it again and think a minute about the context.

I do poke fun at it, though. 'Cause it is a goofy sentence.

If they must include a mention of the pitcher, maybe they could just simply say "There are no special rules regulating substituting for a pitcher."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If they must include a mention of the pitcher, maybe they could just simply say "There are no special rules regulating substituting for a pitcher."

And how long do you think it would take for some idiot to start thinking that if there is a published exception for the pitcher, that must mean there is some type of restriction for the others?

Yep, I can see it now.

Coach: Blue, #17 is listed as F3, but she is standing in LF. Doesn't that mean she has to play the first baseman's position for at least one batter?

Blue: You know, coach, the exception only applies to the pitcher, so I believe you are correct. Hey, coach, #17 needs to play 1B for at least one batter!

Oy vay!!!

[AtlUmpSteve]

What a mountain made out of a speck of friggin ant dirt!!

Let's put this where it clearly belongs. When NFHS wrote its own softball rulebook, it copied many sections from NFHS baseball. So, for a while, the NFHS rule stated that "A pitcher is required to pitch until the first batter facing her has completed her turn at bat or the side has been retired." I bet David understands that sentence, and sees nothing grammatically incorrect about it.

ASA never had that rule; at least not within my memory. To make clear that rule was not a softball rule, ASA took that sentence EXACTLY as written, and added the "NOT. So, how is that difficult to understand? Is not required!! As opposed to required!!

NFHS chose to add the phrase "IS NO LONGER; I am sure the NFHS apologists (WMB, et al) find that easier to accept, but ASA never required it, so "no longer" would be inaccurate in the ASA rulebook.

So, David; easy fix. Take out the word "not", apply/understand your baseball rule, then apply "not", making it not required.