Brain Teaser question

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, it is not. Could it be worded better? Maybe, but I think it is clear enough. To me, actually quite simple if you read the full sentence.

It is a true statement. The pitcher is not REQUIRED to pitch until the first batter COMPLETES their time at bat or the side has been retired.

This is what makes good umpires mediocre as it pertains to the rules. Somebody trying to "out think" the rules often results in an umpire questioning themselves on the field and that isn't a good place for that to happen.

Of course, this is JMHO

OK, then let's walk through this:

While an inning is progress and a new batter is coming to the plate, the defense requests time to change pitchers. Let's call the original pitcher, Pitcher A, and the reliever is Pitcher B. Any subsequent reliever would be Pitcher C.

Scenario #1: Pitcher B takes her warm-up tosses and the coach changes his mind. On second thought, he doesn't want Pitcher B to pitch. Her warm-up tosses looked terrible. She's not injured or anything. He just wants to bring Pitcher A back in. Or maybe Pitcher C.

Can he do that?

Scenario #2: Pitcher B is now pitching to the next batter. The first two pitches are in the dirt. The coach is not impressed. He wants to substitute and have Pitcher C finish pitching to the current batter.

Can he do that?

Scenario #3: Pitcher B walks the first batter she faces. The coach wants to change pitchers. According the rule "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat..." OK, now that first batter has completed their time at bat - she walked. Does that mean that Pitcher B is now required to pitch? I mean, isn't that what the rule says?

To say the rule could be worded better is a gross understatement. It is horribly worded! The mere fact that we're even talking about, what should be, an elementary substitution rule speaks volumes.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

OK, then let's walk through this:

While an inning is progress and a new batter is coming to the plate, the defense requests time to change pitchers. Let's call the original pitcher, Pitcher A, and the reliever is Pitcher B. Any subsequent reliever would be Pitcher C.

Scenario #1: Pitcher B takes her warm-up tosses and the coach changes his mind. On second thought, he doesn't want Pitcher B to pitch. Her warm-up tosses looked terrible. She's not injured or anything. He just wants to bring Pitcher A back in. Or maybe Pitcher C.

Can he do that?

Yes, he can. That is covered by the rule in question.

Scenario #2: Pitcher B is now pitching to the next batter. The first two pitches are in the dirt. The coach is not impressed. He wants to substitute and have Pitcher C finish pitching to the current batter.

Can he do that?

Same question, same answer.

Scenario #3: Pitcher B walks the first batter she faces. The coach wants to change pitchers. According the rule "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat..." OK, now that first batter has completed their time at bat - she walked. Does that mean that Pitcher B is now required to pitch? I mean, isn't that what the rule says?

Absolutely not.

To say the rule could be worded better is a gross understatement. It is horribly worded! The mere fact that we're even talking about, what should be, an elementary substitution rule speaks volumes.

No, what this discussion is showing is that you are having a hard time comprehending a simple softball rule. It is an elementary substitution rule and your refusal to accept it speaks volumes. 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?

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.

[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 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

[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

[WestMichBlue]

Quote:

To say the rule could be worded better is a gross understatement. It is horribly worded! The mere fact that we're even talking about, what should be, an elementary substitution rule speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, what this discussion is showing is that you are having a hard time comprehending a simple softball rule. It is an elementary substitution rule and your refusal to accept it speaks volumes. 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?

Instead of bashing each other, let's accept this sentence for what it is - another example of ASA's lousy literary skills.

The best way to comprehend the intent behind the rules is to follow them year after year. That way you pick up the nuances and word changes that someone new to the editorial staff creates.

From 1932 to about 1985 ASA substitution rules stated that each pitcher "must pitch until the first batter facing him has completed his turn at bat, the side has been retired or he has been removed from the game."

Now that is pretty simple; I think that anyone with a decent command of the English language can understand that sentence.

So when ASA decided to eliminate that requirement they added a note stating that "The pitcher no longer has to pitch until etc. etc. etc." So if you knew the rule the day before, this is easy to understand. Instead of must pitch, now its no longer has to pitch.

Ten years later ASA must have decided that everyone now knew the rule, so they dropped it. Just took it out of the book and let it disappear for a couple years!

In '98 they re-entered the note - only with a minor word change. "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter etc. etc."

"No longer" is changed to "Is not." Anyone picking up a book for the first timef in the last 8 years is going to read this sentence out of its historical context. "Huh? What do you mean - he is not required to pitch?" "Of course not; nobody said he had to." So then you start searching for the hidden meaning.

Talk to an old-timer and he says "oh yeah, he used to have to pitch, but it is no longer required". The words "no longer" instantly convey the message that it used to be required, but not anymore. Now it is easy to understand, even when you pick up the book for the first time.

WMB

AtlUmpSteve - If I were you I'd go back and delete your post, for it is so full of B.S. and factual errors it doesn't belong here.