fielders yelling

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Which, IMO, is a good thing since it allows the umpire the room to make a reasonable judgment based on the situation at hand. How would you even craft a helpful rule about things like "players yelling?"

but theres no definition of unsportsmanlike conduct, yet "stupid" things like coach, defensive team, fly ball..... are defined.

how can you craft a document, that says X is not allowed, but not define what X is? at least give a generic difinition.

what i would do if i was writing the rules is say USC is any act ........... which includes, but not limited to A) B) C) D) (the most common egregious acts like violent avoidable collisions)

[Dakota]

Which would have what to do with players yelling? The problem with listing only the egregious acts is people get the idea that USC must be something of the same kind. Kind of like people get the idea that the only rights we have under the constitution are those explicitly listed in the bill of rights.

NFHS does have a fairly extensive list, if you want to refer to something.

[robbie]

Why do you need USC to hanlde this at all?

It can easily be ruled obstruction (at least in NSA)

"Obstruction is the act of a defensive team member who hinders or impedes a batter's attempt to make contact with a pitched ball.................. The act may be intentional or unitntentional, physical or verbal."

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by robbie

Why do you need USC to hanlde this at all?

It can easily be ruled obstruction (at least in NSA)

"Obstruction is the act of a defensive team member who hinders or impedes a batter's attempt to make contact with a pitched ball.................. The act may be intentional or unitntentional, physical or verbal."

I was asking about ASA, which i just found in the rule supplement that verbal distraction is a form of INT, but it makes do explicit ruling on verbal "Batter distraction"

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Which would have what to do with players yelling? The problem with listing only the egregious acts is people get the idea that USC must be something of the same kind. Kind of like people get the idea that the only rights we have under the constitution are those explicitly listed in the bill of rights.

NFHS does have a fairly extensive list, if you want to refer to something.

this is just getting kinda ridiculous now bc we are talking about a hypothetical rule that someone hypothetically might make, but theres 0 chance of this ever happening. BUT, you must have not notice the part where I said "....including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO...."

[Umpteenth]

I have to ask, because you have brought this up before - the fact that you play and you umpire. Are you asking from the perspective of officiating a game, or are you trying to get someone here to tell you what you can get away with?

If you are officiating, you should be able to make the judgment call as to whether or not a batter was impeded by the verbal or physical action of a defensive player. If you cannot make that judgment, perhaps you should not be officiating.

If you are asking from the perspective of a player, then be prepared to be called for Obstruction or USC at some point, when you have pushed too many buttons.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by Umpteenth

I have to ask, because you have brought this up before - the fact that you play and you umpire. Are you asking from the perspective of officiating a game, or are you trying to get someone here to tell you what you can get away with?

If you are officiating, you should be able to make the judgment call as to whether or not a batter was impeded by the verbal or physical action of a defensive player. If you cannot make that judgment, perhaps you should not be officiating.

If you are asking from the perspective of a player, then be prepared to be called for Obstruction or USC at some point, when you have pushed too many buttons.

im asking from the perspective of a player who hates it when other teams yell during recreational games. I really dont mind it, if it ever happens, when i play on "high" level teams, usually bc it only happens between 2 friends joking around, but it annoys the heck out of me when someone does it to be a douche in a rec level league, especially when they do it to girls.

when i umpire ive always asked the players not to "do that anymore" and theyve always complied.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

this is just getting kinda ridiculous now bc we are talking about a hypothetical rule that someone hypothetically might make, but theres 0 chance of this ever happening. BUT, you must have not notice the part where I said "....including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO...."

The hypothetical was only brought up because you wanted an explicit rule.

My position is it is best without the explicit rule / definition.

If the intent is to allow the USC call to be made for acts not of the same kind as listed, adding "but not limited to" is of marginal use if what follows is a specific list of egregious acts. The list itself would tend to limit the scope of acts considered even with the "but not limited to" phrase.

Because something is annoying does not make it illegal or unsporting.