ASA 2013 BOO (non-coed)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sbatten

That, plus if the wrong batter made out at bat and is now due to bat, she bats, right? (Last year I would have had B5 bat in scenarios above in which B4 made out at bat.)

Not going through all of that when it is so simple and does not require any more thinking that before. The more you try to think about this, the more "what ifs" are going to arise and all that will do is confuse the issue.

Nothing has changed with the exception that the wrong batter never existed. Is not out, is not on base and the next batter is the one due up after the player who is declared out for failing to bat.

[sbatten]

Thanks for responding, Mike! I appreciate your advice.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sbatten

Thanks for responding, Mike! I appreciate your advice.

Scott, not trying to make it tougher, just trying to explain how these things get overworked and the more you twist something, the more confusing it becomes for many when that isn't necessary.

Its a lot like the annual arguments we run into every season about the award on an overthrow or blocked ball. Don't know how many times I, and many other umpires, just repeat "two from the time of the throw" no matter how many times or different "what ifs" come up. But no matter how often you answer, someone always wants to bring up another question, overthinking the rule because they just cannot believe it is that simple

[BretMan]

I got a first hand dose of the "what ifs" last weekend at our local ASA umpire meeting.

Our group's UIC was giving a presentation on the 2013 rule changes. There aren't that many and it was pretty routine stuff- until we got to the BOO change.

Thus began a five minute session of "what if", with people talking about everything you could possibly think of on the BOO rules. Everything, that is, except the fact that if the improper batter makes an out, and it's properly appealed, the out is cancelled.

The UIC didn't really mention that point and none of the "what if" discussion was mentioning it either. At first, I bit my tongue. Somehow I've developed a reputation as a "troublemaker" because on several occasions I've corrected erroneous information being presented to our group. But, if that is being a troublemaker, then I'll continue to be one. I can't stand it when bad info is passed along to our members.

Now, the room is abuzz as everybody is discussing BOO with the guy sitting next to him, and the UIC is taking questions and trying to talk above the din of the room. The questions were along the lines of, "Which batter gets called out on this infraction", or, "When must the appeal be made", or, "What if runners advanced during the at-bat". Finally, I couldn't take it anymore. I raised my hand and waited my turn.

I get called on and said this: "With respect to the new rule changes, none of what's being discussed has anything to do with the new rule. As far as the new rule, the only difference from the old one is that if the improper batter makes an out, and it's appealed, then the out is negated. Under the old rule the out would still stand."

All I get is a few seconds of silence from the room and a blank stare from the UIC. Then, everyone went right back to talking about whatever they were talking about. We finally moved on, without the UIC ever mentioning anything about the out being negated and no one offering any questions that involved that simple point.

Well, I tried...

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I got a first hand dose of the "what ifs" last weekend at our local ASA umpire meeting.

Our group's UIC was giving a presentation on the 2013 rule changes. There aren't that many and it was pretty routine stuff- until we got to the BOO change.

Thus began a five minute session of "what if", with people talking about everything you could possibly think of on the BOO rules. Everything, that is, except the fact that if the improper batter makes an out, and it's properly appealed, the out is cancelled.

The UIC didn't really mention that point and none of the "what if" discussion was mentioning it either. At first, I bit my tongue. Somehow I've developed a reputation as a "troublemaker" because on several occasions I've corrected erroneous information being presented to our group. But, if that is being a troublemaker, then I'll continue to be one. I can't stand it when bad info is passed along to our members.

Now, the room is abuzz as everybody is discussing BOO with the guy sitting next to him, and the UIC is taking questions and trying to talk above the din of the room. The questions were along the lines of, "Which batter gets called out on this infraction", or, "When must the appeal be made", or, "What if runners advanced during the at-bat". Finally, I couldn't take it anymore. I raised my hand and waited my turn.

I get called on and said this: "With respect to the new rule changes, none of what's being discussed has anything to do with the new rule. As far as the new rule, the only difference from the old one is that if the improper batter makes an out, and it's appealed, then the out is negated. Under the old rule the out would still stand."

All I get is a few seconds of silence from the room and a blank stare from the UIC. Then, everyone went right back to talking about whatever they were talking about. We finally moved on, without the UIC ever mentioning anything about the out being negated and no one offering any questions that involved that simple point.

Well, I tried...

How dare you attempt to limit the discussion to the effect of the rule change?? Sounds like they were still trying to figure out the basic rule, and you changed the subject!!

[PATRICK]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Somehow I've developed a reputation as a troublemaker...

I'm in touch with this emotion!

[sbatten]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Scott, not trying to make it tougher, just trying to explain how these things get overworked and the more you twist something, the more confusing it becomes for many when that isn't necessary.

Thanks. I definitely read your earlier comments in that constructive way.

I just happen to learn by going over scenarios in my head. I was not trying to come up with "what-ifs" intended to confuse or to cast a bad light on the rule. Yes they were "what-ifs", but they were intended to test my understanding in various circumstances that might require a clear explanation to the OC or DC.

I agree that just applying the prior year's BOO rule, minus any out made by the incorrect batter, and minus the "skip the next batter if the one now due up is the one just put out" (non-coed), is the way to think about it in simple terms.

Bret: it sounds like coaches aren't the only ones on the field who are confused about the BOO effect.

Scott