Diving over

[Thunderheads]

It's still illegal to dive, even if it is over his arms.

By letter of the rule it's illegal to hurdle over an outstretched arm. I believe it is proper to extend the interpretation of hurdling an outstretched arm to diving over one as well. If there is a citation to the contrary I am open to revisiting this opinion.

No, it's not ...it's LEGAL

RULING: Hurdling the outstretched arms of a fielder is legal

[Welpe]

Jeff by letter of the RULE as in 8-4-2-b, not by interpretation in 8.4.2 Situation B. The casebook plays do not cover every single situation.

[Thunderheads]

Jeff by letter of the RULE as in 8-4-2-b, not by interpretation in 8.4.2 Situation B. The casebook plays do not cover every single situation.

8-4-2-b-(2) says:

jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

Which is what I said in post #6

[Welpe]

Thank you for proving my point.

Without the casebook play, hurdling over an outstretched glove of a fielder not lying on the ground would be illegal per the rule. With the casebook play, we know it is legal.

My contention is that diving should be judged in the same manner.

[Thunderheads]

Thank you for proving my point.

Without the casebook play, hurdling over an outstretched glove of a fielder not lying on the ground would be illegal per the rule. With the casebook play, we know it is legal.

My contention is that diving should be judged in the same manner.

back to my FED sucks comment................. :wave:

[Welpe]

I'll drink to that. :hi5:

[Thunderheads]

I'll drink to that.

it's noon somewhere!!

[Welpe]

I've been up since 4:30...close enough. I'm only working bases tonight on my games, no big deal. :smachhead:

[Thunderheads]

I've been up since 4:30...close enough. I'm only working bases tonight on my games, no big deal.

515 here ...

and bases for me too .....2nd night in a row! :D

[UmpJM]

It's still illegal to dive, even if it is over his arms.

By letter of the rule it's illegal to hurdle over an outstretched arm. I believe it is proper to extend the interpretation of hurdling an outstretched arm to diving over one as well. If there is a citation to the contrary I am open to revisiting this opinion.

Welpe,

FED "black letter law" says it is LEGAL to hurdle an outstretched arm - 8.2.1D.

Diving is ALWAYS illegal. 8.4.2A, 8.4.2S, 8.4.2T, 8.4.2V, 8-4-2b2, 8-4-2d.

JM

[johnnyg08]

Welpe, you can make up whatever you wish so that you can sleep at night, but a hurdle and a dive are different. FED specifically states that diving is illegal.

The case book is there to provide interpretations on the rules. They are not mutually exclusive books. They are to be used together so the rule book and case book help us uniformly interpret the rules.

[Welpe]

Welpe,

FED "black letter law" says it is LEGAL to hurdle an outstretched arm - 8.2.1D.

Diving is ALWAYS illegal. 8.4.2A, 8.4.2S, 8.4.2T, 8.4.2V, 8-4-2b2, 8-4-2d.

JM

JM-

My point is that if the 8.4.2B disappeared next year (and it has happened before, FED often removes casebook plays for one reason or another), there would be no citation present to say that hurdling an outstretched arm is legal. Now granted, there is prescedent but nothing currently in writing.

I knew this interpretation was on shaky ground from the start and 8.4.2A does not help my case. My one argument against that comment is that it is in context to a fielder lying down as was the statement before it.

8.4.2S and T are not relevant to an outstretched glove and 8.4.2V pertains to abandonment.

I see the ground around my position crumbling but I'll maintain it for now.

Johnny, this is mostly a thought exercise for me, not a matter of sleeping better at night. Trust me baseball rules do not keep me up at night. I actually find these discussions help me learn the finer details of the rules.

I am full well aware of the purpose of the casebook, I call two FED sports now and have called a third (football) before moving to Texas. You actually illustrate my point. With the rulebook and casebook we fully know the circumstances in which hurdling is legal. Without the casebook we would not. The casebook does not address diving over an outstretched glove. From my experience with FED rules this doesn't necessarily mean one thing or another.

Lastly...yes, I know that diving and hurdling are not the same and that the restrictions against diving are more restrictive than hurdling.

[Mr Umpire]

I give up.

FED rules suck.

They're written horribly.

They're difficult to comprehend because you can interpret them differently. Horrid, absolutely horrid.

Where do you see 2 sentences together in any context that are supposed to be taken as TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT concepts when talking about the same thing?

Can someone give me the benefit of the doubt and confirm that you can see how I could interepret these two sentences as I did? (Referencing Mr. Umpire's post)

I can see why. OBR is the same way. It all depends on how the "higher ups" interpret it and we follow suit to keep it consistent. No matter how much we may disagree.

[johnnyg08]

The casebook does not address diving over an outstretched glove.

It doesn't need to, b/c all diving is illegal. There's nothing to interpret

[Welpe]

The casebook does not address diving over an outstretched glove.

It doesn't need to, b/c all diving is illegal. There's nothing to interpret

Other than 8.4.2A can you point to anything that says this? The reason I have trouble with 8.4.2A is that the context in which that statement is made is in relation to diving over a fielder on the ground and that the FED doesn't always exactly mean what they say.