Anyone see this?

[ukce1861]

I had this recently. But F1 started yelling "get the ball, get the ball"

Right or wrong I got him for verbal interference.

Verbal interference? On the pitcher talking to his players??

Absolutely! He was running towards the Runner to tag him while he was yelling trying to confuse him. Maybe I was wrong but it sure sounds like a verbal interference to me!

So, you called the runner out, right?

[midmoump]

Late to the party, as usual. . .

A Baseball Puritan, LOL. My religion is Baseball Orthodoxy: we believe in a strict interpretation of Rule 1.01!

Personally, I don't get FED at all. No fake tags, verbal interference, slide directly to the bag. . . all in the name of safety?

So what about a fake bunt? The purpose is to draw the corners in to an unsafe distance and then knock off a head, right?

What about a steal of home? When has that ever been "safe?"

Why are metal cleats allowed? Ever seen a spike wound?

My point is, FED talks out of both sides of its mouth. Most of the "safety rules" are stupid and likely a reaction to something that caught someone's recent attention. The "flavor of the month" rule. When I played we could yell all we wanted. It was called "chatter." A successful fake tag was admired by offense and defense alike. Taking out the second baseman was expected. We did not play dirty, it was just good hard baseball.

I like the trick play. The defense should feel foolish for falling for it. Yes, it is bush league. In my day (really not so long ago) someone would get beaned in the back for it. Both teams would expect it 'cause crap like that came at a price. *sigh* It is a different world now.

BTW, I think the arguement concerning how "judgement" should be spelt can be quickly normalised by a simple acknowledgement and reflexion of Americanised spelling customs, and without further offence to any party.

Pip pip cheerio, ya'll!

Pete

[SanDiegoSteve]

From the FED Casebook: "6.2.4 SITUATION E: With R1 on second base, F1 wheels and fakes a throw to second on a pickoff attempt. As R1 dives back to the base, F4 and F6 run into short center field as if chasing an errant throw. R1 seeing this, takes off for third base where he is thrown out by F1. RULING: This is legal and is not considered unsportsmanlike conduct. R1’s base coaches have the responsibility to keep R1 informed."

[scrounge]

From the <acronym title='Federation Rules (High School)'>FED</acronym> Casebook: "6.2.4 SITUATION E: With <acronym title='Base runner at 1B'>R1</acronym> on second base, <acronym title='Pitcher'>F1</acronym> wheels and fakes a throw to second on a pickoff attempt. As <acronym title='Base runner at 1B'>R1</acronym> dives back to the base, <acronym title='Second baseman'>F4</acronym> and <acronym title='Shortstop'>F6</acronym> run into short center field as if chasing an errant throw. <acronym title='Base runner at 1B'>R1</acronym> seeing this, takes off for third base where he is thrown out by <acronym title='Pitcher'>F1</acronym>. RULING: This is legal and is not considered unsportsmanlike conduct. R1’s base coaches have the responsibility to keep <acronym title='Base runner at 1B'>R1</acronym> informed."

I thought there was a similar case play but couldn't find it this morning (which isn't surprising since I was looking in Rules 2, 3, and 8). Still, it doesn't really speak to the verbal obstruction element. While I disagree with Jax's interpretation, I can see the reasoning behind it.

[NFUA_44]

Ok we all know I should have said Obstruction.

AGAIN! (IN MY JUDGEMENT) Again in my judgement he was NOT talking to his own players. There was no ball to get when he said "get the ball". He was basically telling the runner to "go,go ,go" just not in those words. (IN MY JUDGEMENT)

There is still no rule that supports your judgment for Verbal Obstruction. As I said earlier, confusing the offense is NOT prohibited by the rule, unlike it is for Verbal Interference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to dupe or trick the offense with a fake pickoff throw, any more than by using the old hidden ball trick. How anybody can conjure up Obstruction over these things is, quite frankly, silly to me. If you are not directly telling the offense to do something, pretending to be a coach or teammate, then there is no Verbal Obstruction. If you called Verbal Obstruction on a trick pickoff play on me, I would protest the call. It's not a judgment call, it's a rule call.

Goodness Gracious.

So in YOUR Judgement the rules don't support My Judgement.

My Association supports my Judgement and that is who I ultimately answer to.

If you called Verbal Obstruction on a trick pickoff play on me, I would protest the call. It's not a judgment call, it's a rule call.

Your judgement isn't the question. Did he violate a rule? He couldn't have verbally obstructed an offensive player since he never spoke to one. You are trying to use your opinion/viewpoint as justification to make something into something else. He told his teamates to "get the ball", he never told the runner go,go, go, this is part of what your trying to use as the judgment argument. What was actually said isn't part of a judgment, it's a statement of fact. You can't turn around and try to imply that he really meant something else when there is no factual support for it. Several people have given you scenario's where players "deke" one another. Are you going to call it on an F2 who tells the batter it's gonna be a slider and it's actually a fastball? Before you ever get to the judgment part of anything you have to start with the rule first. Many times your judgment will be the final part of the equation, but it still started with a rule.

How are you getting to judging verbal obstruction on a play where he never spoke to the offensive player? How in the world do you get anywhere close to ejecting someone for unsportsmanlike behavior, in this scenario? That's just amazing.

As SDS just showed you with the case play above there can be a legal deception.

[JaxRolo]

Ok we all know I should have said Obstruction.

AGAIN! (IN MY JUDGEMENT) Again in my judgement he was NOT talking to his own players. There was no ball to get when he said "get the ball". He was basically telling the runner to "go,go ,go" just not in those words. (IN MY JUDGEMENT)

There is still no rule that supports your judgment for Verbal Obstruction. As I said earlier, confusing the offense is NOT prohibited by the rule, unlike it is for Verbal Interference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to dupe or trick the offense with a fake pickoff throw, any more than by using the old hidden ball trick. How anybody can conjure up Obstruction over these things is, quite frankly, silly to me. If you are not directly telling the offense to do something, pretending to be a coach or teammate, then there is no Verbal Obstruction. If you called Verbal Obstruction on a trick pickoff play on me, I would protest the call. It's not a judgment call, it's a rule call.

Goodness Gracious.

So in YOUR Judgement the rules don't support My Judgement.

My Association supports my Judgement and that is who I ultimately answer to.

If you called Verbal Obstruction on a trick pickoff play on me, I would protest the call. It's not a judgment call, it's a rule call.

Your judgement isn't the question. Did he violate a rule? He couldn't have verbally obstructed an offensive player since he never spoke to one. You are trying to use your opinion/viewpoint as justification to make something into something else. He told his teamates to "get the ball", he never told the runner go,go, go, this is part of what your trying to use as the judgment argument. What was actually said isn't part of a judgment, it's a statement of fact. You can't turn around and try to imply that he really meant something else when there is no factual support for it. Several people have given you scenario's where players "deke" one another. Are you going to call it on an <acronym title='Catcher'>F2</acronym> who tells the batter it's gonna be a slider and it's actually a fastball? Before you ever get to the judgment part of anything you have to start with the rule first. Many times your judgment will be the final part of the equation, but it still started with a rule.

How are you getting to judging verbal obstruction on a play where he never spoke to the offensive player? How in the world do you get anywhere close to ejecting someone for unsportsmanlike behavior, in this scenario? That's just amazing.

As SDS just showed you with the case play above there can be a legal deception.

Ok I can't believe I have to say this again:

AGAIN! (IN MY JUDGEMENT) Again in my judgement he was NOT talking to his own players. There was no ball to get when he said "get the ball". He was basically telling the runner to "go,go ,go" just not in those words. (IN MY JUDGEMENT)

[Jocko]

Wow. What a lengthy and spirited discussion. Both sides present their cases very well. Both sides vehemently believe theyy are correct. Interesting. I am still not a fan of the bush league horses**t. I have had the exact playy as the case book example above happen on my field. I called the runner out when he was tagged and nothing else. Thats all I could do. No rule supports anything else, and I had read this case prior to it happening. Doesn't mean I hafta like it.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Ok I can't believe I have to say this again:

AGAIN! (IN MY JUDGEMENT) Again in my judgement he was NOT talking to his own players. There was no ball to get when he said "get the ball". He was basically telling the runner to "go,go ,go" just not in those words. (IN MY JUDGEMENT)

You don't have to say it again. We all heard you the first time. It's just as wrong this time as it was the first time. Do you really expect the pitcher to say "Wait, Mr. Runner, I really have the ball in my glove here, don't run!" He is NOT telling the runner to run, the runner is gullible and not paying attention, and neither is his 3rd base coach. If you fall for the "balls in the outfield" gag, you deserve to be out. My dog falls for that when I fake a throw. I don't expect intelligent human beings to fall for this.

[HokieUmp]

BTW, I think the arguement concerning how "judgement" should be spelt can be quickly normalised by a simple acknowledgement and reflexion of Americanised spelling customs, and without further offence to any party.

I see what you did there.

[Jocko]

<acronym title='By the way'>BTW</acronym>, I think the arguement concerning how "judgement" should be spelt can be quickly normalised by a simple acknowledgement and reflexion of Americanised spelling customs, and without further offence to any party.

I see what you did there.

me too. Pritty satiricle

[noumpere]

Didnt we recently have a play here where with a runner at second all the infielders charged and yelled "bunt" and the pick off to second was caught by the center fielder? Does Jax have obstructionon that play too?

[SanDiegoSteve]

<acronym title='By the way'>BTW</acronym>, I think the arguement concerning how "judgement" should be spelt can be quickly normalised by a simple acknowledgement and reflexion of Americanised spelling customs, and without further offence to any party.

I see what you did there.

me too. Pritty satiricle

Colourful behaviour as well. Very organised and well thought out.

[NFUA_44]

Goodness Gracious.

So in YOUR Judgement the rules don't support My Judgement.

My Association supports my Judgement and that is who I ultimately answer to.

If you called Verbal Obstruction on a trick pickoff play on me, I would protest the call. It's not a judgment call, it's a rule call.

Your judgement isn't the question. Did he violate a rule? He couldn't have verbally obstructed an offensive player since he never spoke to one. You are trying to use your opinion/viewpoint as justification to make something into something else. He told his teamates to "get the ball", he never told the runner go,go, go, this is part of what your trying to use as the judgment argument. What was actually said isn't part of a judgment, it's a statement of fact. You can't turn around and try to imply that he really meant something else when there is no factual support for it. Several people have given you scenario's where players "deke" one another. Are you going to call it on an <acronym title='Catcher'>F2</acronym> who tells the batter it's gonna be a slider and it's actually a fastball? Before you ever get to the judgment part of anything you have to start with the rule first. Many times your judgment will be the final part of the equation, but it still started with a rule.

How are you getting to judging verbal obstruction on a play where he never spoke to the offensive player? How in the world do you get anywhere close to ejecting someone for unsportsmanlike behavior, in this scenario? That's just amazing.

As SDS just showed you with the case play above there can be a legal deception.

Ok I can't believe I have to say this again:

AGAIN! (IN MY JUDGEMENT) Again in my judgement he was NOT talking to his own players. There was no ball to get when he said "get the ball". He was basically telling the runner to "go,go ,go" just not in those words. (IN MY JUDGEMENT)

Jax, your judgement can't change what actually happened on the field. He didn't impede or hinder the runner in anyway, he couldn't since he never spoke to the runner. Your judgement can't change what was said or who it was said to.

A play at first base, safe or out? It's a judgement call. Your not giving a coach any opportunity to question it.

Was there a pulled foot at first that you may not have seen? That's not a judgement, but a fact which your partner may have seen, and you have the option of getting help, BECAUSE it's not a judgement call. Just making the statement "In my judgement" doesn't turn it into a judgement call, which is exactly why SDS told you he would be protesting your call. (and yes I know there is no protest in FL, that's not the point).

[alex7]

I want to get back to the purity argument Would love a definition of what the "pure" game of baseball is. So far it sounds like it's sticking to just hitting, fielding, and pitching, and no fake plays. A 3rd to 1st pickoff is not pure? Wondering how far that extends. Is the fake bunt / slap hit pure? Spitballs? The fake tag? Stealing signs from 2nd base? Haven't these been around forever? Was Ty Cobb pure? Weren't there complaints about Babe Ruth not being "pure", with people appreciating small ball more than swatting mammoth homeruns? Just curious what the model for pure baseball is, what it looks like.

[alex7]

early steals? delayed steals? glove slapping middle-infielders with R on 2nd? infielders putting their gloves up as if they have a chance to catch a looper in the hopes of slowing down the baserunner? The step-through pitcher pickoff at 2nd? So much breadth here!

[SanDiegoSteve]

All of the above sounds like "pure" baseball to me.

[sdix00]

Anyone ever see F9 Ichiro fake a catch to hold R3, then play the ball off the wall behind him and throw out R3 at home?

I wish I could find it on Youtube.

Bush.

And by bush, I mean awesome.

[NFUA_44]

Anyone ever see F9 Ichiro fake a catch to hold R3, then play the ball off the wall behind him and throw out R3 at home?

I wish I could find it on Youtube.

Bush.

And by bush, I mean awesome.

Bush-a-licous.............Good stuff there man

[mstaylor]

I haven't read the whole thread but there some things that are considered obstruction in Fed that aren't at other levels. As I have said many, mnay times, Fed is all about sportsmanship. The deke that was done in the CWS some years back where the pitcher stepped back and faked to first, then the F3 took off down the line, luring the runner into advancing. In Fed that is legal, as long as the defense doesn't start shouting to get the ball or other. It is allowed for a SS to fake catching a ball at second, but he can't fake a tag. There are allowed feints in Fed, there are many not allowed. Some because of sportsmanship, others for safety. Guys may not like it but it is a fact of life. So the fact is Jax is correct. I know the purists won't like that but the fact is, he's right. Send the same question to your state interpreter and he should tell you the same thing.

The FPSR that was mentioned here was started by NCAA first, Fed followed three years later. Stepping out of the box with one foot, NCAA first. Balks auto dead, OBR first, changed later. Much of the takeouts at second are illegal in OBR but not called, or rarely. Everything in Post 65 are legal in Fed.

[NFUA_44]

Michael,

I would ask you to read the thread then. A big part of the question wasn't about whether FED is more restrictive, and that it has Verbal OBS/INT, the question comes about when you are going to call the Verbal OBS on a defender who never spoke to the runner in question, and how you are then using Judgment to try and penalize someone for what you don't like.

How are you explaining this to a coach?

U2: Coach I have Verbal OBS because your F1 told his teammates to find the ball when he had it.

Coach: So my guy never spoke to the runner? Then how did he Obstruct the runner? Did he tell the runner to return to the base or something?

U2: No coach, in my judgment he impeded the runner (without ever saying a word to him)

Sorry that's an ejection report I don't want to have to file.

And that's before we even get to the case play as quoted by SDS in post 53:

From the FED Casebook: "6.2.4 SITUATION E: With R1 on second base, F1 wheels and fakes a throw to second on a pickoff attempt. As R1 dives back to the base, F4 and F6 run into short center field as if chasing an errant throw. R1 seeing this, takes off for third base where he is thrown out by F1. RULING: This is legal and is not considered unsportsmanlike conduct. R1’s base coaches have the responsibility to keep R1 informed."

So if this is legal where is the issue? In the end the problem has always been that we can't just use our "judgment" to try and eliminate the parts of the game we don't agree with. This wasn't a judgment call, it was a rule call, plain and simple, and ultimately no rule was violated.

[JaxRolo]

In FED there was. For the 10th time he was faking talking to his team mates . The wad no ball to go get. This is unsportsmanlike.

The casebook does not have someone yelling. It's just a fake.

I'd be ok with it if the F1 didn't say anything,

[mstaylor]

Jax has you and I read enough to know what you were arguing. My point was the deke is fine, the dialogue to sell it is not. You can say he wasn't talking to the runner but he absolutely is. Have you never warned a coach for loudly "talking" to his coaches or players with the express purpose of busting your chops. He isn't talking to you, he's talking to his team, but you know he is absolutely shoving it up your butt.

[love2ump]

to be a purist means you accept that teams are going to cheat to try and get an advantage, and thats why umpires were first used and still are. but we are there to see the rules are followed. no rule was broken here so i say bravo.

[JaxRolo]

to be a purist means you accept that teams are going to cheat to try and get an advantage, and thats why umpires were first used and still are. but we are there to see the rules are followed. no rule was broken here so i say bravo.

:shakehead:

[UmpTTS43]

In FED there was. For the 10th time he was faking talking to his team mates . The wad no ball to go get. This is unsportsmanlike.

WOW. Just WOW. I hope this is just a stage you are going through.