OBR 2013 changes

[Codyw09]

There are 15 new changes for 2013.  They even deleted the last line of rule 2.00 interference, stating that any time interference is called the ball becomes dead, something I have never seen done.  If the rule book just didnt add on for the last 30 years, but would have re-worded or deleted a few things it would be a lot easier to follow...just my opinion.

[stl_ump]

See attached file for the actual wording and editing of the rules.

2013 rule changes.pdf

[johnnyg08]

See attached file for the actual wording and editing of the rules.

 

 

Great document.  I noticed the "new balk" in there.  

[Jocko]

I like the changes in wording instead of in addition to. Seems to be more concise.

[Guest]

What the hell is a panatone colour set?

[stl_ump]

See attached file for the actual wording and editing of the rules.

 

 

Great document.  I noticed the "new balk" in there.  

Got it from my friend who has workd his way up to AAA.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

What the hell is a panatone colour set?

 

The Pantone Color Series is is a color system for printing inks. Pantone is generally considered the world's authority on color.

[dumbdumb]

What the hell is a panatone colour set?

 

Just a guess, but they must number colors from light to dark, probably starting with the number 1 being pure white like paper. So 14 must be as low to the color white that is allowed in the Pantone color spectrum. I would assume black is the highest number, whatever that is. Obviously black gloves are OK, it is when you start getting lighter than the natural "leather color", whatever that number would be in the Panatone color system, that you start having problems.

 

Just use 901C if you think the color is too much towards white.

[Guest]

What the hell is a panatone colour set?

 

Just a guess, but they must number colors from light to dark, probably starting with the number 1 being pure white like paper. So 14 must be as low to the color white that is allowed in the Pantone color spectrum. I would assume black is the highest number, whatever that is. Obviously black gloves are OK, it is when you start getting lighter than the natural "leather color", whatever that number would be in the Panatone color system, that you start having problems.

 

Just use 901C if you think the color is too much towards white.

 

Naturally. I don't think anyone carries around a card with the panatone registration number of their glove in their back pocket, lol.

[Jocko]

If they do, it's probably printed on the back of an emery board :rolleyes:

[NFUA_44]

If they do, it's probably printed on the back of an emery board

Which is in the same pocket as their special lozenges from Biogenesis 

[Pete Peterson Sr]

What the hell is a panatone colour set?

 

Just a guess, but they must number colors from light to dark, probably starting with the number 1 being pure white like paper. So 14 must be as low to the color white that is allowed in the Pantone color spectrum. I would assume black is the highest number, whatever that is. Obviously black gloves are OK, it is when you start getting lighter than the natural "leather color", whatever that number would be in the Panatone color system, that you start having problems.

 

Just use 901C if you think the color is too much towards white.

 

Believe it or not, black isn't the highest number. The higher numbers are special color mixtures, such as blues, reds, and greens...

[cyclonehokiece]

Scientific=major leagues.  My judgment what is too white will be my field.

[Jocko]

Scientific=major leagues.  My judgment what is too white will be my field.

Ding!Ding!Ding! Give that man a see-gar!

[cyclonehokiece]

Scientific=major leagues.  My judgment what is too white will be my field.

Ding!Ding!Ding! Give that man a see-gar!

Thank you Jocko.  And don't forget to tip your waitresses.

[Thunderheads]

8.02 a 1 ........ a warning first .........hmmmm

[SnareDrum]

Very good easy-to-read breakdown of the changes in Gils' latest UEFL post, which leads here: Close Call Sports: MLB Modifies Interference Rules, Including Infield Fly Case,

 

The INT on an IFR "comment" really caught my eye. Anything in the changes jump out at you?

[Lindsay]

I'm with Cody on the deletion of interference = dead ball being the highlight of the changes. This will really give flexibility to the Committee going forward, as evidenced by the INT on IFR addition and the issue of determining fair/foul on a ball which becomes dead in flight and on the infield in front of 1B/3B where no probable call can be made until the ball finds its way to the ground or a player. Now the rule is airtight whereas before OBR left status in limbo. The addition to 2.00 INT regarding the intervening play <2 out with BR interference & R3 being allowed to score is also evidence of the "new" interference's ramifications.

Most likely in response to: Marlins-Dodgers, 8/26/12

6.06© comment's deletion "before the catcher has securely held the ball" re: unintentional backswing contact being a called strike only (no interference) along with the corresponding 7.09(a) addition about requiring a post-K batter to "clearly hinder the catcher" for INT to be called (and the brand new 7.09(a) Comment addressing deflections that touch BR) is also significant.

Most likely in response to: Many plays; CWS-TOR, 8/13/12 for instance.

And obviously the new fake-to-third balk rule.

Most likely in response to: Pick a game, any game. It probably happened then.

[noumpere]

I'm with Cody on the deletion of interference = dead ball being the highlight of the changes. This will really give flexibility to the Committee going forward, as evidenced by the INT on IFR addition and the issue of determining fair/foul on a ball which becomes dead in flight and on the infield in front of 1B/3B where no probable call can be made until the ball finds its way to the ground or a player. Now the rule is airtight whereas before OBR left status in limbo. The addition to 2.00 INT regarding the intervening play <2 out with BR interference & R3 being allowed to score is also evidence of the "new" interference's ramifications.

Most likely in response to: Marlins-Dodgers, 8/26/12

6.06© comment's deletion "before the catcher has securely held the ball" re: unintentional backswing contact being a called strike only (no interference) along with the corresponding 7.09(a) addition about requiring a post-K batter to "clearly hinder the catcher" for INT to be called (and the brand new 7.09(a) Comment addressing deflections that touch BR) is also significant.

Most likely in response to: Many plays; CWS-TOR, 8/13/12 for instance.

And obviously the new fake-to-third balk rule.

Most likely in response to: Pick a game, any game. It probably happened then.

Both those first two were already well established interpretations and called that way in the games.  Now they just made it from interps to the book.  a big yawner if you ask me.

 

The removal of "on any interference the ball is dead" just corrects one of the xxx errors in the book.  For the most part it was correct even if it didnt mean immediately dead and thinking that it meant that was just a readers error.  The only time it didn't apply I think was on BI when an out was made and CI when the batter reached first (etc.).  And further since the rule says something like "play shall proceed without refernece to the interference" you could argue that meant to ignore that comment as well.

 

The clarification on the so-called foul infield fly is good and of course the 3-1 move is a change so those are important.

[mbua22]

I'm with Cody on the deletion of interference = dead ball being the highlight of the changes. This will really give flexibility to the Committee going forward, as evidenced by the INT on IFR addition and the issue of determining fair/foul on a ball which becomes dead in flight and on the infield in front of 1B/3B where no probable call can be made until the ball finds its way to the ground or a player. Now the rule is airtight whereas before OBR left status in limbo. The addition to 2.00 INT regarding the intervening play <2 out with BR interference & R3 being allowed to score is also evidence of the "new" interference's ramifications.

Most likely in response to: Marlins-Dodgers, 8/26/12

6.06© comment's deletion "before the catcher has securely held the ball" re: unintentional backswing contact being a called strike only (no interference) along with the corresponding 7.09(a) addition about requiring a post-K batter to "clearly hinder the catcher" for INT to be called (and the brand new 7.09(a) Comment addressing deflections that touch BR) is also significant.

Most likely in response to: Many plays; CWS-TOR, 8/13/12 for instance.

And obviously the new fake-to-third balk rule.

Most likely in response to: Pick a game, any game. It probably happened then.

In regards to the IFR, if the ball is ruled foul,and the runner is out for INT, does the batter return with the same count or with a strike added( which makes sense)? I have heard it interpreted both ways.  Also, can we also interpret this to be used on any fair/foul decision that involves an INT prior to declaring a ball fair/foul?  It would seem logical.

[CricketChapman]

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25907263&c_id=mlb

So it looks as if, for interpretation purposes, throwing to third from the rubber is treated the same as throwing to first (in regards to throwing to the base).

[noumpere]

So it looks as if, for interpretation purposes, throwing to third from the rubber is treated the same as throwing to first (in regards to throwing to the base).

And in other news three strikes and your out and three outs in a half inning.

[NFUA_44]

So it looks as if, for interpretation purposes, throwing to third from the rubber is treated the same as throwing to first (in regards to throwing to the base).

And in other news three strikes and your out and three outs in a half inning.

I think (and could be wrong) that Cricket was more reffering to the ball having to be thrown to the base, NOT thrown to the F5 playing 15 feet off the bag. Which I assume would be an illegal feint just as it is at 1B. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!