Fed Rules test - on-deck circle question

[Aussie123]

In the consideration for safety, I simply do not understand one of the four questions I missed on the recent WOA Rules Test [Fed] involving on-deck circles. Here's the question:

"The on-deck circles at the field are close to the batter's box due to tight confines. The batters are allowed to occupy the on-deck circle in front of the opposing team's dugout when the batter's stance faces their dugout."

True or False

The practice of the next batter due up moving to the on-deck circle behind the batter's back has always been done in select ball [Koufax/Mantle] In fact, I've called time just to move a player out of potential harms way to the on-deck circle behind the batter...regardless of whose dugout it's closest to. I therefore do not understand why the correct answer to this rules test question was 'False'?

Any explanation/opinion?

Regards,

Steve

[Rich Ives]

In the consideration for safety, I simply do not understand one of the four questions I missed on the recent WOA Rules Test [Fed] involving on-deck circles. Here's the question:

"The on-deck circles at the field are close to the batter's box due to tight confines. The batters are allowed to occupy the on-deck circle in front of the opposing team's dugout when the batter's stance faces their dugout."

True or False

The practice of the next batter due up moving to the on-deck circle behind the batter's back has always been done in select ball [Koufax/Mantle] In fact, I've called time just to move a player out of potential harms way to the on-deck circle behind the batter...regardless of whose dugout it's closest to. I therefore do not understand why the correct answer to this rules test question was 'False'?

Any explanation/opinion?

Regards,

Steve

Because the rules say the on deck batter can only be in his own circle. The ODB doesn't have to go out - but if he does it can only be to his own circle.

[Aussie123]

In the consideration for safety, I simply do not understand one of the four questions I missed on the recent WOA Rules Test [Fed] involving on-deck circles. Here's the question:

"The on-deck circles at the field are close to the batter's box due to tight confines. The batters are allowed to occupy the on-deck circle in front of the opposing team's dugout when the batter's stance faces their dugout."

True or False

The practice of the next batter due up moving to the on-deck circle behind the batter's back has always been done in select ball [Koufax/Mantle] In fact, I've called time just to move a player out of potential harms way to the on-deck circle behind the batter...regardless of whose dugout it's closest to. I therefore do not understand why the correct answer to this rules test question was 'False'?

Any explanation/opinion?

Regards,

Steve

Because the rules say the on deck batter can only be in his own circle. The ODB doesn't have to go out - but if he does it can only be to his own circle.

Thanks Rich. Albeit an open-book test...I was so convinced that the answer to this question was an obvious 'True', [yes, the on deck batter may use either on-deck circle for safety consideration] that I admittedly did not look it up. Usually, though not always, there is an element of logic in nearly every baseball rule. This rule, in my opinion, defies both logic and safety!

[mstaylor]

Travel ball and softball does that silly crap of using the ondeck circle behind the batter. Every other system, including 90ft LL, uses the ondeck for that team only. All they have to do is pay attention and not talk to mom or girlfriend through the fence. I haven't seen a single injury from a batter being hit while in the ODC and that is in 36 years.

[yawetag]

I haven't seen a single injury from a batter being hit while in the ODC and that is in 36 years.

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...t=.jsp&c_id=mlb

You probably didn't see it, but I heard it on the radio.

[SnareDrum]

Travel ball and softball does that silly crap of using the ondeck circle behind the batter. Every other system, including 90ft LL, uses the ondeck for that team only. All they have to do is pay attention and not talk to mom or girlfriend through the fence. I haven't seen a single injury from a batter being hit while in the ODC and that is in 36 years.

Not really about paying attention, and not really that silly to me, but I understand your point. Had a smaller kid two summers ago on deck and was timing his swing to the pitch as they all do. As he swung, so did the batter and a screamer line drive off the end of the bat blasted the ODB right square in the sensitive man area. I was behind the plate and I barely saw the ball it was moving so fast, but I heard the "SPLAT". The force of the ball actually lifted the kid off the ground and knocked him back into the fence. He never had a chance to get out of the way and for a few seconds after he was motionless. Fortunately, he was the catcher so he had a cup on, but he didn't get up for a few minutes and he wasn't quite right for the rest of the game, or even a few games after. A few years ago on the same field, I had a facial/jaw shot also on a on-deck batter timing his swing. On this field and all in the complex, it's about 15' from foul line to fence and 30' from plate to ODC.

I understand why the rule is there, but perhaps it'll eventually be one of those "if both coaches agree" type of things, which is what our City League does now and it's basically understood. The coaches think it's a great idea and some have even said that they wish other places would do it. There's a lot of things in baseball I haven't seen either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[mstaylor]

I guess I'm to much of a traditionalist, I just haven't seen problems with ODBs. I have seen more close calls with players standing in the door of the dugout or open face dugouts.

[UmpJM]

Aussie,

Thanks Rich. Albeit an open-book test...I was so convinced that the answer to this question was an obvious 'True', [yes, the on deck batter may use either on-deck circle for safety consideration] that I admittedly did not look it up. Usually, though not always, there is an element of logic in nearly every baseball rule. This rule, in my opinion, defies both logic and safety!

Though it is not intuitively obvious, and often has no bearing on what one would do in "the real world", when taking a FED test, one ALWAYS answers with the "book answer" if one wishes to have his answer scored as "correct".

Trying to apply logic and/or common sense inevitably only leads to frustration and disappointment.

But hey, it's just a test.

JM

[ncump7]

I think the reasoning behind this rule is to prevent any smart comments and jawing back and forth between players that could become a problem on the field. Most players do not fall into this category, but the few that do could cause a huge headache on the field.

[Rich Ives]

At a Wichita State NCAA game a few years back the "next batter" standing a perceived too close to the plate was hit by the pitcher warming up.

[UmpJM]

At a Wichita State NCAA game a few years back the "next batter" standing a perceived too close to the plate was hit by the pitcher warming up.

Ruined both his and the pitcher's careers - which, at the time, both appeared "promising".

http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_0807d368-2f9b-11de-a388-001cc4c002e0.html

JM

[mstaylor]

I always tell that story when batter ask why they can't stand at the circle and time the pitcher.

[Stretch]

If I remember this right...the lawyers went after the 3 man umpire crew for "allowing the batter to warm-up where the rule book says he cannot."

[Forest Ump]

Wow, what a story. First time I have heard it.

This line just makes me shake my head.

When he was introduced at Wichita State’s annual First PitchBanquet just nine months after his beaning of Anthony Molina,Christensen received a standing ovation.

The ugly side of sports.

[Pops]

If I remember this right...the lawyers went after the 3 man umpire crew for "allowing the batter to warm-up where the rule book says he cannot."

Please clarify what is being said here. Between innings, if the on-deck hitter is in his own on-deck circle timing pitches, is this legal? If not, where does it say that?

[UmpJM]

If I remember this right...the lawyers went after the 3 man umpire crew for "allowing the batter to warm-up where the rule book says he cannot."

Please clarify what is being said here. Between innings, if the on-deck hitter is in his own on-deck circle timing pitches, is this legal? If not, where does it say that?

Pops,

If he is in (or near) his own on-deck circle, he is legal and is free to "time pitches" if he wishes.

If he's standing 15' or so away from the plate and is timing pitches (or doing anything else), he's illegal.

JM

[Pops]

If I remember this right...the lawyers went after the 3 man umpire crew for "allowing the batter to warm-up where the rule book says he cannot."

Please clarify what is being said here. Between innings, if the on-deck hitter is in his own on-deck circle timing pitches, is this legal? If not, where does it say that?

Pops,

If he is in (or near) his own on-deck circle, he is legal and is free to "time pitches" if he wishes.

If he's standing 15' or so away from the plate and is timing pitches (or doing anything else), he's illegal.

JM

Thanks for confirming the situation. A previous poster said something that confused the issue.

[Stretch]

Sorry I wasn't trying to confuse the issue. I was just adding that the lawyers tried to sue the umpires because the umpires didn't keep the batter, that was warming up, in the on-deck circle.

The lawyers were trying to hold the umpires responsible. To quote Paul Harvey, "And now for the rest of the story..." Article from the Desert News. Please note I have removed the names of the umpires:

WICHITA, Kan. — Wichita State wants three umpires to be added to a lawsuit against the school that arose when a pitcher hit a visiting baseball player in the head with a warm-up pitch.

Second baseman Anthony Molina of the University of Evansville suffered eye injuries when hit by a ball thrown by Ben Christensen as Molina stood near the on-deck circle just before the start of a game with the Shockers on April 23, 1999.

Molina sued Wichita State and Christensen, seeking $75,000 in damages.The university now wants the three umpires who were working the game to share responsibility. The school submitted a motion last week to include the three umpires as defendants, saying they failed to enforce the rules.

Before the game, Molina had walked behind and to the right side of home plate, closer to the Wichita State's on-deck circle than to Evansville's.

Under Rule 5, Section 2-e, if that happens "the umpire first should warn the offender(s) and if the violators do not immediately move away the individual(s) shall be ejected from the game."

Home plate umpire xxxxxx xxxxxxx didn't do either and Christensen threw a pitch at Molina. Christensen said the pitch was just meant as warning, but Molina wasn't looking and was hit, causing a skull fracture and lingering vision problems.

The lawsuit includes three charges against Christensen — battery, negligence and "willful, wanton and reckless negligence" — and one count of negligence against the university.

Mitchell declined to comment at the university's request, as did Missouri Valley Conference Associate Commissioner Joe Mitch, and Jim Schaus, the school's athletic director. The other umpires were xxxxxx xxxxxxx , and xxxxxx xxxxxxx .

Mitch Margo, the legal counsel for the MVC, said he was still trying to determine whether the conference or the NCAA has a contractual obligation to represent the umpires.

The motion to include the umpires will be heard in Sedgwick County District Court on Aug. 4. It may push back the date for the trial, now scheduled for Nov. 29.

"I hope this gets resolved," Margo said. "It's an unfortunate situation that I wish never happened."

Christensen, who was warming up on the pitching mound, was ejected from the game and then suspended for the rest of the season. He had a 21-1 record in three seasons at Wichita State and was a first-round draft choice of the Chicago Cubs.

Molina has undergone three operations but returned to play for Evansville last season, hitting .280 in 20 games. His lawsuit claiming battery and negligence seeks more than $75,000 from each defendant.

In November, Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston declined to bring criminal charges against Christensen.

Just becareful and aware out there especially if an institution will go after the game officials for 2 people(players) making bad decisions.

[Stan W.]

At a Wichita State NCAA game a few years back the "next batter" standing a perceived too close to the plate was hit by the pitcher warming up.

yesterday I was watching the Indiana/Minnesota game on TV and the Indiana ODB would creep up from the circle and stand on the grass behind home plate while the batter was live......now, It seemed as if there was a larger distance from home plate to the backstop but there was no way i'd let that happen in a game.....maybe the perspective from TV was off....since none of the 3 crew put a stop to it...

[kwiggie]

Aussie,

Thanks Rich. Albeit an open-book test...I was so convinced that the answer to this question was an obvious 'True', [yes, the on deck batter may use either on-deck circle for safety consideration] that I admittedly did not look it up. Usually, though not always, there is an element of logic in nearly every baseball rule. This rule, in my opinion, defies both logic and safety!

Though it is not intuitively obvious, and often has no bearing on what one would do in "the real world", when taking a FED test, one ALWAYS answers with the "book answer" if one wishes to have his answer scored as "correct".

Trying to apply logic and/or common sense inevitably only leads to frustration and disappointment.

But hey, it's just a test.

JM

How very, very, true!

Yet it is hard to dig in the book for the right answers when (if memory serves) 3 or 4 questions were thrown out this year due to the fact that they had no correct answer availible...