Jump to content
NorthTexasUmp

Ball Stuck in Glove...Lodged?

Recommended Posts

On 2/19/2019 at 11:25 AM, MadMax said:

 

And this and these people are prime examples of The Establishment, a minority conclave that is one of the greatest challenges to us as umpires (and other sports officials).

The games – whether they be baseball, football, basketball, hockey, softball, volleyball, quidditch, or competitive basket weaving – change. They evolve. The correlating rules are not static, but instead dynamic. We often confuse “absolute” for “static”, and “relative” for “dynamic”. The Rules are to be referenced and applied absolutely, but they themselves grow, evolve, and adapt in relation to the game they govern dynamically. The way in which these adaptations are made through a duly designated (or elected) governing body are done through a particular process (sometimes, we’re not privy to), and when they are implemented, they are done for the benefit of Rules across the the breadth and range of their applications.

Now, can a state adopt these Rules wholesale, or piecemeal? Yes, certainly, they are empowered to do so. Can individual organizations (such as USA Baseball, or Triple Crown) use these Rules, and selectively countermand or negate specific sections (such as catcher’s two-piece masks, or Mercy Rules, or defensive conferences)? Yes, certainly, they have done so for years. If these organizations countermand, or selectively apply these Rules codecies, they are often doing so for the benefit of their own organization, most often in terms of efficiency and efficacy.

Here’s what is concerning – if the State of Pennsylvania is ignoring or refusing to apply this Rule, is there a reason for efficacy or efficiency for them doing so? Better yet, did they poll their constituency – the umpires within their association – as to if the Rule should be applied or negated? Sounds like they didn’t, and it just became “someone not liking it”.

This 1,000,000 times. Here lies most problems, if problems exist with local officiating organizations. They can't get out of their own way.

For a play like this that might occur under 10 times across the country, some part of the country actually wants this goofy departure from the other two rule sets to remain. Incredible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that since the case said pitcher and first baseman, so it must only apply to that EXACT situation, and to put it in this memo like that, is one of the most insanely pedantic and childishly surly things I've ever seen in this context.

But in a way it does highlight the sloppiness of NFHS sneaking it in with a last-minute case and not removing contradictory cases. Just remove the glove from the definition of a lodged ball in the rule if that's what you want to do. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

I did a quick Google search and found this memo from the PIAA:

 

Penn 2019 Baseball Bulletin 2(1).jpg

23Penn 2019 Baseball Bulletin 2(1).jpg

33Penn 2019 Baseball Bulletin 2(1).jpg



 

 

 

Questions one and two were asked at out state interpretation meeting. A glove can be thrown to any base, play continues after  an out at 1B if there are other runners. 

Pa. is simply making $i*t up. 

unbelievable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, PA is applying a fundamentalist approach to baseball.   Jesus H Christ.  Following that "logic" there would have to be a case play for every position, and for each base.

I will give them credit though...at least they didn't say it only applied to "two hoppers".

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 5:14 AM, Aging_Arbiter said:

Didn't someone ask a question a one point in regards to "Why don't they play baseball under 1 rules code"?

I would say this never happened ever!:Horse:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pattern that you can observe at many points in the evolution of Federation rules is that while the rulebook is a complete rewrite of baseball rules, inadvertently creating hundreds of differences with OBR, the tendency over time is for NFHS rules to "regress to the OBR mean" in various ways.

One is nullification, an example of which: a HS pitcher with no runners on is, by rule, still required to come to a stop, but at least in my region no one calls that an illegal pitch. No one. Ever. Another example is that a lot of umpires don't like the Fed Obstruction rule. So you will actually hear trainers say to shout "Obstruction" loud enough that it effectively ceases play and then it becomes effectively the same thing as Type 1(Type A) MLB obstruction. There are many other examples.

Another evolution is to change the rules with a contrary interpretation, which is what we see here. This is not the first time we've seen this: the rule book says one thing, but the case play in effect "interprets the difference away." 

Most umpires learn OBR by osmosis, years of watching the game on TV and then they learn Fed rules as a long list of "exceptions." These are irritating and highly technical (as readers of teh BRD know), and unless the plays or situations happen with enough frequency, then no one is going to know the Fed rule anyhow.

 

Edited by johnnyg08
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2019 at 11:45 PM, Vumpire said:

One is nullification, an example of which: a HS pitcher with no runners on is, by rule, still required to come to a stop, but at least in my region no one calls that an illegal pitch. No one. Ever.

I presume you mean "with no runners on". If so, I definitely agree.

Edited by johnnyg08
fixed unintentional omission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 24, 2019 at 9:19 AM, Aging_Arbiter said:

Did you already have your mandatory rules meeting?  Ours isn't until 2/18, at which point I'm sure the question will come up (because I'll be the one asking).

What was their take?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

They went with the bulletin.  1B only.

Update!

Did they show the NFHS/PIAA Rules Presentation?

At the end of it, PIAA seems to be onboard with the NFHS ruling stating...THE CORRECT RULING IS: We are instructed by the NFHS to rule this play as an out.  The rule(s) book and case book will be edited to agree next year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...