Fly Rule for a Dummy

[flash277]

MIB..... I Understand about your priorities.I should be out doing things I’m supposed to be doing as well. My wife thinks I’m out mowing the lawn..lol. Anyway. I certainly respect your opinion and your interesting point of view. I’m hoping I’m on the field with you next time this situation happens and you decide to enforce your ruling of it being illegal for runners to run in reverse except to retouch a base missed or left too soon for two reasons. Number 1, I have never ever heard of anyone understanding the rule that way. Number 2 , I’d love to hear what your UIC says when you are explaining why the protest, which is sure to happen, shouldn’t be upheld.

Oh no Umpwally, you don't know what you just did!.......

 

[umpwally]

As an aside. By a coach yelling FOUL BALL I meant a defensive coach doing so with the intent of having the batter runner or runners stop running. That should address the question on why I wouldn’t have interference on that. Obstruction maybe but that would open up an entire new conversation concerning verbal obstruction...lol I went back and clarified that.

If “ potentionally jumping to an immediate ejection” means, in my words, ‘Maybe’’, I would say that is correct after considering previous behavior of course

Could you point out where I could find the words ‘Spirit of the game’ in my USA rulebook?

Implying that the words unsporting and unsportsmanlike aren’t interchangeable is parsing words. Any thesaurus will agree they are interchangeable

Opposed to your claim that the rulebook clearly says that deceitful tactics are not allowed, the USA Rulebook does NOT very clearly say that deceitful acts are not allowed. I will refer you to rule supplement #49 concerning sporting behavior

’Letter of the Law‘ are your words not mine.

Lastly, As far as a player or team not being allowed an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Exactly how does one ‘gain an advantage’ without breaking a rule?

 

[umpwally]

Oh no Umpwally, you don't know what you just did!.......

I understand..lol. I love discussing situations, rules or philosophies of the game. Listening or reading another umpire express his position or understanding of a ruling or interpretation is healthy and beneficial to all of us, especially if it comes from an umpire who’s opinion and passion for the game I respect. If we all agreed on everything, it would make for a very boring forum.

 

[Gags]

Article 6 ... A runner shall not run the bases in reverse order either to confuse the fielders or to make a travesty of the game.
Everybody gets hung up on this specific portion. This does not say the runner has to have that intent ... it says that it shall not occur. The result was the defense was confused by the runner who had legally acquired second base -- on purpose or not -- running the bases in reverse order. Running the bases in reverse order without a legal reason to do so, e.g., tagging up, returning to a missed base, is a form of interference.

I know I'm late to the party - and not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I disagree with the way you're interpreting / defining Article 6.

I agree that the word "intent" does not appear in the rule. But it also doesn't JUST say "it shall not occur". It adds conditions for WHEN it shall not occur. Condition a) is to confuse the fielders, condition b) is to make a travesty of the game. To put on my own nerd hat, I believe that "intent" is very much a part of this rule, b/c of the word "to".

For example, replace the word "to" with "that", and I'd be in complete agreement with TMIB: "A runner shall not run the bases in reverse order that confuses the fielders or that makes a travesty of the game." When you use the word "that" (and the two "s"), the criteria for applying the rule is now focused on the RESULT of the runners actions "if condition a) or b) occurred". The result is that the fielders were confused, and the rule should apply.

But the rule uses the word "to" - "to confuse". If my grammar is correct, it's an infinitive adverb - it modifies the verb "run". Per Grammar Monster: "An adverb usually modifies a verb to tell us when, where, how, in what manner, or to what extent an action is performed". Again, it's not just "shall not run", it's "shall not run...to confuse". Which leads me to the conclusion that while the word "intent" doesn't actually appear, "to confuse" puts the focus on the INTENT of a future action, not the RESULT of the action. IMO, Article 6 should not apply.

And I can't believe how big this rabbit hole is...

 

[CoachJD]

I know I'm late to the party - and not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I disagree with the way you're interpreting / defining Article 6.

I agree that the word "intent" does not appear in the rule. But it also doesn't JUST say "it shall not occur". It adds conditions for WHEN it shall not occur. Condition a) is to confuse the fielders, condition b) is to make a travesty of the game. To put on my own nerd hat, I believe that "intent" is very much a part of this rule, b/c of the word "to".

For example, replace the word "to" with "that", and I'd be in complete agreement with TMIB: "A runner shall not run the bases in reverse order that confuses the fielders or that makes a travesty of the game." When you use the word "that" (and the two "s"), the criteria for applying the rule is now focused on the RESULT of the runners actions "if condition a) or b) occurred". The result is that the fielders were confused, and the rule should apply.

But the rule uses the word "to" - "to confuse". If my grammar is correct, it's an infinitive adverb - it modifies the verb "run". Per Grammar Monster: "An adverb usually modifies a verb to tell us when, where, how, in what manner, or to what extent an action is performed". Again, it's not just "shall not run", it's "shall not run...to confuse". Which leads me to the conclusion that while the word "intent" doesn't actually appear, "to confuse" puts the focus on the INTENT of a future action, not the RESULT of the action. IMO, Article 6 should not apply.

And I can't believe how big this rabbit hole is...

Gags, I've tried disputing a bunch of the rule interpretations from the umpires here based on the actual definitions of words, and it turns out what words actually mean tend to not matter very much. That's not a knock on the umps here. I trust their interpretations are correct. But they certainly aren't what the plain English defintions of words would suggest.