POLL~To move or Get hit by pitches~

[radness]

It is still a violation, just not enforced. Just like speeding past a cop, weather or not he pulls you over does not change the fact you were speeding.

The specific violation I mentioned the ump has no bearing. Why? Because the first player the coach instructs to break the rule the coach has no idea if it will be called or not. Thus the strategy was to break a rule and hope they get away with it.

We played in a tournament that did not check Birth certificates last year. Since it would be allowed to happen, would loading up a 12u team with 14 year olds be a strategy? I think almost all would agree this would be cheating.

The covid year we played several games with one ump. Some coaches would have players leave early since it could not be caught. Some would call this strategy. In reality, morally it similar to loading a team with older players. In both cases the team decided to break a rule that was not being enforced and have the philosophy it is only a rule if it is enforced.

It comes down to this not just in sports but in life.
Either you believe rules should be followed.
Or it is not a rule unless it can/is enforced.

Win because you are better playing within the rules. What the rule book says does matter, A player should never be instructed to break a rule.

So you are not in disagreement with what I said. You are just expressing it in the words that you are using.
Sooo combo of words...
A non-enforced violation has no consequence, it is useless, it doesn't matter. And it is allowed to continue.

Yes people utilize that to their advantage.

There is also the point in the matter that the only person that is officiating the game is the Umpire
(not the rule book)
It is the Umpire's observational judgment of how the rule book gets applied. And guess what there's an Umpire right there behind the plate seeing what's happening. Applying the rule book or not.

There are plenty of times when players, coaches, fans opinion's are in disagreement with the umpires.
imagine that.

 

[radness]

It comes down to this not just in sports but in life.
Either you believe rules should be followed.
Or it is not a rule unless it can/is enforced.

My comments are about a sporting event and how players teams coaches apply themselves to the situation.

Win because you are better playing within the rules. What the rule book says does matter, A player should never be instructed to break a rule.[/ISPOILER]

I never commented that people should purposely break rules. I'm commenting that people make an adjustment toward how umpires officiate the game that is in itself something that should be acknowledged that's why I'm saying it again.

People use strategy in the game and will use it to their advantage when they can.
About being on the field~
If you are going to be on the field with an Umpire who is allowing batters to say run out of the box and hit the ball. Then that is happening on the field.
Without consequence to the violation.
*Adjust accordingly!!!

If the Umpire is going to call strikes in the opposite batter's box
*you can either utilize that pitch location or
Approach the Umpire when he Awards your pitcher a strike for throwing the pitch in the opposite batters box and tell him you would prefer it to be a ball cuz that's what you intended.

Never ever heard that argument before, but I guess you might be the one person who steps up and says
'Excuse me umpire but that wasn't a strike we actually threw that pitch in the opposite batter's box to be a ball'.

 

[_MIA_]

It is a conversation about a sporting event and how players teams coaches apply themselves to the situation


The point is that while there are rules they are not always applied if you are not going to acknowledge that oh well

Point again is ~if an Umpire is not applying rule violations some people will take advantage of that.

If you are going to be on the field with an Umpire who is allowing batters to say run out of the box and hit the ball. Then that is happening on the field.
*Adjust accordingly!!!

If the Umpire is going to call strikes in the opposite batter's box
*you can either utilize that pitch location or
*Maybe you could approach the umpire and say that is not a strike because it shouldn't be a strike.
Never ever heard that argument before, but I guess you might be the one person who steps up and says
'Excuse me umpire but that wasn't a strike we actually threw that pitch in the opposite batter's box to be a ball'.

Btw I have never said it is okay to purposely break rules.
However I acknowledge the way umpires officiate games and sometimes they don't apply everything that is in the rule book and I let them use their judgment on what they think is a violation it is not my judgment of how they should officiate..

don't have to like it
don't have to agree with it
but it is something that happens and that in itself should be acknowledged.

It is a simple question Rad. If you knowingly break a rule to gain an advantage is that cheating or not? Yes or no answer will suffice.

Whether or not all forms of "cheating" are equal is a different story...

 

[daywalkerdad]

The defined strike zone..on purpose to get a called strike.Like I said I am just playing devil’s advocate here

I understand devils advocate. For this to be the same a the rule would state a pitcher cannot throw a pitch 3” outside. So from the pitchers perspective no rule is violated.
This is unlike standing in the river. This would be closer to a pitcher pitching from 3’ closer.

 

[radness]

It is a simple question Rad. If you knowingly break a rule to gain an advantage is that cheating or not? Yes or no answer will suffice.

Whether or not all forms of "cheating" are equal is a different story...

The Umpire is the official who determines violations. If the Umpire is not calling violations That means there wouldn't be a violation.

Umpires observational judgment is what gets applied in games. The rule book guides them but their judgment defines what happens in the game.

 

[_MIA_]

I understand devils advocate.

Lol..it wasn't a shot at your intelligence.

Also I agree with what you said.

 

[_MIA_]

The Umpire is the official who determines violations. If the Umpire is not calling violations That means there wouldn't be a violation.

Umpires observational judgment. Not the rule book defines the game.

So if you knowingly violate a rule but are not caught that is not cheating in your book.

 

[radness]

No I never said that

So if you knowingly violate a rule but are not caught that is not cheating in your book.

My comment way earlier in the thread was
cheesy moments happen.
Umpires are right even when they're wrong

Folks can be rule book aficionados but the reality of it is that umpiring is not 100% accurate job. That and Umpires are generally different than each other and how they apply things. So the question of is something cheating can be irrelevant if the person who is officiating doesn't think it's a problem. (That is not my job.)

 

[_MIA_]

No I never said that

I asked a simple yes or no question. I don't need a War and Peace answer..

So yes, if you knowingly violate a rule it is cheating.

 

[radness]

So yes, if you knowingly violate a rule it is cheating.

I don't think it's cheating if a batter leans/moves into the river and gets hit by a pitch and then gets awarded first base.

Think that's bad umpiring.
But umpiring fluctuates so that's what I acknowledge.

The question could be how do you blame the batter for the Umpire not doing their job?

The other question would be how do you prove that someone purposely did something versus a mistake that caused the incident?