Active Community: Message List

Re: The Strike Zone

guest — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:47:03 GMT

I agree with Kyle:

Forget about the book definition of the strike zone. When read the definition there is not an addendum after if saying something along the lines of

However, if you are 9yrs. old the strike zone is this or if you are 15 the strike zone is this etc. etc.

The book definition is simply a reference point.

The best definition IMO is this:

The strike zone is that which is accepted in the leagues we service.

You cannot expect a 10 yr. old kid to have the same control as a college player.

Pete Booth

Re: What Rule(s) at Little League level would you change if you could dictate it?

guest — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:02:47 GMT

I will break-down my answers into 2 groups 1 for administrative "stuff" and the other for rules

I. ADMINISTRATION: I do not like any system that says "everyone makes it" There should be try-outs and unfortunately not everyone will or should make it. When you are in school even in the small grades not everyone makes the debate team or spelling bee team etc. etc. You have to EARN it. LL at least from my experiences has been a baby-sitting service. Some parents simply drop off their kids and either pick them up or in some cases have their neighbor pick them up and drop off.

The 11/12 yr. old age brackets should play 50-70 so that F1's learn the nuances of pitching. You have DDK's etc. etc. In other words play at least some form of "REAL" baseball. From my experience the kids "love it" when they play this type of ball. Yes sometimes the games turn into trackmeets but so do some LL games as well even on the traditional 60 ft. diamond. LL will not or most likely never do this because of the success of their show which of coarse is the Regionals and ultimately the WS which are on TV.

II. RULES: If LL did go to the 50-70 format then 7.13 is "out the window" As it stands now you could put some 20 umpires in a room and still not fully understand rule 7.13. Get rid of 7.08(a-3) and replace it with an MC rule ala FED or a collision rule ala NCAA. For LL Juniors / SR.'s / BIG LEAGUE adopt the FED or NCAA FPSR.

When you get to the SR / BIG League level get rid of the F2 to F1 restrictions.

I agree with some others get rid of the SPR rule and replace with a more traditional CR rule.

Put in stricter penalties for CBO meaning if you bat the line-up and someone gets injured / hurt then when that spot comes up you get an out.

Have consistent rules from regular season right thru to the WS. As it stands now you have regular season rules and then Tournament rules. Use ONE set of standard rules throughout the year.

Those are a few things that IMO I would like to see changed but it most likely will never happen which is the reason Travel ball has excelled.

Pete Booth

Re: Not a legal bat, player hits a home run, does it count ?

guest — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:46:36 GMT

As a District Tournament umpire, we check all the equipment before each game. Bats (or other equipment) that are NOT legal are taken out and handed to the TD until the end of the game. That way it is impossible to have an illegal bat in the mix.

Mike I do not know if LL will "follow-suit" but IMO, equipment issues are the responsibility of the manager or coach. Our job as officials is simply to enforce the rule. In OBR the illegal bat is removed and that's that. If the OP happened in a FED game in addition to the bat being removed the player would be declared out because in FED when a player enters the batters box with an illegal bat he will be declared out.

FINALLY in FED starting next year we will NOT have to check bats/hats anymore. All that is required is that we say "skip is your team properly equipped"

Pete Booth

Re: where did all the old timers from this board go?

guest — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:38:37 GMT

Atlanta Blue (AB) is a regular at the NFHS Discussion Forum

Every now and then I see Rita Post at the official Forum but I think she went elsewhere.

The new format has something to do with the decline but IMO, this Forum is mainly a LL Discussion Forum and unless you umpire in LL it's difficult to add value to the discussions because LL rules / Regs are unique. We used to have great debates / discussions at eteamz back in the day other then simply LL type questions.

Also, very rarely if at all do you see FED / NCAA questions here as there is no more FED/NCAA Forum which normally would "buzz" during the HS / College season. Therefore, this Forum has lost posters who are now umpiring at those levels.

Pete Booth

Re: The Rest Of the Story--Pitcher Warmup

guest — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:16:13 GMT

what did you think of this umpire's action?

Mike I though I already answered but here goes.

If the kid did NOT have a cup on and the umpire insisted he did I have no problem with the umpires ruling on the field.

if the kid HAD a cup on and the umpire still wanted more equipment then I do not agree.

As far as the EJ goes it depends upon what the coach said to the umpire.

It's no different then a coach disagreeing with any other ruling or a call on the field. The coach can protest any ruling BUT just because a rule has been misapplied does not give the coach "carte blanche" to say anything he wants to the umpire.

Pete Booth

Re: The Rest Of the Story--Pitcher Warmup

guest — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:06:39 GMT

You cannot impose your standards when the LL Rules clearly state the requirements regarding warmups. No one except WP can do that

Only WP can do that - REALLY!

Ever heard of the Supreme Court.

Sitch:

Stud F1 pitching throwing heat and yes when warming up F1's do throw heat.

The Regular F2 made last out and the coach brings out LL Joey to warm-up F1.

You say: Skip is Joey properly equipped and by properly equipped I mean a protective cup on.

Skip: My warm-up F2 is complying with the rule and has no cup on

You: ok

Little Joey gets seriously injured in the "Family Jewles" area.

WP, the BOD of this particular LL. the coach and YOU get sued.

You now go on the stand and the attorney says

1. Mouth did you KNOW that LL Joey did NOT have his cup on.

2. You: Yes I did

3. Attorney: How come you allowed this

4. You: Because there is NO rule against it.

You say that WP are the ONLY ones who can impose standards regarding their rules. GET REAL

If you want to take your chances go right ahead. As I stated in HS played by 18 yr. olds. The FED requires (in the squatting position) a warm-up F2 to wear a protective cup yet LL refuses to change the rule because to date nothing has happened.

However, as the saying goes it ONLY takes ONE. Just like health insurance. For most of your life you might have been lucky and not needed it but there's that ONE time.

Pete Booth

Re: The Rest Of the Story--Pitcher Warmup

guest — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:52:14 GMT

Mike I did not hijack your thread. My point was that I find it ludicrous especially with LL being as safety conscious as they are would not require a kid warming up F1 to wear a protective cup that was it.

Pete Booth

Re: The Rest Of the Story--Pitcher Warmup

guest — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:18:57 GMT

the umpire can't just make $#!+ up, no matter how noble the cause.

Kyle IMO, it's not making up $#! for a noble cause. It's called being SMART.

FWIW: I know most are tired of my FED analogy BUT here goes

FED rule 1-5-4

While in the crouch position, any non-adult warming up F1 at ANY location shall wear a head protector, mask with a throat protector AND protective cup (male only). These are 18 yr. old young adults.

Other then LL I believe every youth league and higher leagues ala Legion has similar wording when someone is warming up F1.

All I can say is if you allow a kid especially at the young age of say 10-12 to warm-up F1 without a protective cup and said kid gets a serious injury GET READY no matter what the actual rule says. As previously mentioned Typical LL. They WAIT until something happens before instituting something.

Pete Booth

Re: The Rest Of the Story--Pitcher Warmup

guest — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:43:15 GMT

No cups, shin guards, and chest protectors are required for warmup catchers because basically because they are, for the most part, playing catch.

I agree if the kid doesn't squat down. If the warm up F2 is in a squatting position the aforementioned statement is a crock. The warm-up F2 is not simply playing catch. He is in the squatting position and if the ball is pitched in the dirt he is open for injury. As an umpire I have been hit in the cup area because the ball hit the dirt and had NOTHING to do with the batter.

Typical LL. They do NOTHING proactive. A kid will have to sustain some serious injury while warming up F1 and then LL will put the rule in.

Pete Booth

Re: The Rest Of the Story--Pitcher Warmup

guest — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:59:22 GMT

Mike with all due respect you still didn't tell us if the kid had a cup on or not. IMO, that's the important issue here not all the "other stuff".

If the kid had no cup on (regardless of what the rule states) then the BOD, DA etc. should side with the umpire and uphold the suspension. If the kid did in fact have a cup on and the umpire still insisted he needs more equipment is a different story.

As I stated I think LL simply forgot to add "protective cup" to the requirements of warming up F1. It's not the first time LL has not "spelled out' exactly what they mean. Remember the "admin removal" fisaco we had at eteamz? IMO, this is similar.

IMO, a simple solution

"Someone" should E-mail District about this and get a resolution PERIOD. Maybe (probably not) WP can issue a memo or something telling "everyone" that a Cup is indeed required to allow someone to warm-up F1.

Let's see a kid cannot slide head first going forward BUT he can warm-up a stud F1 without a cup on. Let's get real here regardless of what the actual rule states.

Pete Booth