Touching bases rule

Wow,,,,,,,, is this really getting a little off topic or what. I think we all agree that you must have rules. However, with any sport, society, business, school, or whatever,,,,,,,,, we must also have leaders/officials who enforce our rules and yet are still able to use some COMMON SENSE. I will say it one last time,,,,,, that nobody on this message board would be happy to be pulled over driving 36mph in a 35mph zone today, and we all have hope that this don't happen because we have faith that the policeman will use a little "common sense". Now c'mon guys, (like you said) RULES ARE RULES, 36 would be speeding!!!

But this same use of common sense also applies to certain circumstances in sports. I'm just as big as a baseball fan as anyone, and I agree with EVERYTHING that has been preached on here about us needing rules,,, but I also believe there are certain things in baseball that you "JUST DON'T DO". And I'm sorry, but when a kid (especially an amateur) hits a homerun over the blas-ted fence, there's just certain things you "JUST DON'T DO". A homerun over the fence is a situation where you just tip your hat, its called RESPECT. The opposing coach shouldn't appeal anything, and the umpire shouldn't go looking for reasons to impact the game either, the ump should just throw out the next ball.

I guess as long as there's folks who actually agree with calls like this, we will always have debates. Respectfully in disagreement.... :imagestor

 

TJ, I'm fully with you. I have worked with umpires (& referees in basketball) who were Rule Book Legalists. Their names never appear in the post season because coaches despise those officials. Those who criticize you (& me ouch) so harshly either have not worked as officials or are in the Legalist category.

One last time: Dusty gained no advantage when he missed the bag. That is the reason it should have been ignored. If a coach is so desparate to win that he would appeal such an infraction, I would have no problem looking him in the eye & saying: "Coach, he caught the corner of the bag with his clete."

The coach would know what I was saying. "Get back in the dugout....You ain't gettin' that call from me." In the long run, he would respect that...even if some posters in this thread do not. I guess you have to know the game....

 

Playing the devils advocate here ...
If the touching the base rule is not enforced because the player hit a homerun , then what about the pitcher holding a runner on that has a drip of sweat that makes him suddenly twitch , should the Umpire call Balk or say well he didnt mean to so play on .. ?

I only want umpires to call the game by the rules and not make them up as they go along.
If we start getting allowances for certain situations then the purity of the game has been compromised.
Might as well watch a mens slowpitch softball game then. :imagestor

 

Coach, would you want that call if the game was a total blowout (say 66-0 in the 1st inning) against a team that is extremely young & who are just totally undermanned?

I'd like to think that in such a circumstance, you would want the umpires to widen the strike zone & give the benefit of any doubt to the team getting drilled.

If so, then you must think that there are situations when umpires should step outside the Book & use judgment. The question is....where is the line??

 

Intimidator,,, umpires must call balks, even if its because of a drip of sweat or whatever. But what you are describing is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT situation from a kid hitting a homerun over the fence where play is stopped. A homerun over the fence is a feat that should be respected,,,, and nothing should get in the way of this unless the homerun hitter shows a blatant disrespect for the game in his celebration... Just my thoughts...

 

I never want an umpire to step outside of a written rule and make a different call.

Judgement calls are just that.
Rules are made to be enforced.

If i'm losing a game 66-0 or 1-0 if my player or the opposing teams player breaks a written rule then i would not have any problems with that rule being enforced. (if i'm losing 66-0 i will fire myself)

I dont really care for umpires widening or narrowing strike zones to keep an already out of hand game in control . It wouldnt make me mad if it happens either, because that would actually fall under an umpires judgement no matter how bad that is. We all have seen horrible calls in games that are for and against our teams.

 

IntimidatorCoach, may I inquire: What level do you coach? How many years?

 

Explanation, please?

Could someone offer the scenario, please so I will know the whole situation.

What happened BRAVES?

 

I agree with what your saying TJ ,
but at this time it is a written rule .
either change the rule or make the call correct.

UK7Dook3 IntimidatorCoach, may I inquire: What level do you coach? How many years?

Yes UK ,
I have never coached beyond a 16 year old but ive been coaching kids aged 5 thru 16 over the last 30 years.
( not coaching or supervising at the present )
Not that has anything to do with the call in question.

 

TJ21 don't misunderstand me

TJ21 I hear what you're saying and sympathize with it, but I don't like umpires imposing their will on the game. Technically if that is the only deviation the umpire had from the rules, I could live with it, but it seems once you open pandoras box the umpires start to control the game vs. umpire it. We've all seen games where batters go nuts trying to adjust to an umpires strike zone which is 6 inches off the plate, but right where the catcher set up. What you watch is frustrated kids striking out or hitting weak balls for outs to the opposite field, not good baseball. Another situation is the vicinity double play being turned at 2nd base. How close is good enough??

I've experienced two seperate situations over the years that were heartbreaking, but called correctly. The first was years ago in the Little League District Championship game where a batter on our team hit a home run to win the game and was called out for slapping the hand of the first base coach rounding first base. Yes thats against the rules in place at that time. The second was a game where we were down 1 run in the bottom of the last inning with 2 outs, the bases are loaded and the batter hits a line shot down the third base line for a easy double, except he dislocated his knee in the batters box and fell to the ground. The runners on first and second crossed the plate and bent over the downed batter. The ball was run down in foul territory by the left fielder and thrown in, the infielders did after a while throw the ball to the first baseman who was on the bag and the runner was called out. We lost, the batter after going to the doctor is now years later fine.

Should the batter even have to touch the bases on a home run? Should the rule be changed? I have no problem with it being changed at all. But, yes I guess I'm a legalist. The rules are the rules, till they get changed.

Till that time we'll just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the variety of oppinions expressed and I'm glad to have this forum in which to discuss them. Better Baseball will come out of discussions of this nature.