Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-12-2019, 01:45 AM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,731

Sports rules that are so systematically ignored by the officials they should be removed


OK this is not for butt-hurt Auburn fans to complain about one double dribble.

I'm talking about rules that are in the rule books but are so non enforced, or non enforceable, maybe they should they just be written out of that sports rule book.

As per another post on another thread, this one is #1 in my book from the official rules of baseball:

4.06 (3.09) No Fraternization

. . . . . . . . . .Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform.

The other is also from baseball and it's the pitching clock. I believe the latest attempt is 20 seconds between each pitch in this seasons spring training.

I've also been attending AAA baseball games for years with a 30 second pitch timer. Now maybe there are isolated instances but I have not yet ONCE seen or heard a pitcher penalized for violating a pitching clock. It just seems umpires are reluctant to enforce it so why not just get rid of it and come up with other ideas on how to speed up the game?

What about other sports? What sports have either arcane rules or rules that referees don't enforce and no one cares about or are unenforceable that frankly . . . .it would be better if we just edited that sport's rule book?

Am I wrong about the fraternization and pitch timer rule? Sell me!




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #2  
Old 04-12-2019, 01:54 AM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,731
This can also include rules that are so archaic they just don't belong in the rule books anymore----I sure the Masters will inspire one or two!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #3  
Old 04-12-2019, 06:19 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,272
The pitch timer is going to be enforced. I believe that the big wigs will make the umpires enforce it and sanction them if they fail to do the job.

The NBAs traveling rule has got to get a mention. It appears that a guy can go from the 3 point line to a dunk without the ball bouncing once.

Drop kicks.
  #4  
Old 04-12-2019, 08:19 AM
Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,688
Fraternization is a good one for baseball.

Another one, perhaps a bit more controversial, is 5.05(b)(2)(B) which requires that a batter make an attempt to avoid a pitch for it to be considered a hit-by-pitch. I think I've only seen it called once or twice (out of thousands of games watched), and I'm not sure it's a useful rule anymore. So just cut it, IMO. If we get a bunch of Fernando Vinas or other HBP experts sticking out elbows then maybe we can bring it back, but I tend to think that removing allowed body armor gives HBP experts there own consequences to worry about (especially when it seems like everybody throws 98 MPH now).
  #5  
Old 04-12-2019, 08:45 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
Another one, perhaps a bit more controversial, is 5.05(b)(2)(B) which requires that a batter make an attempt to avoid a pitch for it to be considered a hit-by-pitch. I think I've only seen it called once or twice (out of thousands of games watched), and I'm not sure it's a useful rule anymore. So just cut it, IMO. If we get a bunch of Fernando Vinas or other HBP experts sticking out elbows then maybe we can bring it back, but I tend to think that removing allowed body armor gives HBP experts there own consequences to worry about (especially when it seems like everybody throws 98 MPH now).
Agreed, I get the impression that few batters would rather be hit by a pitch (and risk missing the rest of the game or more than a game with injury) than have a chance at better than a single.

Last edited by Atamasama; 04-12-2019 at 08:45 AM.
  #6  
Old 04-12-2019, 09:30 AM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,176
In baseball you have umpires talking about "my strike zone" as being something distinct from the zone defined in the rule book.
  #7  
Old 04-12-2019, 12:51 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
In baseball you have umpires talking about "my strike zone" as being something distinct from the zone defined in the rule book.
That's always been a headscratcher for me. I remember years ago, seeing a magazine article or maybe a TV show where they showed a generic catcher, and a graphic showing where the strike zones were for various umpires in the major leagues, and the reference one (width of home plate, batter's knees to top of shoulders).

It was amazing to me, as a non-baseball player, just how variable it was- one guy's zone was more low and outside, some guys had wider, but shorter ones, and so on.

I can't think of any rules that are systematically ignored, but there are LOTS that are enforced only in extremis, or only when the referee happens to be looking. Holding in football is a good example- there are likely multiple holds each and every play, but unless someone happens to be right in the midst of the action, or does so particularly egregiously, they're liable to get away with it.
  #8  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:07 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
In baseball you have umpires talking about "my strike zone" as being something distinct from the zone defined in the rule book.
Surely you are not suggesting the strike zone be removed from the rulebook? I'd think the solution is the opposite of the OP's request for examples for rules so little called that they should be gotten rid of entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump
there are LOTS that are enforced only in extremis, or only when the referee happens to be looking.
Virtually every penalty in hockey constituting a foul on another player is like that.

For instance, rule 69.2 states that any player who initiates any contact at all with the opposing goalie shall be given a penalty. In practice, this is never called unless the contact is egregious or interferes in the goalie trying to make a save or play his position, but that's not how the rule is written.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #9  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:10 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,099
I'm not a sports guy. But it seems to me NFL refs don't call intentional grounding anymore.

Is that still a thing?
  #10  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:12 PM
nightshadea is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,120
the "no hitting with a closed fist "in pro wrestling they spend more time arguing about it amd ive had big name wrestlers tell me its damn hard not to even when your trying ….
  #11  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:12 PM
Pixel_Dent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by russian heel View Post
I've also been attending AAA baseball games for years with a 30 second pitch timer. Now maybe there are isolated instances but I have not yet ONCE seen or heard a pitcher penalized for violating a pitching clock. It just seems umpires are reluctant to enforce it so why not just get rid of it and come up with other ideas on how to speed up the game?
I've also been attending many AAA games for years with the 30 second timer. When it first started I did see a few pitchers called for violating it. The last year or so I haven't seen any, but that's because I've never seen a pitcher come close to using the entire clock. They just pitch faster now.

It could be, though, that it's enforced more in the IL. Is your team in the PCL by any chance?
  #12  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:42 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
I'm not a sports guy. But it seems to me NFL refs don't call intentional grounding anymore.

Is that still a thing?
It is, but there are many exceptions to that rule.
  #13  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:44 PM
RetroVertigo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Virtually every penalty in hockey constituting a foul on another player is like that.

For instance, rule 69.2 states that any player who initiates any contact at all with the opposing goalie shall be given a penalty. In practice, this is never called unless the contact is egregious or interferes in the goalie trying to make a save or play his position, but that's not how the rule is written.
This was actually called in the Blues v Jets playoff game playoff game the other night, but you're right I never see it called.
  #14  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:56 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,893
Dribbling violations in the NBA. I see numerous traveling, double dribbling, palming, etc. violations all the time, and they are rarely if ever called. In fact, in Virginia's semi final victory over Auburn, they committed a blatant double dribble on their last possession that should have cost them the game but, instead, they went on to win the game and the national championship.
  #15  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:59 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
I'm not a sports guy. But it seems to me NFL refs don't call intentional grounding anymore.

Is that still a thing?
They still do, but generally only when it's really blatant.
  #16  
Old 04-12-2019, 03:00 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Speaking of NFL rules, there have been countless times where players from one team stray out onto the sidelines while a play is still in progress, which technically counts as 12 (or more) men on the field. It's almost never penalized.


Also, some QBs spike the ball in a way that goes backwards or at least is level with the QB's body, which by rule ought to be a lateral and not a spike.
  #17  
Old 04-12-2019, 03:11 PM
Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 29,492
I believe there are some really strange foot fault rules still out there in tennis. Serena got called for one in 2009.

I'm not sure I have the right video, but this wasn't a normal foot fault, but a kind of odd/obscure rule that is often ignored.
  #18  
Old 04-12-2019, 03:12 PM
K364's Avatar
K364 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2,684
In tennis there is the grunting issue which is never called. But I don't want the rule removed.

And it's gone beyond grunting now. More like shrieking or war-whoops used for intimidation.
  #19  
Old 04-12-2019, 03:15 PM
K364's Avatar
K364 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth View Post
I believe there are some really strange foot fault rules still out there in tennis. Serena got called for one in 2009.

I'm not sure I have the right video, but this wasn't a normal foot fault, but a kind of odd/obscure rule that is often ignored.
Not sure what you mean. The video showed her stepping on the line before hitting the ball and that's a foot fault.
  #20  
Old 04-12-2019, 07:43 PM
Busy Scissors is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Euston Tavern
Posts: 2,816
Foul throws in football are rarely called in football at the top level, although you'll see players doing them every weekend in the prem. There's no real advantage, though, in making a foul throw over a correct throw - it's not like it goes further, or you can do it quicker.
But you will see foul throws penalised all the time in amateur football, or kid's football. Guarantee I will see 1 or 2 called in my lad's game tomorrow, for example. This seems right, as kids should be taught the correct rules of the game, but it's sort of undermined by the most influential and visible pro football matches ignoring it.

Clearly when the rules of the game were laid down, a formulation for the return of the ball to play was required. ie you can't just pick it up and hurl it in one handed like a discus. So it'd not like some sillly extraneous rule like the 'no fraternising in baseball' example above, that you could legit just forget about - it's fundamental. But it is systematically ignored by the officials.

Last edited by Busy Scissors; 04-12-2019 at 07:44 PM.
  #21  
Old 04-12-2019, 08:00 PM
Mr Shine's Avatar
Mr Shine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Scissors View Post
Foul throws in football are rarely called in football at the top level, although you'll see players doing them every weekend in the prem. There's no real advantage, though, in making a foul throw over a correct throw - it's not like it goes further, or you can do it quicker.
But you will see foul throws penalised all the time in amateur football, or kid's football. Guarantee I will see 1 or 2 called in my lad's game tomorrow, for example. This seems right, as kids should be taught the correct rules of the game, but it's sort of undermined by the most influential and visible pro football matches ignoring it.

Clearly when the rules of the game were laid down, a formulation for the return of the ball to play was required. ie you can't just pick it up and hurl it in one handed like a discus. So it'd not like some sillly extraneous rule like the 'no fraternising in baseball' example above, that you could legit just forget about - it's fundamental. But it is systematically ignored by the officials.
Why would you need a rule about how to throw it beyond "stand outside the touchline, arm power only"? Not arguing, just curious.
  #22  
Old 04-12-2019, 08:33 PM
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Surely you are not suggesting the strike zone be removed from the rulebook?
I think the request is for the opposite - for the strike zone to be called as specified in the rules, as opposed to different umpires having their own interpretations (hence "my strike zone").
  #23  
Old 04-12-2019, 08:51 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Scissors View Post
Foul throws in football are rarely called in football at the top level, although you'll see players doing them every weekend in the prem. There's no real advantage, though, in making a foul throw over a correct throw - it's not like it goes further, or you can do it quicker.
But you will see foul throws penalised all the time in amateur football, or kid's football. Guarantee I will see 1 or 2 called in my lad's game tomorrow, for example. This seems right, as kids should be taught the correct rules of the game, but it's sort of undermined by the most influential and visible pro football matches ignoring it.
In high school they certainly got on our case if we threw it in incorrectly. Two hands, over the head, etc. Honestly the correct throw seems like the most controlled way to throw anyway so I donít think it ever occurred to me to throw it any other way.
  #24  
Old 04-12-2019, 08:51 PM
Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 29,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by K364 View Post
Not sure what you mean. The video showed her stepping on the line before hitting the ball and that's a foot fault.
I can't find the right video, then. I've seen an odd foot fault that is really different and it is almost never called. I remember John McEnroe saying he was not aware of the rule.
  #25  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:58 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Scissors View Post
Foul throws in football are rarely called in football at the top level, although you'll see players doing them every weekend in the prem. There's no real advantage, though, in making a foul throw over a correct throw - it's not like it goes further, or you can do it quicker.
But you will see foul throws penalised all the time in amateur football, or kid's football. Guarantee I will see 1 or 2 called in my lad's game tomorrow, for example. This seems right, as kids should be taught the correct rules of the game, but it's sort of undermined by the most influential and visible pro football matches ignoring it.

Clearly when the rules of the game were laid down, a formulation for the return of the ball to play was required. ie you can't just pick it up and hurl it in one handed like a discus. So it'd not like some sillly extraneous rule like the 'no fraternising in baseball' example above, that you could legit just forget about - it's fundamental. But it is systematically ignored by the officials.
Well, keep in mind that the 2016-17 Laws changed what is considered a foul throw. So you probably aren't seeing foul throws as often as you think in the Premier League. The new wording limits the consideration of when both feet must be in contact with the ground to the moment the ball is delivered. So the old interpretation, that you had to keep both feet down all the way through the throwing motion, is no longer applicable. For this reason, you don't see much toe-dragging in the Premier League any more. You can lift the back foot once you've released the ball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Shine View Post
Why would you need a rule about how to throw it beyond "stand outside the touchline, arm power only"? Not arguing, just curious.
Law 15 requires that, at the moment the ball is delivered, you be standing facing the field, with both feet in contact with the ground. The throw must be done with both hands, and must start from behind the head and go over the head. This precludes the following things from being done:

1) Throwing the ball one-handed, which could propel the ball a goodly distance down or across the field;

2) Throwing the ball in a way which can easily be confused with simply tossing the ball to another player arriving to make the throw;

3) Throwing the ball onto the pitch in a way that confuses the players as to whether or not you've actually intended to re-start the play.

As a result, the area of play for the throw in is usually limited to ten or twenty yards from where the ball went out of play, and all players will recognize when the ball has been returned to play because of the unique motion used. Some players specialize in launching a throw in a goodly distance, which can result in the ball being delivered to the area in front of the goal, but that's not the norm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
In high school they certainly got on our case if we threw it in incorrectly. Two hands, over the head, etc. Honestly the correct throw seems like the most controlled way to throw anyway so I donít think it ever occurred to me to throw it any other way.
As a referee for youth play, even at the U-19 level, I would often see players forget what they were doing and simply chuck the ball into play in much the way a basketball player passes the ball. You blow the whistle, stopping play, and just look at them like, "really?"
  #26  
Old 04-13-2019, 11:08 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,045
Law 42.8 in Cricket, Intimidatory Bowling at the highest level is never called, even if the bowler is trying to hurt the batter.
The general consensus is that a batsman should deal with it.
Unless they are English of course.
  #27  
Old 04-13-2019, 11:13 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 11,906
Does soccer have a rule against faking being hurt?
  #28  
Old 04-13-2019, 12:24 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Does soccer have a rule against faking being hurt?
Simulation. Itís a yellow card offence.
The recent introduction of VAR has shown lots of the dives were... not dives.
  #29  
Old 04-13-2019, 01:16 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Does soccer have a rule against faking being hurt?
Simulation. Itís a yellow card offence.
The recent introduction of VAR has shown lots of the dives were... not dives.
  #30  
Old 04-13-2019, 01:37 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
I'm not a sports guy. But it seems to me NFL refs don't call intentional grounding anymore.

Is that still a thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
They still do, but generally only when it's really blatant.
They are very quick to call it. I see it called all the time. Itís just that by the rule it is allowed at times.
  #31  
Old 04-13-2019, 02:39 PM
D_Odds is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
They are very quick to call it. I see it called all the time. Itís just that by the rule it is allowed at times.
Agreed. I've watched my home-team QB get called on it far far too often. A few things (but not all-inclusive) that make a purposely bad pass not intentional grounding:

1) Pass is near a receiver: A QB can throw at a receiver's feet, or out of his reach and out of bounds, as long as it is near a qualified receiver. So a QB can throw at a blocking RB's or TE's feet.

2) QB is outside of the offensive line tackles (an imaginary line based on where they lined up) and the pass crosses the line of scrimmage. This pass doesn't need to be near anyone or anything.

I'm sure I'm missing something else and others who follow much more closely will point out my omissions and mistakes.
__________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected
  #32  
Old 04-13-2019, 03:38 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Odds View Post
Agreed. I've watched my home-team QB get called on it far far too often. A few things (but not all-inclusive) that make a purposely bad pass not intentional grounding:

1) Pass is near a receiver: A QB can throw at a receiver's feet, or out of his reach and out of bounds, as long as it is near a qualified receiver. So a QB can throw at a blocking RB's or TE's feet.

2) QB is outside of the offensive line tackles (an imaginary line based on where they lined up) and the pass crosses the line of scrimmage. This pass doesn't need to be near anyone or anything.

I'm sure I'm missing something else and others who follow much more closely will point out my omissions and mistakes.
Itís also ok if there is no imminent pressure. That covers the spike to stop the clock. The QB can also step back, see no one is open, and throw it out of bounds. That most often happens when there are a few seconds left and they are trying to squeeze in another play. The QB can throw away a pass without penalty as long as itís not to get away from a sack.
  #33  
Old 04-13-2019, 05:02 PM
D_Odds is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Itís also ok if there is no imminent pressure. That covers the spike to stop the clock. The QB can also step back, see no one is open, and throw it out of bounds. That most often happens when there are a few seconds left and they are trying to squeeze in another play. The QB can throw away a pass without penalty as long as itís not to get away from a sack.
I looked it up because I was unsure about the second. You're right; it's when a QB is facing an imminent loss of yardage. As for the spike Rule 8 Section 2 Item 3:
Quote:
Stopping Clock. A player under center is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if, immediately upon receiving the snap, he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly into the ground.
The spike is specifically covered, probably because the proximity of defensive players could be considered imminent danger of loss of yardage.
__________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected
  #34  
Old 04-13-2019, 05:42 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,958
did baseball clean up the "area play" on double plays? for those that don't know they would let the out at 2nd base count as an out even if the infielder never stepped on the base.
  #35  
Old 04-13-2019, 05:50 PM
jaycat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
did baseball clean up the "area play" on double plays? for those that don't know they would let the out at 2nd base count as an out even if the infielder never stepped on the base.
Replay challenges have relegated the "area play" to the dustbin of history.
  #36  
Old 04-13-2019, 08:03 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Odds View Post
I looked it up because I was unsure about the second. You're right; it's when a QB is facing an imminent loss of yardage. As for the spike Rule 8 Section 2 Item 3: The spike is specifically covered, probably because the proximity of defensive players could be considered imminent danger of loss of yardage.
Fair enough. I didnít look it up tried to do it from memory.
  #37  
Old 04-17-2019, 08:01 AM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Surely you are not suggesting the strike zone be removed from the rulebook?
Either all umpires should enforce the zone as written in the book, or, if the zone in the book is not practical, the book should be modified to something all umpires can agree on and consistently enforce.
  #38  
Old 04-17-2019, 08:29 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
Either all umpires should enforce the zone as written in the book, or, if the zone in the book is not practical, the book should be modified to something all umpires can agree on and consistently enforce.
Or remove the umpire from the equation now that technology is better at calling strikes and balls anyway. Let them make the other judgements at the plate.
  #39  
Old 04-17-2019, 09:53 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
Either all umpires should enforce the zone as written in the book, or, if the zone in the book is not practical, the book should be modified to something all umpires can agree on and consistently enforce.
The difference between umpires isn't a matter of differing opinion on what the strike zone should be, it's just that humans cannot consistently do what umps are being asked to do. It doesn't matter how you define it, you'll always have problems with umps in this regard. The only real solution is to use technology to call balls and strikes.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #40  
Old 04-17-2019, 12:47 PM
Uncle Jocko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: THE Eastern IA Metropolis
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The difference between umpires isn't a matter of differing opinion on what the strike zone should be, it's just that humans cannot consistently do what umps are being asked to do. It doesn't matter how you define it, you'll always have problems with umps in this regard. The only real solution is to use technology to call balls and strikes.
Iíve been umpiring youth baseball for about 10 years. People who complain about differing strike zones from different umpires should give it a try themselves before they whine about the umps too much.

People arenít robots, and even with the most highly trained professional umpires in the world, theyíre going to develop their own ďstrike zoneĒ over years of working that may not technically exactly match the rule book. Or, if youíre Eric Gregg, you call pitches two feet outside strikes, that can happen, too.

Umpires are ridiculously good at what they do, considering the challenges of deciding whether a ball traveling at 97 miles an hour darting left-to-right and breaking sharply downward clipped the black of the plate or not. If you want to use technology to get balls and strikes exactly right in the majors, I can see that, but umpires are always going to be around in lower professional levels and in amateur baseball. Personally, Iím okay with a bit of ďhuman factorĒ variation in sports officiating ... players and coaches have the freedom to screw up and misexecute here and there, Iím not sure why we hold officials to a higher level of perfection. As long as itís not egregiously Gregg-level bad, I mean.
  #41  
Old 04-17-2019, 01:31 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jocko View Post
I’ve been umpiring youth baseball for about 10 years. People who complain about differing strike zones from different umpires should give it a try themselves before they whine about the umps too much.
In fact I have umpired myself. So I know what I'm talking about. Humans cannot calls balls and strikes with perfect consistency. I was pointing out fact, not whining - in fact if you actually read my post, you will note I said nary a word of complaint about the people who ump. I was making the absolutely undeniable point that they are being asked to do a job a human can't actually do anywhere close to perfectly.

Quote:
Personally, I’m okay with a bit of “human factor” variation in sports officiating ... players and coaches have the freedom to screw up and mis-execute here and there, I’m not sure why we hold officials to a higher level of perfection.
We hold them to a higher standard because sports aren't about the officials. If Steve the Shortstop makes an error, that is an intrinsic part of baseball. Baseball is a contest of physical skill; avoiding and making physical errors in the execution of a sport is a fundamental part of what a sport is. Steve's error detracts from his team's chances of winning, but it is not a detraction from the sport; every success is a failure for the other side, every failure a success for the other side. Player successes and failures always even out, and the total balance determines the winners and the losers. Officiating mistakes detract from the sport as a whole. They impose failures upon players that the players did not deserve, that are outside their skills and performance as athletes.

A sport is NOT a contest of officiating skill. The umpire is not a player and has no side in the game. You can play baseball with no umpires at all, if you like. That's how my friends and I played when we were kids. You cannot play baseball without players.

There are hundreds of sports where human judgment has been replaced with machines. Imagine if the Olympics decided "to hell with electronic timekeeping, let's have guys with stopwatches just eyeball who won the 100m race, like it was in the olden days." Nobody wants that because the race is about the racers, not the officials.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 04-17-2019 at 01:32 PM.
  #42  
Old 04-17-2019, 01:44 PM
Just Asking Questions is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,737
Rule 4.05(b) Base coaches shall be limited to two in number and shall (1) be in team uniform, and (2) remain within the coach’s box at all times.

Do they EVER stand in the coach's box?

Last edited by Just Asking Questions; 04-17-2019 at 01:44 PM.
  #43  
Old 04-17-2019, 02:08 PM
Boozahol Squid, P.I. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There are hundreds of sports where human judgment has been replaced with machines. Imagine if the Olympics decided "to hell with electronic timekeeping, let's have guys with stopwatches just eyeball who won the 100m race, like it was in the olden days." Nobody wants that because the race is about the racers, not the officials.
There's a big difference between a race and a baseball game. In a baseball game, whether I'm playing or watching, I want immediate feedback on whether the pitch was a ball or a strike. In the 100m, if there's a photo finish, you can wait while seventeen different video angles are analyzed to see whose nostril hairs snuck across the line first*.

Is there going to be no audio feedback for the hitter at the plate? Does the home plate umpire on-looker wait for the computer to put the result of each pitch on some board that's not distracting the hitter's line of sight, and then call it out?

I'd rather that they either fix the rules to match the called upper bounds of the strike zone which should be mid-chest, per the rules, and not the belly button, which is what is actually called.

*Always bet on Italy in the Olympics
  #44  
Old 04-17-2019, 02:15 PM
pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 46,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I. View Post
There's a big difference between a race and a baseball game. In a baseball game, whether I'm playing or watching, I want immediate feedback on whether the pitch was a ball or a strike. In the 100m, if there's a photo finish, you can wait while seventeen different video angles are analyzed to see whose nostril hairs snuck across the line first*.

Is there going to be no audio feedback for the hitter at the plate? Does the home plate umpire on-looker wait for the computer to put the result of each pitch on some board that's not distracting the hitter's line of sight, and then call it out?

I'd rather that they either fix the rules to match the called upper bounds of the strike zone which should be mid-chest, per the rules, and not the belly button, which is what is actually called.

*Always bet on Italy in the Olympics
I don't see any reason why the computerized system wouldn't be able to give you immediate audio feedback if that's the way they wanted to do it. Right now, the way they're doing (or will be doing it starting Apr 25 in the Independent Atlantic League) is that the umpire wears an earpiece where the system tells whether it's a ball or strike. The umpire will be able to override a call, and the system doesn't judge checked swings.

I'm all for it, provided that it works well, of course. We'll see how it works out in that minor league.

Last edited by pulykamell; 04-17-2019 at 02:16 PM.
  #45  
Old 04-17-2019, 03:05 PM
Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 7,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth View Post
I can't find the right video, then. I've seen an odd foot fault that is really different and it is almost never called. I remember John McEnroe saying he was not aware of the rule.
I think what you might be looking for is a foot fault of the center line. This is rarely called because it's an invisible extension of the centerline (and if a ref called one of these at match point I think it would be a legitimate for the server to protest, loudly). It's hard to believe McEnroe wouldn't be aware of this rule, that you have to be on the correct side of the court as well as behind the service line, but it's perfectly understandable if he's never seen it called, either when he was a player or when he was a commentator.
  #46  
Old 04-17-2019, 03:14 PM
Boozahol Squid, P.I. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
I don't see any reason why the computerized system wouldn't be able to give you immediate audio feedback if that's the way they wanted to do it. Right now, the way they're doing (or will be doing it starting Apr 25 in the Independent Atlantic League) is that the umpire wears an earpiece where the system tells whether it's a ball or strike. The umpire will be able to override a call, and the system doesn't judge checked swings.

I'm all for it, provided that it works well, of course. We'll see how it works out in that minor league.
I foresee delays because there are delays in the return on television broadcasts. Usually the pitcher already has the ball back and is taking signals from the catcher by the time the networks can replay the feed. Adding a couple seconds onto each pitch is exactly the opposite of the way baseball is going, and should be going. I'd much rather deal with normal human error and very slightly different strike zones by individual umps than stretch each game out by an extra 20 minutes while the umpire waits for the robots to suggest whether a ball was a strike or ball, and for him to decide whether he agrees with it or not.
  #47  
Old 04-17-2019, 03:21 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
Fraternization is a good one for baseball.

Another one, perhaps a bit more controversial, is 5.05(b)(2)(B) which requires that a batter make an attempt to avoid a pitch for it to be considered a hit-by-pitch. I think I've only seen it called once or twice (out of thousands of games watched), and I'm not sure it's a useful rule anymore. So just cut it, IMO. If we get a bunch of Fernando Vinas or other HBP experts sticking out elbows then maybe we can bring it back, but I tend to think that removing allowed body armor gives HBP experts there own consequences to worry about (especially when it seems like everybody throws 98 MPH now).
That's the only reason Don Drysdale got his scoreless innings record. He hit Giants batter Dick Dietz and the umps decided suddenly to enforce that rule which prevented a run from scoring with the bases loaded. It was rigged.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...z30-story.html
  #48  
Old 04-17-2019, 04:14 PM
pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 46,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I. View Post
I foresee delays because there are delays in the return on television broadcasts. Usually the pitcher already has the ball back and is taking signals from the catcher by the time the networks can replay the feed. Adding a couple seconds onto each pitch is exactly the opposite of the way baseball is going, and should be going. I'd much rather deal with normal human error and very slightly different strike zones by individual umps than stretch each game out by an extra 20 minutes while the umpire waits for the robots to suggest whether a ball was a strike or ball, and for him to decide whether he agrees with it or not.
Looks pretty instantaneous here. This doesn't seem like something that would take seconds or even tenths of seconds of processing time. From watching that video, I see the ball location pop up as the catcher closes his mitt (literally--nudging the video frame-by-frame in the next close-up example the location is marked on the first frame the catcher has his mitt closed.)

Last edited by pulykamell; 04-17-2019 at 04:18 PM.
  #49  
Old 04-17-2019, 11:12 PM
Uncle Jocko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: THE Eastern IA Metropolis
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
In fact I have umpired myself. So I know what I'm talking about. Humans cannot calls balls and strikes with perfect consistency. I was pointing out fact, not whining - in fact if you actually read my post, you will note I said nary a word of complaint about the people who ump. I was making the absolutely undeniable point that they are being asked to do a job a human can't actually do anywhere close to perfectly.
To be honest, RickJay, while I quoted your post I didn’t mean to call you out for criticizing umpires ... my intention was to point to the opinions reflected in Brother Cadfael’s original post, not your response to him. I always appreciate your insights in baseball, and I apologize if you thought my post was directed at you.

I agree that officials are asked to do the nearly impossible, and technology and video review is exacerbating that pressure. Frankly, though, I’m still okay with a little bit of the “human element” coming into play with officiating, especially when the encroachment of technology starts to have an adverse effect on the enjoyment of watching a game (video reviews can really mess with the pace and the viewing experience of football and, increasingly, baseball). We should strive for perfection, but we need to remember we will never always get it perfect. I’m coming around to the notion of electronic ball/strike calls, I think I can live with that. But technology will never be able to completely replace human officials.

Last edited by Uncle Jocko; 04-17-2019 at 11:16 PM.
  #50  
Old 04-18-2019, 05:38 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jocko View Post
Frankly, though, Iím still okay with a little bit of the ďhuman elementĒ coming into play with officiating, especially when the encroachment of technology starts to have an adverse effect on the enjoyment of watching a game (video reviews can really mess with the pace and the viewing experience of football and, increasingly, baseball).
I was going to call you out on the "human element" by reiterating RickJay's point about the game not being about the officials.... but I won't. I actually agree with you.

Video replay, particularly slow motion, has made it so that officials can "zapruder" the play to find the smallest scrap of technically correct information to support a call that would never have been made in the 100+ year history of the sport. Sports are entertainment, what's entertaining about that?

It's not that it's OK to have wrong calls, but calls that are made by humans should only be held to the standard that they should appear correct when viewed with the unaided eye.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017