This folder will be reserved for anything related to section 1.00 of Official Baseball Rules. Section 1.00 focuses primarily on the field & equipment. I don't expect many topics on this, but it's got its own folder nonetheless.
Post away!
Full Version: PLAYERS, FIELD & EQUIPMENT (1.00)
Hi Ump,
This folder looked 'neglected'
so I thought I'd be the first to ask a question, which I think fits the category of Players, Field and Equipment.
Although most teams have their players' names displayed on the back of their uniforms, I've noticed that at least two teams, namely the Yankees and Red Sox, don't seem to follow this practice. So presumably there is no league rule about this? Personally, I find it odd that a team would choose not to have their players' names shown on the uniforms. Having the names displayed would promote fan identification with the players, especially for those like me who can't memorize numbers. And I should think it would even benefit game officials when they are trying to get a certain player's attention...do they just yell out the guy's number, or are they expected to know every player's name?
Are there any other teams besides the two named above who don't display players' names?
This folder looked 'neglected'
so I thought I'd be the first to ask a question, which I think fits the category of Players, Field and Equipment. Although most teams have their players' names displayed on the back of their uniforms, I've noticed that at least two teams, namely the Yankees and Red Sox, don't seem to follow this practice. So presumably there is no league rule about this? Personally, I find it odd that a team would choose not to have their players' names shown on the uniforms. Having the names displayed would promote fan identification with the players, especially for those like me who can't memorize numbers. And I should think it would even benefit game officials when they are trying to get a certain player's attention...do they just yell out the guy's number, or are they expected to know every player's name?
Are there any other teams besides the two named above who don't display players' names?
Hi, Marc:
Umpires and players are on a first name basis in professional baseball, both in the Minors and Majors. We do not address each other by "Blue," "Ump," or any other impersonal moniker. We all have names we were given at birth; we use them. The same applies with our communications with managers and coaches and team personnel.
As to why a certain team may choose to not have its players' names on the uniforms, I don't know. Truthfully, that's beyond my purview a bit. I've never really given it much thought, to be honest with you. However, I do agree with you that it'd be nice to have all players' names on the back of their uniform jerseys. Not everyone knows who's who.
[ May 24, 2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: The Umpire ]
Umpires and players are on a first name basis in professional baseball, both in the Minors and Majors. We do not address each other by "Blue," "Ump," or any other impersonal moniker. We all have names we were given at birth; we use them. The same applies with our communications with managers and coaches and team personnel.
As to why a certain team may choose to not have its players' names on the uniforms, I don't know. Truthfully, that's beyond my purview a bit. I've never really given it much thought, to be honest with you. However, I do agree with you that it'd be nice to have all players' names on the back of their uniform jerseys. Not everyone knows who's who.
[ May 24, 2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: The Umpire ]
QUOTE
We do not address each other by "Blue," "Ump," or any other impersonal moniker. We all have names we were given at birth; we use them.
What?! You mean your given name really isn't Ump? wink
Well, we DO prefer "My Lord." wink
My question follows the Sosa corked bat incident.
I would like to know how common is it for umpires to check baseball bats. Is it routine to look at broken bats on the field; something umps are told to check? Or Sosa was unlucky an umpire looked at it?
I would like to know how common is it for umpires to check baseball bats. Is it routine to look at broken bats on the field; something umps are told to check? Or Sosa was unlucky an umpire looked at it?
Zeno,
We may take a glance at a broken bat that's lying close enough for us to see it. It's fairly simple to look at it, and it's also easy to see if something's out of the ordinary. Many times, including in Sosa's situation, someone on the defense will bring it to our attention.
In Tuesday's Cubs game, the Devil Rays catcher pointed it out to Tim McClelland. The same thing happened in August 1983 in the infamous pine tar game. Yankees Manager Billy Martin at that time waited until Brett completed his at-bat (probably to see what he did in his at-bat). When Brett did not make an out--he homered--Martin went to McClelland claiming Brett had too much pine tar on it. The rest, as they say, was history.
Umpires can act unilaterally when dealing with illegal or altered bats. Because the penalty for an illegal bat is really nothing--the bat is simply tossed out of the game and nothing else--we have fewer problems acting on that as opposed to acting on altered bats, where the penalty is far more severe.
BTW, a batter can be penalized once he steps into the batter's box with such a bat. He need not have to actually hit the ball or complete his at-bat.
We may take a glance at a broken bat that's lying close enough for us to see it. It's fairly simple to look at it, and it's also easy to see if something's out of the ordinary. Many times, including in Sosa's situation, someone on the defense will bring it to our attention.
In Tuesday's Cubs game, the Devil Rays catcher pointed it out to Tim McClelland. The same thing happened in August 1983 in the infamous pine tar game. Yankees Manager Billy Martin at that time waited until Brett completed his at-bat (probably to see what he did in his at-bat). When Brett did not make an out--he homered--Martin went to McClelland claiming Brett had too much pine tar on it. The rest, as they say, was history.
Umpires can act unilaterally when dealing with illegal or altered bats. Because the penalty for an illegal bat is really nothing--the bat is simply tossed out of the game and nothing else--we have fewer problems acting on that as opposed to acting on altered bats, where the penalty is far more severe.
BTW, a batter can be penalized once he steps into the batter's box with such a bat. He need not have to actually hit the ball or complete his at-bat.
QUOTE
The Umpire:
Umpires can act unilaterally when dealing with illegal or altered bats. Because the penalty for an illegal bat is really nothing--the bat is simply tossed out of the game and nothing else--we have fewer problems acting on that as opposed to acting on altered bats, where the penalty is far more severe.
What constitutes a merely "illegal" bat as compared to an altered bat, such as Sosa's? Is the pine tar situation an example of a bat just being illegal?
Umpires can act unilaterally when dealing with illegal or altered bats. Because the penalty for an illegal bat is really nothing--the bat is simply tossed out of the game and nothing else--we have fewer problems acting on that as opposed to acting on altered bats, where the penalty is far more severe.
Joe, I was going to ask the same question about the distinction between 'altered' and 'illegal' bats, but you beat me to it
The Umpire wrote:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/..._mcclelland_ap/
[ June 05, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Marc ]
The Umpire wrote:
QUOTE
In Tuesday's Cubs game, the Devil Rays catcher pointed it out to Tim McClelland. The same thing happened in August 1983 in the infamous pine tar game
While watching the Blue Jays vs Cardinals game a couple nights ago, the announcer pointed out the odd coincidence that umpire Tim McClelland was present during the George Brett incident mentioned above by Ump, but also one involving Albert Belle in 1994. I liked McClelland's comment, 'strange bats follow me around' (hopefully none of the vampire species )http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/..._mcclelland_ap/
[ June 05, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Marc ]
Joe,
I'm so glad you asked.
First, I must give a bit of history...
Prior to the infamous pine tar game in August 1983, the rules were quite different from what they are now. Back then, a bat with too much pine tar was considered an illegal bat, and using an illegal bat was considered an "illegally batted ball." Batter was declared out and ejected.
In sum, here's how the pine tar situation was ruled:
1.) If a bat had too much pine tar, it was illegal.
2.) Using an illegal bat was called an "illegally batted ball."
3.) Hitting an illegally batted ball resulted in the batter being declared out and ejected; the ball was dead; and runners returned to time of pitch bases, except that any other outs made on the play stood.
Pursuant to the above rules, the umpires had an easy decision: George Brett was to be declared out and ejected, etc. However, then American League President Lee MacPhail upheld the Royals' protest and let Brett's home run stand. MacPhail admitted the umpires were technically correct, but that they violated the "spirit of the rules." I'm not going to get into the discussion here about MacPhail's decision. Instead, I'll address the question you two posed above.
Following the pine tar incident and MacPhail decision, the rules were substantially changed.
An illegal bat is one that does not conform to the requirements of Rule 1.10. Essentially, an illegal bat is one that is not manufactured according to the proper specifications. In other words, it wasn't made correctly, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For example: It's too wide, too long, its cup is too deep, etc. Also, Rule 1.10©, a subsection of the main rule, now specifically and separately addresses the pine tar issue by referencing a bat that has too much gripping substance beyond its 18" legal limit.
An altered bat is an entirely different animal. This is a bat that has been tampered with in order to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual reaction with the baseball. This is covered under Rule 6.06(d). Such bats include ones that are corked, coated with paraffin, grooved, nailed, etc.
Because this is considered cheating, something a bit more direct, its penalty is more severe: The batter is declared out and ejected; the ball is dead; and runners return to time of pitch bases, except any other outs made on the bases shall stand.
Interestingly, hitting an "illegally batted ball" now refers to a batter making contact with a ball--fair, foul, or foul tip--with one or both feet completely outside the batter's box. It no longer refers to the condition of the bat.
In sum...
Illegal bat = A manufacturer or design flaw; doesn't meet proper specs.
Altered bat = A bat that has been tampered with
The former is just tossed out of the game; the latter has severe penalties.
Hope this helps.
I'm so glad you asked.
First, I must give a bit of history...
Prior to the infamous pine tar game in August 1983, the rules were quite different from what they are now. Back then, a bat with too much pine tar was considered an illegal bat, and using an illegal bat was considered an "illegally batted ball." Batter was declared out and ejected.
In sum, here's how the pine tar situation was ruled:
1.) If a bat had too much pine tar, it was illegal.
2.) Using an illegal bat was called an "illegally batted ball."
3.) Hitting an illegally batted ball resulted in the batter being declared out and ejected; the ball was dead; and runners returned to time of pitch bases, except that any other outs made on the play stood.
Pursuant to the above rules, the umpires had an easy decision: George Brett was to be declared out and ejected, etc. However, then American League President Lee MacPhail upheld the Royals' protest and let Brett's home run stand. MacPhail admitted the umpires were technically correct, but that they violated the "spirit of the rules." I'm not going to get into the discussion here about MacPhail's decision. Instead, I'll address the question you two posed above.
Following the pine tar incident and MacPhail decision, the rules were substantially changed.
An illegal bat is one that does not conform to the requirements of Rule 1.10. Essentially, an illegal bat is one that is not manufactured according to the proper specifications. In other words, it wasn't made correctly, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For example: It's too wide, too long, its cup is too deep, etc. Also, Rule 1.10©, a subsection of the main rule, now specifically and separately addresses the pine tar issue by referencing a bat that has too much gripping substance beyond its 18" legal limit.
An altered bat is an entirely different animal. This is a bat that has been tampered with in order to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual reaction with the baseball. This is covered under Rule 6.06(d). Such bats include ones that are corked, coated with paraffin, grooved, nailed, etc.
Because this is considered cheating, something a bit more direct, its penalty is more severe: The batter is declared out and ejected; the ball is dead; and runners return to time of pitch bases, except any other outs made on the bases shall stand.
Interestingly, hitting an "illegally batted ball" now refers to a batter making contact with a ball--fair, foul, or foul tip--with one or both feet completely outside the batter's box. It no longer refers to the condition of the bat.
In sum...
Illegal bat = A manufacturer or design flaw; doesn't meet proper specs.
Altered bat = A bat that has been tampered with
The former is just tossed out of the game; the latter has severe penalties.
Hope this helps.
ump to the rescue again! but one more question on the whole sordid sosa altered bat episode. at what point does an altered bat become an actual rules infraction? stupidity aside, is it illegal to have a bunch of corked bats (or scuffed baseballs) lying around the dugout? or does this altered equipment have to enter the field of play before an actual infraction has been committed?
Thersis,
The batter is subject to being penalized for an altered bat once he enters the batter's box with it. He need not make contact with the ball.
The batter is subject to being penalized for an altered bat once he enters the batter's box with it. He need not make contact with the ball.
Mr. The Umpire,
I'm grateful for your answer to my original question and the ones that followed.
Thank you kindly.
I'm grateful for your answer to my original question and the ones that followed.
Thank you kindly.
You're quite welcome, Zeno. It's my pleasure.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.