Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 56 anonymousDiscussion: pitcher protection rule new definition
| Posted | Discussion |
| July 29, 2009 curty Men's 60 187 posts | pitcher protection rule new definition recently played with this rule called as follows: ANY batted ball hit through the pitching box, defined as the area from the pitching rubber straight back, was called as a dead ball out. Umpires discretion was limited to lack of force, i.e. 2 hopper, etc.This was explained during ground rules. Most discussion centered on contact with the pitchers body, but all the umps agreed to call EVERY ball hit thru the box as a dead ball out. While this may not be the answer, at least it was called consistently and players knew what to expect. |
| July 29, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | The last sentence pretty much says it all, ...it was called consistently.... |
| July 29, 2009 TommyMass 24 posts | If the player protection rule is here to stay I would like to see a fifth infielder added to play, say, ten feet either side of second base. I think this would stop batters from intentionally going up the middle. Now, let's be really contraversial. Since home runs seem to so important why not get rid of the high performance equqipment and move the fences IN to 275 feet. Then there would still be plenty of home runs, but far less need of a player protection rule. Players hitting home runs at 50 who never hit them at 30?!.....Guys you're not hitting the ball over the fence the equipment is. |
| July 29, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | TM, I believe it states 11th player, Not having to be in a set position or place, dictated, I like the moveable rover for that, or a 5th out fielder as it were. It's our game to place the players were we want them. If we choose to put them all in left field so be it. If I remember correctly the pitcher and catcher are the only required positions. Hell, place them all in a V shape around the pitcher and outwards. lol My main concern for M+ or any other div effected I feel is getting screwed, is as they age, they get less HR's. It's really opposite of where it should be. imho. At least it would give us something to look forward to, rather than on what was. In which, too much has been coming about lately. |
| July 29, 2009 stick8 1991 posts | I say get rid of the damn rule. |
| July 29, 2009 GT Men's 60 162 posts | First, I agree with stick8. Second, and someone tell me this is wrong thinking, but if you put another fielder in the outfield, instead of around second base, aren't you inviting more people to go middle? Just a thought. I am not in favor of the 5th infielder, its the ppr that is ruining our game. Just my 2 cents. GT |
| July 29, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | GT I don't think it really was thought about until the damn rule came into play. As for going middle there will always be those who do, rule or no rule. That is where I go. I just hope for over him. Other than that, here is a penny for change. |
| July 29, 2009 fitter45 16 posts | Curty, Was there a height that was ok to go through the box? This lane should never go completely away. Has anyone ever asked for all the pitchers to actually vote? Why not start a string of pitchers state your team and vote. The last time I checked we still live in a democracy. |
| July 29, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Height is not mentioned only the width and length 2x6...and actually striking the pitcher... But did some have very many different interpretations of the rule change it right or wrong, for better or worse. I pitch, would prefer the rule gone or improved to do what it should have be doing, PROTECTING, not an after thought. Perhaps poorly written, or worded, thought out or whatever. Just get rid of it of fix it. Protection is not an after the event assurance. You buy auto or health insurance before you get into an accident or sick, not after it happened. This is a facade, or false masking, for other reasons incase something does happen. A legalistic rule set in place a rule to protect the pitchers. which we know does not. |
| July 30, 2009 curty Men's 60 187 posts | the pitcher determined the height-- clearly over the head was o.k. The ball did not have to hit the pitcher, and the pitcher didn't have to be in the box for the call to be made.I spoke to some of the older guys (70, 68) and they liked the idea of uniformity for the call and also saw a ball go through a pitchers legs at very high speed that was called dbo.I believe it served as somewhat of a deterrent because guys were concerned with "just missing" and being called out. |
| July 30, 2009 4Four4 Men's 60 87 posts | Curty- your pitcher Harvey is the antidote to the PPR rule. He should run a clinic. The way he plays "D" he wants you to hit towards him and he'll get you out if you do. He pitches from deep behind the rubber. He mixes his pitches. He let's the middle infielders play more towards their holes and he covers 2nd & 1st. We had a great time playing with you guys - fun venue. Your Baystate Bombers are all class acts and very good players. DH #4 The Tub |
| July 30, 2009 Gary Heifner 248 posts | In the last two tournies, the rule was defined as if you touched the ball with the glove it was not called an out. 2 Liners were hit at our pitchers with such velocity they only had a milla second to throw the gloved hand toward the ball in self defense which tipped the glove and hit them in the body causing brusing and pain. Quite frankly, I can't seem to understand this rule even though it has been discussed for many months. A rule should be a rule and not left open to change by whoever is the tourney director. If it can't be defined clearly to all, drop it! |
| July 31, 2009 curty Men's 60 187 posts | Gary, we were told that any ball hit thru the box was going to be called dbo,: caught, deflected,missed completely, or hit the pitcher or not. This may seem extreme but at least there was no question and NO COMPLAINTS! 4's- pole dancing competition was very close, but you guys lost to the home town team as judged by tips! Great team and guys and the final score reflected the parity. |
