Cameras vs Umpires -Consistency & Accuracy

I don't expect you to understand Stats. I like the Human Factor. I like the fact it's not perfect. I like the fact there can be discussion about calls. I enjoy the way it is. I would love to see IR go away. PERIOD.

I know you don't understand that. I don't expect you to understand that. I am perfectly fine with you not understanding that. I can live with the fact people don't agree with me. In fact I have found one of the best ways to know I am on to something is to find myself on the opposite side of an argument with the right people.

I have also hit my 8 hole hitter in the 3 hole. Bunted my 4 hole hitter. Thrown my #4 in a huge match up. Sat my starters simply because I wanted them to see what it was like to sit. As you can see I am not a stat guy. I am a feel guy. I am a gut guy. I am an Old School Guy. I like living like that. I don't watch sports to see perfection. I watch sports to see imperfect people strive for perfection. Including the umpires.

Now I have had my say. You will not change my perspective. I will not change yours. So please direct future posts on this topic to someone else. I have to move on and strive to make this a perfect day. The stats say there's a 99.99 chance I will fail. I am hanging on to that 00.01 with a death grip. The sooner I log off this thread the better those odds are.

Of course there is always drama when Stats joins a topic, as he has a genuine talent for p!ssing everyone off with his methods. I try to resist engaging or responding directly to anything he says.

Like it or not, this question of whether or not some sort of computerized strike zone will be incorporated into the game we love is a legitimate question, and it's being discussed often in wider forums than this, including, I would bet, in the boardrooms of MLB clubs.

It's clear where everyone in this discussion so far stands on the issue. I respect all the viewpoints, and no doubt similar viewpoints will be factored into decisions MLB makes down the road.  But in the end the "official rules" of our game are not governed only by tradition, but by the 30 billionaire partnerships who run MLB.   I'm sure most of us believe in the power of the marketplace.  Those guys surely do, and I think that's going to be the major determinant in the end.  If there is a tipping point where more people than not will come to games and/or watch games on TV if a computerized strike zone is used, then that's when Robo-Ump takes over for CB Bucknor behind the dish at a yard near you.  As long as these guys' market research makes them believe that the view of Coach May et al is more prevalent, there's nothing to worry about.

But even if Robo-Ump happens, we will all probably be long gone before it would reach HS or even most levels of college baseball.

Stats4Gnats posted:

 

 They already use computers to do an ump’s job with IR, but you’re still watching.

 

No they're not.  They are using IR to review umps calls to help decide whether they were right or wrong.  The umps still make all calls.  This strike zone thing would take the ball and strike decision completely out of the umps responsibility.  It's completely different.

Teaching Elder: Feeding a troll has a certain entertainment value at times. Sometimes you can write utter bs that even you don't believe, but you know will elicit some sort of response!  This wasn't one of those, but maybe the next one will be! This is a great distraction from the every day job that some days I wish I had more time to spend, but most days I don't.  Today is a good day!!!

Stats: You asked a question, I answered. You may not agree with my answer, but your question, subtle or not, didn't limit a response to whether in one game where batters weren't swinging at strikes that a machine would have called. Who cares? It happens - if the batters adjust, then great for them that they recognized. Bad for us as fans to have to sit through that...  BTW: I've umpired in a game where a ball thrown right down the middle and I uttered "ball" - you see my brain was somehow convinced on an 0-2 count that there'd be a pitch off the plate (usually an inside FB or curve) like he had thrown to every one of the 10 or so batters before. Nope on this one - as the kids call it a di**shot.  The catcher had a good laugh as I looked at the better and said "you better swing at the next one no matter where it is" (it was fall ball, everyone got a chuckle).

Coach May: I'm in 100% agreement -   - I really wish had got the chance to meet you at a Belmont Abbey game before my son left there. I'm convinced I would have thoroughly enjoyed any conversation! Sadly one freshman season, followed by one redshirt year due to injury led to those off the field and in the classroom performance problems that he couldn't recover from. Another year in at USC Lancaster with mostly good stuff, but some bad and now he's working through learning how to be an adult with an every day job. But it's his life and we can only try to help guide him through it - school has never been his thing, ever. We had hoped continuing to be able to play baseball would have been enough of a lure to get him to work hard enough to keep playing, alas it wasn't. 

Coach_May posted:

I don't expect you to understand Stats. I like the Human Factor. I like the fact it's not perfect. I like the fact there can be discussion about calls. I enjoy the way it is. I would love to see IR go away. PERIOD.

I know you don't understand that. I don't expect you to understand that. I am perfectly fine with you not understanding that. I can live with the fact people don't agree with me. In fact I have found one of the best ways to know I am on to something is to find myself on the opposite side of an argument with the right people.

I have also hit my 8 hole hitter in the 3 hole. Bunted my 4 hole hitter. Thrown my #4 in a huge match up. Sat my starters simply because I wanted them to see what it was like to sit. As you can see I am not a stat guy. I am a feel guy. I am a gut guy. I am an Old School Guy. I like living like that. I don't watch sports to see perfection. I watch sports to see imperfect people strive for perfection. Including the umpires.

Now I have had my say. You will not change my perspective. I will not change yours. So please direct future posts on this topic to someone else. I have to move on and strive to make this a perfect day. The stats say there's a 99.99 chance I will fail. I am hanging on to that 00.01 with a death grip. The sooner I log off this thread the better those odds are.

Oh, I understand that you like the fact that there are imperfections in the game, or what you call the “Human Factor”. Again, what I find hard to understand is, why supposedly intelligent people can’t understand that no one’s talking about getting rid of umpires!

I also understand that you like coaching by the seat of your pants, but please don’t think the only reason to shift players is because of a “feeling”. It’s more than possible if you did believe in statistics and were able to define what it was you were looking for stats may have suggested the same moves be made.

I’m not at all trying to change your or anyone else’s perspective! All I’m trying to find out is why other than tradition there’s such fear in wanting to see pitches not swung at being called more accurately. Not a televised ML game goes by where I don’t see a pitch not swung at called incorrectly and think about how either the pitcher or hitter has been cheated.

Think about the pitcher throwing a great pitch on the black that gets called a ball, or the hitter who takes a pitch a ball outside that gets called a strike. Both players performed perfectly but had that perfection wasted. Some may say it’s no big deal because the calls will balance out, but that not at all true. A situation in baseball can never be repeated exactly.

The game is more than hard enough without having to play against a 10^th man. I’m not asking for anything free! Quite the opposite in fact. If a player performs, he should get the benefit of it, and if he fails to perform he should have to suffer for that as well. But once a call on a pitch not swung at is made, that AB is forever altered.

bballman posted:

No they're not.  They are using IR to review umps calls to help decide whether they were right or wrong.  The umps still make all calls.  This strike zone thing would take the ball and strike decision completely out of the umps responsibility.  It's completely different.

So would you like it better if the umps made the calls on pitches not swung at but those calls could be challenged?

JohnF posted: …Stats: You asked a question, I answered. You may not agree with my answer, but your question, subtle or not, didn't limit a response to whether in one game where batters weren't swinging at strikes that a machine would have called. Who cares? It happens - if the batters adjust, then great for them that they recognized. Bad for us as fans to have to sit through that...  BTW: I've umpired in a game where a ball thrown right down the middle and I uttered "ball" - you see my brain was somehow convinced on an 0-2 count that there'd be a pitch off the plate (usually an inside FB or curve) like he had thrown to every one of the 10 or so batters before. Nope on this one - as the kids call it a di**shot.  The catcher had a good laugh as I looked at the better and said "you better swing at the next one no matter where it is" (it was fall ball, everyone got a chuckle). …

The only thing I didn’t like about your response was that like so many others you lumped in calling pitches not swung at with IR, after I tried very hard to say any changes to the flow of the game should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Just out of curiosity, did you watch that Mil game where Pitch F/X called pitches not swung at?  

http://thecomeback.com/mlb/hbo...lls-and-strikes.html

http://www.latimes.com/sports/...-20150810-story.html

Stats4Gnats posted:

bballman posted:

No they're not.  They are using IR to review umps calls to help decide whether they were right or wrong.  The umps still make all calls.  This strike zone thing would take the ball and strike decision completely out of the umps responsibility.  It's completely different.

So would you like it better if the umps made the calls on pitches not swung at but those calls could be challenged?

I'm not a big fan of IR no matter how you use it.  I was simply pointing out another deception in your responses and argument.

Stats4Gnats posted:

All I'm trying to find out is why other than tradition there's such fear in wanting to see pitches not swung at being called more accurately.

Maybe this is part of your problem with understanding other people's perspective.  Why do you assume people have a FEAR of this change?  I don't think anyone FEARS the change, they just don't like it or agree with it...

And I don't think anyone, at least not me, is thinking this particular move would get rid of umpires.  I DO think it completely takes away a very important responsibility of umpires.  And I don't like that...

Stats4Gnats posted:

Coach_May posted:

I don't expect you to understand Stats. I like the Human Factor. ...  I would love to see IR go away. PERIOD.

...   I have also hit my 8 hole hitter in the 3 hole. Bunted my 4 hole hitter. Thrown my #4 in a huge match up. Sat my starters simply because I wanted them to see what it was like to sit. As you can see I am not a stat guy. I am a feel guy. I am a gut guy. I am an Old School Guy. I like living like that. I don't watch sports to see perfection. I watch sports to see imperfect people strive for perfection. Including the umpires.

Now I have had my say. You will not change my perspective. I will not change yours. So please direct future posts on this topic to someone else. ...

Oh, I understand that you like the fact that there are imperfections in the game, or what you call the “Human Factor”. Again, what I find hard to understand is, why supposedly intelligent people can’t understand that no one’s talking about getting rid of umpires!

I also understand that you like coaching by the seat of your pants, but please don’t think the only reason to shift players is because of a “feeling”. It’s more than possible if you did believe in statistics and were able to define what it was you were looking for stats may have suggested the same moves be made.

 

...

I'm trying SO hard to behave.   Ahhhh, screw it.

Isn't it wonderful that we have people here that can help poor Coach May advance his coaching skills a bit?  Maybe some day, he'll BE somebody.  

bballman posted:

I'm not a big fan of IR no matter how you use it.  I was simply pointing out another deception in your responses and argument.

Why when all I did is respond to something you said you say I’m being deceptive?

Maybe this is part of your problem with understanding other people's perspective.  Why do you assume people have a FEAR of this change?  I don't think anyone FEARS the change, they just don't like it or agree with it...

And I don't think anyone, at least not me, is thinking this particular move would get rid of umpires.  I DO think it completely takes away a very important responsibility of umpires.  And I don't like that...

You assume I don’t understand other perspectives because I refuse to agree with them. I do understand them, but simply don’t agree with them.

 I assume the reason for not even wanting to try change is fear of looking foolish. Otherwise it would make sense to try something to see what would happen. MLB often tries rule changes in preseason games to see what effect they’ll have on the game. Why wouldn’t that work in this case as well? If they try it and it sucks, so be it. But if they try it and the game is improved, then you have a different conversation.

 Perhaps you don’t think this move would get rid of umpires, but you have to admit many who argue against it use that as a primary pillar in their argument. Many times those against it just don’t know enough about it, so they fall back on the “tradition” or “it will do away with umpires” argument, or pull out some specious argument.

 Even the commissioner can be guilty of making a specious argument and being ignorant on the subject, or at least he was in Aug of 2016 as can be seen in this article. http://www.latimes.com/sports/...-20150810-story.html

When MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred was asked during All-Star festivities last month about an automated strike zone, he said he was against it, citing as a reason doubts about how such a system would adjust to the different heights and stances of a hitter.

"It's because of speed. It's because of technology limitations," Manfred said. "It's because, quite frankly, the strike zone is different for every single guy."

Sportvision President Mike Jakob said those factors are not issues.

"That's already built into the product," he said. "We have a database of strike zones on every player, whether it's in the majors or the minors. We use that database to automatically adjust for the particular strike zone of that particular player."

If the commissioner can be so wrong, it’s not hard to see why so many others are mistaken as well.

I wasn't talking about your question to me being deceptive. I was talking about your response to KevinA being deceptive and dishonest. You said, and I quote,  "They already use computers to do an ump’s job with IR, but you’re still watching.". That is simply a lie and deceptive. They use IR to review an umpire's decision, not take the place of an umpire's decision.  That's what I was pointing out. 

And maybe you ought to stop assuming what people's reasons and motivations are. Because you are WAY off base that fear has anything to do with it. 

w/r/t: Just out of curiosity, did you watch that Mil game where Pitch F/X called pitches not swung at?

Nope. Don't care. Thought that was obvious.

So a few pitches out of an entire MLB season were audaciously not called properly and because of that there's a crusade to implement technology into ball/strike calling. Wasn't it said somewhere that the umpires are proven to get it right 95% of the time? Out of how many pitches throughout a season? Of the remaining 5% - what percent of those are "critical" or "game changes" in the same way that IR can overturn a play? How many of those are borderline strike1 calls on a 3-0 count? How many times as ball4 been called on what could have been strike3 - or vice versa? Is it really that important to you to be that perfect on every pitch?  If the answer is yes, then you're watching the sport for the wrong reason IMO.

Technology is not the panacea you seem to believe. Hardware and Software "bugs" are plentiful and it's susceptible to being hacked. Imagine watching the WS and at a very important moment a pitch that "looks like" it was a strike gets called a ball and no one knows why until months later they determine there was a bug or someone hacked into the system and changed the outcome of the game/history. Do we go back and play it over? Do we take back the trophy or just chalk it up to a computer malfunction? Although Don Denkinger perhaps made the most recently memorable and famous incorrect call at a critical juncture on the biggest stage that baseball has - that call was human error and not malicious or malfunctioning equipment. 

BTW: Ever feel like you're trying to enter the church parking lot after the early/first Christmas mass has ended?

bballman posted:

I wasn't talking about your question to me being deceptive. I was talking about your response to KevinA being deceptive and dishonest. You said, and I quote,  "They already use computers to do an ump’s job with IR, but you’re still watching.". That is simply a lie and deceptive. They use IR to review an umpire's decision, not take the place of an umpire's decision.  That's what I was pointing out. 

And maybe you ought to stop assuming what people's reasons and motivations are. Because you are WAY off base that fear has anything to do with it. 

You’re using semantics to try to win an argument, but that’s OK. Yes, they use IR to review an already made decision, but what’s the difference if that decision gets overturned? When that happens the umpire’s decision is replaced.

And perhaps you might take your own advice about assuming what others’ reasons and motivations are.

It's not semantics.  There is a HUGE difference...

I love that red herring "they get 95% of them right".  A donkey could get 85% (or a similar %) of them right because they are 2+ inches off the zone, swung at or bounce.  

I for one do not miss the 5 minutes that guys like Weaver and Pinella would come out and stop the game over a banger at 1st base. Imagine a game were there is no chirping about balls and strikes and the game simply moves along.  It isn't about right and wrong so much as it is - it blows to watch everyone bitch about it sort of like this thread.  Complain about the 90 seconds a couple of times a game - but better than all the other junk that used to go on.  IMO.

When the seeing eye comes and the bitching stops - you'll wonder how we ever lived without it, like indoor plumbing.  The outhouse had plenty of the human element- but does anyone really miss it?  Not me.

JohnF posted:

Nope. Don't care. Thought that was obvious.

Actually, it was obvious.

So a few pitches out of an entire MLB season were audaciously not called properly and because of that there's a crusade to implement technology into ball/strike calling. Wasn't it said somewhere that the umpires are proven to get it right 95% of the time? Out of how many pitches throughout a season? Of the remaining 5% - what percent of those are "critical" or "game changes" in the same way that IR can overturn a play? How many of those are borderline strike1 calls on a 3-0 count? How many times as ball4 been called on what could have been strike3 - or vice versa? Is it really that important to you to be that perfect on every pitch?  If the answer is yes, then you're watching the sport for the wrong reason IMO.

What you describe as “a few pitches” is a pretty substantial number.

What you don’t seem to grasp is that every single pitch can and often does alter the game. You think a borderline call on a 3-0 pitch called incorrectly doesn’t make any difference, but I’m here to tell you it does. If the pitch is a strike and called a ball the pitcher is cheated out of the opportunity to get the batter out on another pitch. if the pitch is a ball but called a strike the batter is cheated out of a base he’s entitled to.

I don’t know how many times a ball 4 has been called on what would have been strike 3 or vice versa, but there’s a lot more to it. It’s generally accepted that the 1^st pitch of an at bat is the most important. Why is that? Whatever the reason, if it’s not swung at and called incorrectly, the entire AB has changed because the next pitch is so dependent on the 1^st, and so on through the AB.

It’s obviously not that important to me whether every pitch not swung at is called perfectly since I’ve been watching the game for well over 60 years. But I do happen to believe the rules are there for a reason, and the game should be played using them.

What is the right reason to watch the sport?

Technology is not the panacea you seem to believe. Hardware and Software "bugs" are plentiful and it's susceptible to being hacked. Imagine watching the WS and at a very important moment a pitch that "looks like" it was a strike gets called a ball and no one knows why until months later they determine there was a bug or someone hacked into the system and changed the outcome of the game/history. Do we go back and play it over? Do we take back the trophy or just chalk it up to a computer malfunction? Although Don Denkinger perhaps made the most recently memorable and famous incorrect call at a critical juncture on the biggest stage that baseball has - that call was human error and not malicious or malfunctioning equipment. 

Who said it technology is a panacea? Certainly not me! I’ve spent a lot of years writing and analyzing computer programs and know very well that there’s absolutely no perfect computer software or hardware. But I do know that both software and hardware are more reliable than any human being trying to perform the same things the same number of times.

BTW: Ever feel like you're trying to enter the church parking lot after the early/first Christmas mass has ended?

Haven’t got a clue what that means.

cabbagedad posted:

I'm trying SO hard to behave.   Ahhhh, screw it.

Isn't it wonderful that we have people here that can help poor Coach May advance his coaching skills a bit?  Maybe some day, he'll BE somebody.  

Yeah, I ‘m pretty sure every ML manager could learn from Coach May that they don’t need no stinking statistics.

bballman posted:

It's not semantics.  There is a HUGE difference...

Are you saying the umpire’s decision isn’t replaced when a call is overturned?

luv baseball posted:

I love that red herring "they get 95% of them right".  A donkey could get 85% (or a similar %) of them right because they are 2+ inches off the zone, swung at or bounce.  

I for one do not miss the 5 minutes that guys like Weaver and Pinella would come out and stop the game over a banger at 1st base. Imagine a game were there is no chirping about balls and strikes and the game simply moves along.  It isn't about right and wrong so much as it is - it blows to watch everyone bitch about it sort of like this thread.  Complain about the 90 seconds a couple of times a game - but better than all the other junk that used to go on.  IMO.

When the seeing eye comes and the bitching stops - you'll wonder how we ever lived without it, like indoor plumbing.  The outhouse had plenty of the human element- but does anyone really miss it?  Not me.

luv, I wish I had your gift for cutting through all the BS.

Stats,

To quote Rick Sanchez, "You're missing the point, Morty." 

There is entertainment value in the idea that the players and managerial decisions should be the only factors that play into the outcome of a particular game.

What you don't seem to get is that there is also entertainment value in baseball as a show, in which the outcome is not the only part that adds value to the entertainment experience. 

Story from my experience this year: Postseason, 2000 fans in attendance, most growing up with and/or related to someone on the teams involved, or being tied to the institutions. I've had a great game--I have gotten some truly creative heckles from the crowd, but nothing from anyone one the field. We're in the top of 11, back to being tied with a runner on 2nd, in a game which had lead changes in the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 10th. 3-2, 2 out, and a great fastball just above the knees on the inside corner. This is truly a 50-50 pitch--no matter what I call, half are going to think I missed it. I've had a great game--I have gotten some truly creative heckles from the crowd, but nothing from anyone one the field. Both me and the catcher know what is about to happen as I do my proper mechanics...see the pitch, decide the pitch, call the pitch...

For everyone else involved, it's like having two sevens on the slot machine. That third wheel takes forever to spin, and that's where the excitement comes in. That delay I take in my call isn't there for show; it's to make sure that whatever I say, it's as most likely to be correct as possible. That's why that moment is so breathtaking whether one is the batter, the fan, the guy on the radio--it's because it's a natural consequence of what we have now. 

After I rang up that batter, he had words for me--nothing out of the ordinary. These little tensions are those mini-climaxes that make baseball interesting for many fans. What was that batter going to do with a machine? There's catharsis in being able to make the claim that the dispassionate human villain (or if the call goes your way, antihero) is what made the difference. Going to a computerized zone takes away that layer of entertainment (and credit/blame.)

I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong or inferior. What I will say is that you are obviously not able to give others the same latitude in their perspective, and I don't even know if the two are diametrically opposed.

Matt13 posted:

…There is entertainment value in the idea that the players and managerial decisions should be the only factors that play into the outcome of a particular game.

What you don't seem to get is that there is also entertainment value in baseball as a show, in which the outcome is not the only part that adds value to the entertainment experience. …

There’s entertainment value in Roller Derby and WWF as well, and at various points in my life I took them seriously. But as I matured as an adult I lost interest in them because I realized entertainment reduced whatever athletic endeavor any of the participants, to little more than a show, even though some very talented athletes were participants.

There’s also entertainment value in chess and curling, but I don’t spend much of my time watching or participating in either of them as well. IOW, there’s lots of seats for all the different butts out there. If people watch baseball because they enjoy seeing drama generated because an umpire made a mistake, that’s fine with me, even though I think it’s silly. I prefer to get my entertainment from watching the participants either succeed or fail because of their abilities, not those of the umpires.

I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong or inferior. What I will say is that you are obviously not able to give others the same latitude in their perspective, and I don't even know if the two are diametrically opposed.

How is it so “obvious” that I refuse to accept an alternate perspective? Because I refuse to accept specious arguments? I find your argument well stated and completely understandable, even though I disagree with it because I find plenty of entertainment in the game itself. But then again, you haven’t tried to equate the calling of pitches not swung at with IR, called me dishonest and deceptive, questioned my intelligence, called me a troll, or tried to draw a parallel of it to some kind of sex robot that would replace real women.

 I really liked what NewUmpire said below. Nothing about entertainment there. Just the game and reality.

 NewUmpire posted: I agree with all of what you said... that currently umpires are part of the game to provide an objective neutral decision on plays.   But if the technology existed that could do the same - call fair / foul - safe / out - ball / strike... and account for the variables for top and bottom of zone ... with as high or higher accuracy than a human ... the transition away from a human to a computer is inevitable.  Right, wrong or indifferent... that is human progress.  Not much different than robots replacing people on assembly lines, computers replacing accountants, scanners replacing check out clerks, computers replacing switchboard operators.   Someone once told me the best umpires are never noticed.  Will there always be a need for a human official?  Probably.  But their role may change.   It may be more administrative, less judgmental.  Lineup changes / length of time outs / warm up pitches.  I don't see the possibility of a computer identifying an illegal slide, or an illegal substance on a ball... but 15 years ago I never would have thought getting a full length movie in HD quality over my phone was possible either.  We can argue if change is better or worse for the game ... that is a point of view that may never be proven or dis-proven until the technology is implemented and tested.  The only thing that is certain is that change is inevitable.  And as this board so often reminds us ... Baseball is a game that teaches life lessons.   If this change ever materializes, it is a life lesson... we can adjust to the change, or resist and let the game pass us by.

IOW, there’s lots of seats for all the different butts out there. If people watch baseball because they enjoy seeing drama generated because an umpire made a mistake, that’s fine with me, even though I think it’s silly. I prefer to get my entertainment from watching the participants either succeed or fail because of their abilities, not those of the umpires.

-------–—---------------------------------

can we help you this guy to find a new sport to enjoy.  Seems he should enjoy chess. Super athletic minds not constrained by referees. Archery and rifle shooting are additional sports for him.  How about electronic darts?  No arguing the lines there.  What else?

Teaching Elder posted: can we help you this guy to find a new sport to enjoy.  Seems he should enjoy chess. Super athletic minds not constrained by referees. Archery and rifle shooting are additional sports for him.  How about electronic darts?  No arguing the lines there.  What else?

Is this what baseball should go back to?

1858 Baseball Rules

By Patrick Mondout

The third annual convention of the NABBP was held in New York in March of 1859, The revised rules for that season were introduced at that session and are below.

Showing that professionals were already entering the ranks, the Association felt compelled to render them ineligible with the following addition: "No person who receives compensation for his services as a player shall be competent to play in any match." Such attempts failed and by 1868, the rules were modified to acknowledge that professionals were here to stay. 

RULES AND REGULATIONS
OF THE
GAME OF BASE BALL,
ADOPTED BY THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BASE BALL PLAYERS,

New York, March 9, 1859.

Section 1. The ball must weigh not less than 5 3/4 nor more than 6 ounces avoirdupois; it must measure not less than 9 3/4, nor more than 10 inches in circumference; it must be composed of India-rubber and yarn, and covered with leather. It shall be furnished by the challenging Club, and become the property of the winning Club, as a trophy of victory.

Section 2. The bat must be round, and must not exceed 2 1/2 inches in diameter in the thickest part; it must be made of wood, and may be of any length, to suit the striker.

Section 3. The bases must be four in number, placed at equal distances from each other, and securely fastened upon the four corners of a square whose sides are respectively thirty yards. They must be so constructed as to be distinctly seen by the umpire, and must cover a space equal to one square foot of surface; the first, second and third bases shall be canvas bags, painted white, and filled with sand or saw-dust; the home base and pitcher’s point to be each marked by a flat circular iron plate, painted or enameled white.

Section 4. The base from which the ball is struck shall be designated the home base, and must be directly opposite to the second base; the first base must always be that upon the right hand, and the third base that upon the left hand side of the striker, when occupying his position at the home base.

Section 5. The pitcher’s position shall be designated by a line four yards in length, drawn at right angles to a line from home to the second base, having its centre upon that line, at a fixed iron plate placed at a point fifteen yards distant from the home base. The pitcher must deliver the ball as near as possible over the centre of the plate and for the striker.

Section 6. The ball must be pitched, not jerked or thrown to the bat, and whenever the pitcher draws back his hand, with the apparent purpose or pretension to deliver the ball, he shall so deliver it, and must have neither foot in advance of the line at the time of delivering the ball, and if he fails in either of these particulars, then it shall be declared a baulk.

Section 7. When a baulk is made by the pitcher, every player running the bases is entitled to one base without being put out.

Section 8. If the ball from a stroke of the bat is caught behind the range of home and the first base, or home and the third base, without having touched the ground, or first touches the ground behind those bases, it shall be termed foul, and must be so declared by the umpire, unasked. If the ball first touches the ground, or is caught without having touched the ground, either upon or in front of the range of those bases, it shall be considered fair.

Section 9. A player making the home base, shall be entitled to score one run.

Section 10. If three balls are struck at and missed, and the last one is not caught, either flying or upon the first bound, it shall be considered fair, and the striker must attempt to make his run.

Section 11. The striker is out if a foul ball is caught, either before touching the ground or upon the first bound.

Section 12. Or, if three balls are struck at and missed; and the last is caught either before touching the ground or upon the first bound.

Section 13. Or, if a fair ball is struck, and the ball is caught either without having touched the ground or upon the first bound.

Section 14. Or, if a fair ball is struck, and the ball is held by an adversary on on the first base, before the striker touches that base.

Section 15. Or, if at any time hi is touched by the ball while in play in the hands of an adversary, without some part of his person being on a base.

Section 16. No ace or base can be made upon a foul ball, nor when a fair ball has been caught without having touched the ground; and the ball shall, in the first instance, be considered dead and not in play, until it shall first have been settled in the hands of the pitcher. In either case the players running the bases shall return to them, and shall not be put out in so returning unless the ball has been first pitched to the striker.

[Editor's note: The change is that caught fair fly balls are no longer considered "dead."]

Section 17. Players must stand on a line drawn through the centre of the home base not exceeding in length three feet from either side thereof, and such line shall be parallel with the line occupied by the pitcher. They shall strike in regular rotation; and after the first innings is played, the turn commences with the player who stands on the list next to the one who lost the third hand.

Section 18. Players must make their bases in the order of striking; and when a fair ball is struck, and not caught flying, nor on the first bound, the first base must be vacated, as also the second and third bases, if they are occupied at the same time. Players may be put out upon any base, under these circumstances, in the same manner as the striker when running to the first base.

Section 19. Players running the bases must, so far as possible, keep upon the direct line between the bases; and, should any player run three feet out of this line, for the purpose of avoiding the ball in the hands of an adversary, he shall be declared out.

Section 20. Any player, who shall, intentionally, prevent an adversary from catching or fielding the ball, shall be declared out.

Section 21. If a player is prevented from making a base, by the intentional obstruction of an adversary, he shall be entitled to that base, and not be put out.

Section 22. If any adversary stops the ball with his hat or cap, or takes it from the hands of a party not engaged in the game, no player can be put out, unless the ball shall first have been settled in the hands of the pitcher.

Section 23. If a ball, from the stroke of the bat, is held under any other circumstances than as enumerated in section 22, and without having touched the ground more than once, the striker is out.

Section 24. If two hands are already out, no player, running home at the time a ball is struck, can make an ace, if the striker is put out.

Section 25. An innings must be concluded at the time the third hand is put out.

Section 26. The game shall consist of nine innings to each side, when, should the number of runs be equal, the innings shall be continued until a majority of runs, upon an equal number of innings, shall be declared, which shall conclude the game.

Section 27. In playing all matches, nine players from each club shall constitute a full field, and they must have been regular members of the club which they represent, and of no other club, for thirty days prior to the match. No change or substitution shall be made after the game has been commenced, unless for reason of illness or injury. Positions of players shall be determined by captains, previously appointed for that purpose by the respective clubs. No person who receives compensation for his services as a player shall be competent to play in any match.

Section 28. The umpire in all matches shall take care that the regulations respecting the ball, bats, bases, and the pitcher's and striker's positions are strictly observed. He shall keep a record of the game in a book prepared for the purpose. He shall be the judge of fair and unfair play, and shall determine all disputes and differences which may occur during the game. He shall take especial care to declare all foul balls and balks immediately upon their occurrence, unasked, and in a distinct and audible manner.

Section 29. In all matches, the umpire shall be selected by the captains of the respective sides, shall perform all the duties enumerated in Section 28, except recording the game, which shall be done by two scorers, one of whom shall be appointed by each of the contending clubs.

Section 30. No person engaged in a match, either as umpire, scorer, or player, shall be either directly or indirectly interested in any bet upon the game. Neither umpire, scorer nor player shall be changed during a match, unless with the consent of both parties, except for a violation of this law, and except as provided in section 27, and then the referee may dismiss any transgressor.

Section 31. The umpire in any match, shall determine when play shall be suspended; and if the game cannot be concluded, it shall be decided by the last even innings, provided five innings have been played; and the party having the greatest number of runs shall be declared the winner.

Section 32. Clubs may adopt, such rules respecting balls knocked beyond or outside of the bounds of the field, as the circumstances of the ground may demand, and these rules shall govern all matches played upon the ground, provided that they are distinctly made known to every player and umpire, previous to the commencement of the game.

Section 33. No person shall be permitted to approach or to speak with the umpires, scorers, or players, or in any manner to interrupt or interfere during the progress of the game, unless by the special request of the umpire.

Section 34. No person shall be permitted to act as umpire or scorer in a match, unless he shall be a member of a Base Ball Club, governed by these rules.

Section 35. Whenever a match shall have been determined upon between two clubs, play shall be called at the exact hour appointed; and should either party fail to produce their players within fifteen minutes thereafter, the party so failing shall admit a defeat.

Section 36. No person who may be in arrears to any club he may have belonged to previous to the one he is then a member of shall be competent to play in a match unless such arrears are paid.

Section 37. Should a striker stand at the bat without striking at good balls repeatedly pitched to him, for the purpose of delaying the game or of giving advantage to a player, the umpire, after warning him, shall call one strike, and if he persists in such action, two and three strikes. When three strikes are called, he shall be subject to the same rules as if he had struck at three balls.

Section 38. Every match hereafter made shall be decided by a single game.

[Editor's note: Previously, a "match" could be decided by a series of games.]

No. No. I think that they should spend the 7th inning kicking the ball around and trying to get it to go into some type of small goal, at which time and automated referee would make a buzzing sound indicating that a score was made. That's the future of baseball. 

Teaching Elder posted:

No. No. I think that they should spend the 7th inning kicking the ball around and trying to get it to go into some type of small goal, at which time and automated referee would make a buzzing sound indicating that a score was made. That's the future of baseball. 

Goooooooooooooooalllllllll.

Teaching Elder posted:

IOW, there’s lots of seats for all the different butts out there. If people watch baseball because they enjoy seeing drama generated because an umpire made a mistake, that’s fine with me, even though I think it’s silly. I prefer to get my entertainment from watching the participants either succeed or fail because of their abilities, not those of the umpires.

-------–—---------------------------------

can we help you this guy to find a new sport to enjoy.  Seems he should enjoy chess. Super athletic minds not constrained by referees. Archery and rifle shooting are additional sports for him.  How about electronic darts?  No arguing the lines there.  What else?

Elder- I get this point of view and agree with it except for one thing: I hate the whining, stare downs  and jaw jacking that goes on in almost every game.  I think the game would be better if it disappeared provided the flow of the game is not impaired.  

We aren't there yet...but it is coming.  Obviously a number of people will hate it - and that is OK.  A lot of folks hated when they changed the game by juicing the ball and a guy named Ruth started hitting home runs - but the game got better and more popular. 

Nothing that dramatic will come out of the electronic strike zone.  I believe the game will be better precisely as you suggest because the game will then be ALL about the players.  The umpires will be non factors.  Players will have to own it - no more crying about bad calls and inconsistent strike zones.  650 Plate appearances per season with the exact same zone should end all bitching once and for all.

It seems to me that won't be so controversial when it happens.  We shall see ....eventually.

BTW - all the folks that like things the way they are, I get that too.  It doesn't make you flat earthers ....just traditionalists and that ain't always bad.