Stupidest Rules in Baseball

[jtur88]

Stupid rules:

1. Infield Fly Rule. The only exception to the general principle that a batter/runner is not out until a) the defense executes the out, or b) improper or illegal action. Eliminate the exception. The offense and defense could learn to deal with it, and many popups would not be automatic DPs with prudent base-running. Isn't a sharp infield grounder an "automatic" double play if executed? At worst, call it a foul ball, so no runners are forced, but the defense has to execute the putout. If the rules can arbitrarily call it an Out, they can arbitrarily call it Foul, and preserve the execution.

2. Balk. Abolish the present balk rule completely. Under my rule, a balk would be:
a) pitching while not on the rubber or stepping on the rubber without the ball,
2) faking a pitch or a throw to any base while on the rubber.
Everything else is legal, deceptive or not. The clearly-stated rule that a pitcher cannot deceive a runner would, if enforced, make a pick-off impossible. Pitchers have been reduced to choregraphed figure skaters, and if the ump doesn't award a perfect-10, a balk is called.

3. Going to the mouth. If we must have such a stupid rule in the first place, just require that a pitcher who goes to his mouth must walk off the dirt and back before pitching. No penalty, the ump just tells him to. In terms of the objective of this rule, what is the difference between walking off the mound before or after he goes to his mouth?

4. The catcher's box. Erase it. What harm was done by letting the catcher set up outside for an IBB? What is gained by not letting the catcher assume any position on the field? They don't enforce it anyway. It's not even defined. If the catcher has one foot inside and one outside, is he inside the box, or not? The rule neglects to say. A batter running to first is 'outside' the lane if he steps out with one foot, but the catcher is apparently not 'outside' the box if one foot is out.

A few comments about no-IFR base running stretegy. The batter will never be put out if the ball falls uncaught. So the DP would have to be made on the runners. A defense would rarely let it fall, because recovery time would be too slow on a high turf bounce, or too risky in case of a bad bounce, when you might not retire anybody at all. So the baserunners hold their bases as if it will be caught, but taking a safe lead depending on where the ball is coming down. If it is caught, one out. If the defense risks a bounce, a DP might be relatively easy on a ball falling on the left side, but a TP would need to be H-3-2, beating the runner to second after recovering the bounce and making three throws. If nothing else, it would turn an automatic yawner into the most exciting play in baseball. The existing rule about an intentionally-dropped line drive would need to apply here, as well.

In other words, with runners holding, only one out is possible if the ball is caught. If not caught, there are no outs made until the ball is recovereed and thrown to a base for a force, with no assurance that a second force can still be made at another base. In all, it is less likely to be a DP than would have been a grounder to a middle infielder. A TP would probably never occur above the Little League level.

[Jay]

Now maybe I'm not reading this right (I don't know if you addressed this), but wouldn't this create double plays where the runner is trying to defend a drop by taking an unsafe lead and then getting thrown out at first?

[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

1. Infield Fly Rule. The only exception to the general principle that a batter/runner is not out until a) the defense executes the out, or b) improper or illegal action. Eliminate the exception. The offense and defense could learn to deal with it, and many popups would not be automatic DPs with prudent base-running. Isn't a sharp infield grounder an "automatic" double play if executed? At worst, call it a foul ball, so no runners are forced, but the defense has to execute the putout. If the rules can arbitrarily call it an Out, they can arbitrarily call it Foul, and preserve the execution.

Sounds reasonable.

Originally Posted by jtur88

2. Balk. Abolish the present balk rule completely. Under my rule, a balk would be:
a) pitching while not on the rubber or stepping on the rubber without the ball,
2) faking a pitch or a throw to any base while on the rubber.
Everything else is legal, deceptive or not. The clearly-stated rule that a pitcher cannot deceive a runner would, if enforced, make a pick-off impossible. Pitchers have been reduced to choregraphed figure skaters, and if the ump doesn't award a perfect-10, a balk is called.

Good points. What is a pick-off attempt if not a deception?

Originally Posted by jtur88

3. Going to the mouth. If we must have such a stupid rule in the first place, just require that a pitcher who goes to his mouth must walk off the dirt and back before pitching. No penalty, the ump just tells him to. In terms of the objective of this rule, what is the difference between walking off the mound before or after he goes to his mouth?

Agreed.

Originally Posted by jtur88

4. The catcher's box. Erase it. What harm was done by letting the catcher set up outside for an IBB? What is gained by not letting the catcher assume any position on the field? They don't enforce it anyway. It's not even defined. If the catcher has one foot inside and one outside, is he inside the box, or not? The rule neglects to say. A batter running to first is 'outside' the lane if he steps out with one foot, but the catcher is apparently not 'outside' the box if one foot is out.

I wouldn't let the catcher go anywhere. But that wouldn't make sense anyway. If the catcher weren't behind the plate, then the runners could advance two bases on every pitch.

I was watching in the Little League World Series last year, and Japan was putting their catcher completely out of the strike zone (both feet), and the umpire was calling them strikes. I think it can give the defensive team an unfair advantage to set up off the plate, because it messes up the umpire. I say make the catchers stay in their box.

Other recommendations for changes:

1. The rule requiring the batter-baserunner to stay to the right of the foul line when running the last part of the way to first base. It's illogical. You can't always get your left foot on the base, so abiding by this rule and touching with the right foot is impossible. Why is first base so special? Running to other bases, the fielders are responsible for throwing around the runner.

2. Enforce the pivot man to touch second base while holding the ball on a double play attempt.

3. Enforce the rule that catchers cannot block the plate before the ball gets there.

4. When the throw to first base doesn't beat the runner, call him safe like the rules say. And when the tag at second doesn't beat the runner, call him safe. The rules indicate that a runner is safe unless the ball or tag beat him. This essentially means that if the catch/tag and the touch of the baserunner on the base occur simultaneously, he should be called safe, or in other words the tie really does go to the runner. Umpires have it backwards, and they have for years. Watch the slow-motion replays. At least 80% of the time, a bang-bang play is called out. It's too bad, because increased base stealing and fewer home runs would have served the '90s and '00s well.

5. Shorten the time between innings to 1½ minutes. This would shorten the game by about 20 minutes.

6. Allow the batter to charge the mound after getting hit by a pitch. Let just him and the pitcher handle their dispute. If the pitcher is man enough to plunk the batter, he should be man enough to back it up. No one else will be allowed to step in or go to the mound without penalty of ejection and suspension. And that includes the catcher grabbing the batter as a "peace maker". The silly warning rules after the first suspicious HBP don't address the problem. Letting batters charge the mound would. And it would be more interesting for the fans. Of course, the batter must leave his bat at the plate.

Likewise, players and coaches in the dugout may not leave the dugout to engage in a rhubarb, without automatic penalty of suspension. If your whole bench leaves the dugout, then you might be relying on just your lineup and bullpen for a few days.

7. The umpire shouldn't be able to walk away from a manager or player after making a disputed call. If the umpires these days are so fragile, then they should find a different line of work. Own up to your call and discuss it. The days of Earl Weaver and Billy Martin were more colorful. Bring back some intrigue into the game.

8. Bring back the softer, less-tight balls. The rabbit ball had a greater effect on power numbers than any steroids. They affected every player. Notice that players are still hitting 50 home runs on a regular basis. It happened once in the '70s and no times in the '80s.

9. Let Pete Rose and Joe Jackson be eligible for the Hall of Fame, and vote on all players based on their playing ability, not on ancillary matters.

10. Get a real commissioner who isn't just a 31st owner.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Jay

Now maybe I'm not reading this right (I don't know if you addressed this), but wouldn't this create double plays where the runner is trying to defend a drop by taking an unsafe lead and then getting thrown out at first?

The defense would have two options: catch or drop. If they catch, they get one sure out. If they drop, they get no sure outs, and have to throw to each 'next base' for the force. They would not always get two, and would have to balance that against the risk of a bad bounce and not get a sure out. There would be quite a few double plays, but certainly not automatic ones. But we find the GIDP to be quite tolerable, and it is nearly automatic if hit straight at a middle infielder.

The offensive strategy would probably be, normally, to assume the pop will be caught, and the runners hold. Then, if it is not caught, force the defense to make two throws to execute the DP. A shallow LF in Fenway could probably trap a ball and make a DP going to third then second. I've never seen one try it. If he couldin't, I assume an infielder just behing first couldn't either.

The IFR rule applies quite infrequently---much less than once per game. Over a season, a team might hit into about 30 more DPs with no IFR.

On the catcher's box, where did umpires ever get the idea that they were supposed to watch the catcher, instead of the ball, to call strikes? I naively thought if a pitch didn't go over the plate it was a ball, no matter where the catcher held the mitt.

[fabio61]

Good list jtur.

IFR - I have been arguing against the IFR for a long time. It WOULD be one of the most exciting plays in basebal if it were eliminated and yes the baserunners could employ strategies (like both/all runners 1st&2nd (&3rd) taking off and one or both/all 3 or none of them suddenly retreating) to confound the defense. Just imagine 3 runners scoring on a botched dropped IF fly. How could you not love that!

Balk and the mouth - I agree completely.

Catcher's box - I do think they need to keep a batter's box, but the catchers box is useless.

I remember a post about a runner sliding past home plate but not touching it and how to retire him if he just walks into the dugout. The circle around home plate - I'm not sure if its in the rule book or just there by tradition - but that circle could be used to call a runner out who has passed home plate without touching it and then walked outside the circle. Or if a runner passes home plate without touching it (has passed to the foul side of the 1st base line), the catcher should have the option of tagging the runner or simply stepping on home plate before the runner does, to retire him.

================================================== ===

I would add an unrelated to play-on-the-field rule change. Once you start a baseball game, everything counts. Right now if a game does not reach the full 5 innings, and the game is called due to rain, everything that occured is wiped off the books. This is utterly idiotic. Just suspend the game. Resume it at the next convenience just like any other suspended game. If it's never completed, it would be categorized as a no-decision, but all the events should still count.

Think about it, let's say a pitcher plunks a batter in the 1st inning and there's a brawl and serious injuries and ejections, and the game is rained out after 3 innings. Several players are suspended, but can they claim that since the game was wiped out because of rain, none of it really happened?

I do realize there has to be a minimum inning limit to declare an official game shortened because of rain (darkness no longer an issue). If you want to set it at 5, fine. But to just throw out the events of a game that didn't reach the 5th inning like it never happened strikes me as something a totalitarian society hell bent on re-writing history would do.

Just for consistency and fairness, every team should play no more than 162 games in the regular season - official or otherwise. Playoff games to determine divison or wild card champ should be in a separate realm. Also I have noticed that there have been tie games called due to rain (and in the past darkness) and another game was scheduled to make up for the tie. I would never have allowed this. If you play a game to a tie and finish the season 99-62 with a tie, and the other team in your division finished 100-62, well the 100-62 team should win the division. You shouldn't get an extra game (#163) to get your 100th win. Conversely if you finish 100-61 with a tie, your team would win the division.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by fabio61

Just for consistency and fairness, every team should play no more than 162 games in the regular season - official or otherwise. Playoff games to determine divison or wild card champ should be in a separate realm. Also I have noticed that there have been tie games called due to rain (and in the past darkness) and another game was scheduled to make up for the tie. I would never have allowed this. If you play a game to a tie and finish the season 99-62 with a tie, and the other team in your division finished 100-62, well the 100-62 team should win the division. You shouldn't get an extra game (#163) to get your 100th win. Conversely if you finish 100-61 with a tie, your team would win the division.

I understand what you're saying, although games where the scores are identical are not considered ties. They're just null in the standings. There's no tying baseball (unless you're Bud Selig at an All-Star game and have no concept of the game).