TonyK
08-23-2008, 06:40 PM
Today we played a doubleheader as part of my county's Bicentennial Celebration. The site was John McGraw Field in Truxton, NY and the crowd was sizable due to our tireless marketing campaign.
Game One used 1864 baseball rules...the ball was softer, we wore no gloves, you could catch on a bound, and the pitcher served the ball underhanded to you. The catchers were busy as foul tics could be outs if they caught them on one bounce. As the game wore on the ball became softer and did not travel as far. The result was no runs were scored for three innings. Once a new ball was introduced the hitters began hitting shots deeper. A ball was hit over my head in LF that knocked in the winning run in the 10th inning. I wanted badly to catch a ball on one bounce for an out but it never happened. This rule kept the score down for both clubs.
Game Two used 1894 baseball rules...the ball was hard now and the gloves were leather but not suitable for one handed catches. You had to catch with two hands. The two young pitchers dominated the game since they threw overhanded and fast. Our young outfielders complained that their hands hurt after catching hard line drives. They learned a new respect for 1894 ML players who were tough enough to handle the daily pain. I was impressed by the young players from both clubs who adapted and played as if they had been doing this forever. This game was clearly comparable to modern baseball. Our club held on to win the game and salvage a split of the doubleheader.
I was confused by the 1864 rules when up to bat. The umpire warned me after a pitch was a strike. The next pitch was also a strike but the umpire did not say anything. When I did not swing at the next pitch the umpire told me I had struck out and reminded me he had warned me. Welcome to the 1864 rules of baseball as I had looked at at least 8 balls before then but was not issued a walk.
I also made an out due to the fair-foul rule. I hit a ball and it must have first landed fair about a foot away from me. It bounced once so I looked back to see if the catcher would be able to catch it on one bound and get the out. When the catcher couldn't do that I relaxed and was feeling happy that I had another chance. Meanwhile, the catcher knew the rules so he ran after the ball. I was confused and the umpire (who came with the other team I might add!) didn't help me. So I ran to 1B but the catcher's throw beat me to the bag and I was out. Not any fun getting out on a foul ball by your feet.
Our young studs who played college ball and high school ball enjoyed the two games and the competitiveness. Our pitcher for the 1894 game kept saying he didn't know how to pitch using the old rules. The other team was experienced and often had runners halfway to 2B before our pitcher had released the ball. They even pulled the hidden ball trick on our runner at 1B.
If you ever get a chance to play a Vintage Base Ball Game I would encourage it. It is one thing to analyze the 19th Century game and quite another to actually play it.
Game One used 1864 baseball rules...the ball was softer, we wore no gloves, you could catch on a bound, and the pitcher served the ball underhanded to you. The catchers were busy as foul tics could be outs if they caught them on one bounce. As the game wore on the ball became softer and did not travel as far. The result was no runs were scored for three innings. Once a new ball was introduced the hitters began hitting shots deeper. A ball was hit over my head in LF that knocked in the winning run in the 10th inning. I wanted badly to catch a ball on one bounce for an out but it never happened. This rule kept the score down for both clubs.
Game Two used 1894 baseball rules...the ball was hard now and the gloves were leather but not suitable for one handed catches. You had to catch with two hands. The two young pitchers dominated the game since they threw overhanded and fast. Our young outfielders complained that their hands hurt after catching hard line drives. They learned a new respect for 1894 ML players who were tough enough to handle the daily pain. I was impressed by the young players from both clubs who adapted and played as if they had been doing this forever. This game was clearly comparable to modern baseball. Our club held on to win the game and salvage a split of the doubleheader.
I was confused by the 1864 rules when up to bat. The umpire warned me after a pitch was a strike. The next pitch was also a strike but the umpire did not say anything. When I did not swing at the next pitch the umpire told me I had struck out and reminded me he had warned me. Welcome to the 1864 rules of baseball as I had looked at at least 8 balls before then but was not issued a walk.
I also made an out due to the fair-foul rule. I hit a ball and it must have first landed fair about a foot away from me. It bounced once so I looked back to see if the catcher would be able to catch it on one bound and get the out. When the catcher couldn't do that I relaxed and was feeling happy that I had another chance. Meanwhile, the catcher knew the rules so he ran after the ball. I was confused and the umpire (who came with the other team I might add!) didn't help me. So I ran to 1B but the catcher's throw beat me to the bag and I was out. Not any fun getting out on a foul ball by your feet.
Our young studs who played college ball and high school ball enjoyed the two games and the competitiveness. Our pitcher for the 1894 game kept saying he didn't know how to pitch using the old rules. The other team was experienced and often had runners halfway to 2B before our pitcher had released the ball. They even pulled the hidden ball trick on our runner at 1B.
If you ever get a chance to play a Vintage Base Ball Game I would encourage it. It is one thing to analyze the 19th Century game and quite another to actually play it.