Register or Sign In to remove these ads

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Pretty sure that was Jim Palmer ranting about it's a bad call, and not a balk. He's so horrible in the booth. I'm sure as a HOF pitcher,he knows the rules about stepping to a base,but he's such a homer the O's never do anything wrong...even if it is illegal. Watched an Oriole game the other night on MLB network. Palmer made me twitch 5 or 6 times with moronic comments he made regarding rules, umpires, etc.
  3. Not only HIS best reliever, the best reliever in the game last year.
  4. If the batter interferes with the catcher and his attempt to field a dropped third strike he's out for interference. Throwing the bat which hits the ball and knocks it away from the catcher would easily qualify. This applies to OBR, I think FED has different requirements.
  5. Today
  6. Looking for an umpire for CDP Week 6. Please contact tom.dwyer@gmail.com for details.
  7. Actually, no, I wasn't kidding. You DID, in fact, do all the things in your second line. And then you went "yeah, but...." Believe it or not, that's happened on this site before. I'll try to add [sarcasm] tags the next time, since your third paragraph tells me I wasn't obvious enough. But no, no one disagrees - of those that know enough of the LL rulebook to respond. So you're right - there's not a rule. But at the same time, you were given the logic path that you follow to actually work a game under LL rules. And be correct while doing it. And you continue to resist. [sarcasm]As for the last paragraph, I'm glad I made you laugh; it's one of the talents I bring to the site.[/sarcasm] I don't see it as dismissing you for furthering a discussion; I see it more as 'dismissing' you - if that's the word - for being one of those guys that gets told what the accepted rule/interpretation/practice is - AT THIS TIME (because things might change, of course) - and yet wants to Be Right and/or "yeahbut" (space intentionally deleted) the thing to death. You are being one of Those Guys. And again - throwing some shade at a long time, respected poster. (Not me, certainly, but noumpere.) THAT'S where it could be argued is the subject for which I 'dismiss' you. I prefer to say "calling you out," but po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
  8. Balk. As far as the coach's "argument" goes, the pitching regulations begin when the pitcher intentionally engages the rubber. That means in any position. If he's in contact with the rubber, the regulations apply.
  9. Still available? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
  10. Nope, you have it right. "Disengaging" by stepping forward isn't actually disengaging. It's a balk. I'm not sure if it would fall under a start/stop balk or something similar, but I'd tell the coach he has to disengage off the back of the rubber. Either way, it's a balk.
  11. I think we have it covered with the MBA. I expect this to evolve w/ MLB as well. I do agree with you about what you say w/ regard to status of the ball.
  12. We may be overlooking the fact that MLB umpires don't signal time for everything we would, so it's entirely possible there's a protocol in place and we just aren't seeing it signaled.
  13. So, I'm pretty sure I've got this right, but coach is arguing rules interpretations with me, so wanted to verify. Working Babe Ruth 13-15, which uses slightly modified OBR. Twice called a pitcher for a balk when he disengaged by moving his pivot foot forward rather than backwards, and then threw to a base (once to 3rd, once to 1st). So far as I am aware, there are no situations in which a pitcher is allowed to disengage forward. 5.07(a)(2) says that the three options are to pitch, throw directly to a base, or step off backwards. However, coach is arguing that because pitcher was in the stretch prior to coming set, this portion of 5.07(a)(2) does not apply. I can see how, on a very strict reading, this might be the case. Did I actually miss this one?
  14. Not at all. "Hey, blue, we're walking him" doesn't require a time call or a conversation. It's no different than, "Hey, blue, what's the count?" or "How many outs are there?"
  15. So, with a lack of clarification, are we to assume that the status of the ball is the same as whatever it is when the IBB is requested? Might want to bring that part up with the MBA, since you have their ear.
  16. although you could easily make the argument that he would have beat it out
  17. I'd venture to say there is no one here that thinks you're serious about intellectual curiosity. You have the answer to the situation. You have the answer to what rule is in the LL book--and even though there is none, that still is an answer. The basis by how to justify the proper ruling has also been answered. Right now, it seems that you want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing because there is nothing else to be said on the subject. There is a name for umpires like you that is used at clinics...the yeah-but guy, the guy who seeks to offer contradictory situations to answers presented by more-knowledgeable people.
  18. I think Elk was getting more at something like..... oh I don't know...... calling TIME immediately on catcher's interference when the ball is put in play.........
  19. Espn Box score has Peralta grounding into a FC with Pollock out at second. Which would still be wrong. Isn't batter still credited with a single? Camera angle over 1B does make it look like LeMahieu drew that call honestly. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
  20. I'm pretty sure it's live. There is nothing in the rule book that specifies that this is a dead ball award. However, it doesn't say that it must be live either. Here's a dead ball intentional walk http://m.mlb.com/video/v1254676683/chcstl-yadi-draws-intentional-walk-without-pitches/?query=intentional+walk Here's a live ball intentional walk http://m.mlb.com/video/v1256539883/laaoak-pujols-walks-intentionally-confusion-ensues/?query=intentional+walk
  21. are you kidding? I have done a lot of reading, I have cited the actual LL rules, I have questioned the instructor's comment in the RIM that creates a rule without basis. I have yet to ask for a rule that references me by name, I simply asked for A SINGLE LL RULE. I haven't seen a post yet that disagrees with there not being a rule; not even a rule that was ambiguous and some other document provided a clarification. "Intellectual curiosity" - you make me laugh by dismissing someone that wants to further a discussion on applying a rule that is not a rule.
  22. Buck can sit his best reliever in a close Wild Card game from his comfortable seat in the clubhouse.
  23. Correct. If there had already been two outs, then @MT73 has you covered. The batter can always run on a dropped third strike with two outs.
  24. I think Kevin's link answers this on page 33. 1. A batted ball bounces up to hit the batter or his bat after he swings at it. Ruling: This is a foul ball unless he was obviously out of the batter's box when the contact occurred. While the other codes Kevin cites clearly define this situation, in Little League it appears to be an interpretation as it is not found in the rule book. Drop the phrase "By interpretation..." on the agitated coach and then take a step or two back as I would be willing to bet his head is about to explode.
  25. Buck can do whatever he wants from his comfortable seat in the clubhouse.
  26. Sure, unfortunately LL sends out a rule book every year - they never mention if you don't like something here, or feel another year's book may be better, or just ignore this book and go off what you want or some other organizations rules. in fact, the rule book states clearly: “OFFICIAL RULES - The rules contained in this book.” Excerpt From: Digital, Libre. “2017 Little League Baseball: Official Regulations, Playing Rules, and Policies.” Libre Digital, 2017. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright. There are Approved Rulings outside of the book that apply scenarios to the rules to clarify ambiguous rules, however, I have not found another A.R. or instructor's comment that completely changed the rule as this does. The instructor's comment does not expound on 6.05(f), it creates an application of a rule that Has no basis in the LL rule book. Please understand, this discussion is continuing for intellectual curiosity, not debating a citation to apply the call of foul ball, I have stated that 3 times now.
  1. Load more activity