Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

maven

Members
  • Content count

    6,672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    203

Everything posted by maven

  1. Would this be legal for a pitcher?

    The glove with the flag in the webbing might be in technical violation of US Title 36 (The "Flag Code"), Chapter 10, §176h: "The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything." But only a lawyer would pursue the matter....
  2. Would this be legal for a pitcher?

    Illegal in FED, which prohibits white on F1's glove. White leather, white in the flag, the bald eagle's head—all illegal. My state, at least, interprets 6-2-1h quite strictly. There is no penalty; the glove must be removed or made legal (black Sharpie for the bald eagle; defacing the flag might be a federal crime). For other codes, legal unless the PU judges the glove distracting.
  3. Obstruction Q

    It’s impossible to be in possession of a batted ball. Just sayin’.
  4. New Feature - Member Map

    ...but not on a boat. It's the Maldives. They won't be around much longer, though probably for the remainder of our lifetimes at least.
  5. No sht fair

    "I guess it's just what I was taught" can also mean, "why should I believe you over [whoever taught them]." With or without expletive.
  6. Aw! Nicest thing you've ever written about me!
  7. I admire noumpere, who always strives to be just the right amount of officious.
  8. Last time by and other fun stuff

    I don't know the current mechanic for "relaying" an appeal. I'd want to do it in a way that didn't confer any advantage either way: it's U2's call, and I would just relay it: "They're appealing his failure to retouch 2B!" If that's not the standard way, I'd use whatever is standard.
  9. Last time by and other fun stuff

    I see. Then yes, the defense would lose the right to appeal a failure to retouch at 2B because of the play on the runner stealing. That's a rule difference from FED.
  10. Last time by and other fun stuff

    It's a batted ball, caught for an out, and a throw to 1B for a retouch appeal on a runner who was stealing on the pitch. The ball is live the entire time. The appeal was granted (I think for the 3rd out?), and the ball became dead. If replay overturns it and the defense wants to appeal a failure to retouch 2B, they will need to make the ball live first to do so. Intervening play is irrelevant here. The defense may appeal this runner at both bases.
  11. Last time by and other fun stuff

    Took me a minute, but I think I figured out what you're asking. The clip shows a retouch appeal being made at 1B. You are correct that the "obvious" appeal in the clip is failure to retouch 1B. The umpire will rule on that when it happens. If the defense wants to appeal a failure to retouch 2B, then they can just tag the runner standing on 1B. If the defense makes a second appeal ("he didn't tag up at 2B either!") the umpire (probably U2 here) will rule on that as a distinct appeal.
  12. That's not correct. 8-4-2c applies to all plays at all bases; because FED regards sliding as one way to "legally attempt to avoid" a fielder, the provision amounts to a "slide or avoid" provision. FED applies additional restrictions to a legal slide for force plays (direct line between the bases), but those are irrelevant to the OP.
  13. Tagging on fly

    I guess we'll see whether that's symptomatic.
  14. No rule requires that a runner "slide or avoid a tag." Runners have to slide or TRY to avoid CONTACT. By giving himself up, the runner in your play did the latter. Don't penalize the offense because F2 can't hold onto the ball. Your ruling sounds fine to me, based on that description of events.
  15. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    Of course not. CI is defined in terms of hindrance, not contact, like most forms of INT. No hindrance = no INT. My esteemed colleague (and I have the greatest respect for grayhawk) does not put his best dialectical foot forward in this thread.
  16. Tagging on fly

    Are you sure? I took him to be disputing the attribution of that play to the runner in the actual MLB game, to which the OP was referring. A lot of chastening based on a false premise...
  17. Tagging on fly

    If R1 is beyond 2B, then yes, he must retouch it on his way back to 1B or be liable to a proper appeal. (A "touch of 2B," assuming you mean a TAG of it by a fielder holding a live ball, is one way to appeal failure to retouch.) If he slides into 2B without advancing beyond it, then he does not need to retouch 2B.
  18. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    That's not apposite. We charge strikes based on the swing, so 1 swing/miss = 1 strike. We charge batted balls based on contact between a pitch and a bat. Since the swing is irrelevant to whether we have a batted ball—we can have batted balls with no swing at all, or a check swing—it follows that the part of the swing in which the bat and pitch contact must be irrelevant to its status as a batted ball. You're not disagreeing with me: the follow through is part of the swing. But "had his chance and missed" is based on the mistaken premise that what's at issue is when the parts of the swing start and end. We don't need to parse that (or I don't; you actually do, which is a defect of your argument). The ONLY criterion for "batted ball" is: did a pitch contact the bat (setting aside various kinds of illegality)? Yes: therefore we have a batted ball, fair or foul. Nothing else matters. And Ives, please STFU about "the rule," which doesn't apply until after the pitch ends (not when the 'swing' or some part thereof ends). FWIW, if a batter swings at a pitch and his follow through contacts the pitch, it's worth wondering whether he was really offering at the pitch with his swing. Might not be a strike at all.....
  19. WS crew..

    I know something you don't know. I'll post it later.
  20. No sht fair

    Your wife complains about your mechanics? Are we still talking about umpiring?
  21. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    That's just it: his swing hit the pitch. How are you getting a "miss" out of this instead of a foul ball? If he's still swinging, and the pitch is still a pitch, then this is a foul ball. As basejester points out, intent to swing is immaterial: a pitch that hits a bat becomes a batted ball. It's a batted ball even with no swing at all. No rule dictates where in a batter's swing he may no longer contact a pitch: many of us have seen the bat hit the ball when the ball is behind the batter, during the "follow through." Still a batted ball there. The rule posted is about the situation where the ball (note that it refers to the ball, not the pitch) is in the air after it is no longer a pitch (typically deflecting off things). That's the ball the batter may not legally contact with his swing (part of which we designate as the 'follow through'). Also: "preventing the catcher from catching the pitch" is not the name of an infraction, or else every batted ball would be illegal. As this is a TWP it's probably not worth bloodshed. But the definitions are on the side of a foul ball here.
  22. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    It's a batted ball. Can't be INT of any kind.
  23. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    Most folks use "BI" to stand for "batter INT," which results in an out (including FED's "followthrough INT"). In what code does "backswing INT" result in an out? This was a foul ball. As a general rule, when you have "WTF was that," we want to lean toward "nothing," not "someone is out."
×