Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

maven

Established Member
  • Content count

    6,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    207

Everything posted by maven

  1. collision resposibility

    I agree with Matt and Steve. There IS obstruction, and we should call it. If R2 scores, then there's no penalty. Announcing the infraction let's everyone know (a) that you were watching, (b) that you saw the contact, (c) that it was illegal and not nothing, and (d) if it happens again with a play at the plate, that runner's going to be scored anyway. A "discreet warning" to F2 might slip from one ear through the other without making much contact.
  2. Cricket umpiring scenario

    I have no idea what "take immediately tea," but I'm sure it's correct.
  3. wrong name on lineup card

    A misspelled name results in no penalty. It's not batting out of order, because the right player is batting. Fix the card an move on.
  4. Research Needed for Graduate School Project

    The survey needs work. Q.3: "What field position do you typically monitor as an umpire?" I don't know what that's asking. If it's asking whether we work bases or plate, we all work all positions. Q.4: "During a baseball game, have you or one of your coworkers ever had to made a call based on inadequate information?" This question won't yield interesting data. Almost every game has one or more calls based on less info than we'd like. Q.9: "How often do you feel umpires must make decisions based on limited information?" Information is always limited. What would be the contrast class, unlimited information? The "inadequate information" question was more apt. Q.10: "Do you or other umpires currently use any device to assist in make accurate calls during a game?" I hope all the HS umpires are answering "no" to this, or else they need to look at FED 10-1-5. I am skeptical. As it is, our brains have to integrate a great deal of sensory information, much but not all of it visual, before we rule on tag plays. Having to wait on a device to register won't improve the situation much, if at all. This device offers additional sensory information to integrate, and moreover mostly redundant information. Also, it seems like an expensive solution to an uncommon problem, given that we usually have sufficient information to make a correct call. Beyond that, I sincerely doubt that you'll get FED to buy into this, if it's a real proposal and not just an MBA exercise. Also, Autumn, I recommend NOT posting your school email address on the internet! If it's in your profile, folks can contact you, and you won't draw boatloads of spam.
  5. Balk Question

    I disagree, Rich. It's kind of a trick question: removing the ball from the glove IS starting the pitching motion. He could not possibly have done it BEFORE starting the pitching motion. I suppose he might have balked some other way, such as coming set again. But that would not explain the umpires' remark. Look, I try to be as charitable as the next guy, but the question that was brought to us was basically NOT "did these umpires get it right." We'd need video for that, as well as hearing from the umpires what exactly they called. Rather, the question is, "can F1 legally tap the ball in his glove during a pitch?" And the answer is yes.
  6. Balk Question

  7. Balk Question

    Once he's committed to pitch, it doesn't matter what he does with his hands. Sounds legal to me (at all levels).
  8. Erasing the catchers box...

    I'm not lawump, but I didn't learn this at pro school (and don't do it). I'd guess it's just an idiosyncratic preference. He might be a former F2: F2's clear those lines pretty routinely, the way many batters clear away the batter's box lines (but we know the boxes are both still there, even with no lines, right?).
  9. interference??

    The bar for retired runner INT is lower in both codes, but not low enough in OBR to warrant this ruling. No rule requires retired runners to disappear, but they cannot intentionally interfere. That would include running "back to the dugout" via a path that they know will take them through play. IOW, I'm willing to take some instances of "negligent" action as sufficient to count as "intentional" under the rule.
  10. 2018 POE

    I think you mean 'corps', but I won't need to do anything different. Seriously though, I'm association interpreter, and we've been moving in this direction for years (consistency of enforcement as an association = easier for everyone). And: what did you expect?
  11. interference??

    That's nothing. And when it happens, I recommend signalling "safe" immediately and verbalizing, "That's nothing!" This gives the defense the opportunity to retrieve the poorly thrown ball and try to play on other runners (if any—there weren't in the OP). We are sometimes lax when it comes to communicating our important no-calls, especially when one team thinks "nothing" should be "something."
  12. Erasing the catchers box...

    Probably so he wouldn't trip on it.
  13. The rule in OBR is the same as FED and NCAA. That said, we don't want to go fishing for this call. F1 can stand facing the batter with his hands together while he is off the rubber, and it might look like he's ready to wind up. He can stand as if he were in the set position and be off the rubber (assuming he has the ball). Since F1's position is dictated by his feet not his actions, some newer umpires might think these positions are prohibited by rule. They are not. What the rule prohibits is the NEXT act: in the "windup" a rocker step, "pump," or "rotation" is illegal while off the rubber. In the set, making the preliminary motion to come set is illegal while off the rubber.
  14. Obstrution???

    The award is based on umpire judgment, as it must nullify the act of OBS. Without video, we cannot legitimately comment on the correctness of the judgment call in a particular case. As a general rule, if a runner is tagged out on a close play after having been obstructed, he probably should have been awarded that base, all else being equal. If the awarded base is 2B and the runner advances beyond that base, he advances at his own risk. Any outs made at bases beyond (or even back into) the awarded base will stand.
  15. Backswing interference?

    You're not getting it. Torre is telling pro umpires how to read and enforce that rule. It doesn't need to be changed, because now it is clearer. It works the same way at higher levels of football. A borderline case arises, the conference coordinator or national rules editor (NCAAF), or league VP for officials (NFL) puts out a video explaining how that play is to be officiated going forward, and then that's the official interpretation for that level. What's unusual about the MLB situation is that all this is happening in public view, and Layne is being charged with an error (though I did not see the exact wording of Torre's announcement). That could have been handled later and behind the scenes. Layne interpreted the rule as he was trained to do (and many of us thought he got it right). To have Torre provide a different interpretation does not entail that Layne got it wrong. It entails that the play will be officiated differently going forward.
  16. Live or Dead Ball???

    IMHO [which I've expressed in the forum before] is that this possibility is merely notional, and should never actually happen on a field. That is because 1 of the following 2 things happened: The batter's action hindered the defense. The batter's action did not hinder the defense. In (1), we have batter INT: the ball is dead, someone is out for the INT, and (other) runners return. In (2), we have no INT: in that case, we have no rationale for returning runners. In no case will we actually have action that is not INT but still have a rational basis for returning runners. Either there was hindrance or not. Penalize or not, accordingly.
  17. Live or Dead Ball???

    Your inference is correct, and crucial to understanding the ruling. R3 advancing on the pitch in this play would be out for the batter's INT (that's the penalty for garden-variety batter INT with a play at HP with less than 2 out). He's not out in this play because he was not advancing. He's just put back on 3B (prevented from advancing because the INT made the ball dead).
  18. Live or Dead Ball???

    The count is moot. Note that the case play rules that the batter is out for INT, not for strike 3. FED "follow through" INT is a kind of batter INT. Same penalty applies.
  19. Fair/Foul

    I threw in the word "bounding" because the rule uses that word (FAIR BALL in the definitions).
  20. 2018 NFHS Casebook

  21. Fair/Foul

    I get what you're aiming at, but it's easier than this. If the bounding ball passes over the base (any part), then it's fair. Both are correct, although misleading. For a ball in the air (as opposed to a bounding ball), we don't care whether it goes over the base. It matters only where it lands or is touched. The general rule (with an exception) is that a runner touched by a fair batted ball is out for INT. True here as well, and the exception won't apply. If he's in foul ground, it will matter whether the touching was intentional and whether the ball had a chance to become fair (could be INT), but it's probably just a foul ball. Otherwise, all correct. Well done!
  22. Obstruction Q

    The 3 statuses, 'batted', 'thrown', and 'pitched' apply only to a loose ball. A ball held in the glove does not have one of those statuses. This quibble doesn't affect the substance of the discussion of the video.
  23. Odd appeal play

    Strictly speaking, no. The appeal is constituted by the act of the player making the tag (of runner or base), so his intention is operative. But as I've said (and his subsequent post supported), I'm reading Jason as saying that he would interpret the act described in the OP as an appeal under the circumstances. I don't believe that he's advocating a return to the "accidental appeal," and I would not try to apply his remarks more broadly than the case described in the OP. He has said he would say more later when time allowed.
  24. NFHS Pitcher Question

    A is correct, and it's black-letter rule (not merely a case play): "If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall not be a balk. In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew." (FED 6-2-4d) And although the OP concerns a situation with no runners, the rationale for the ruling above applies equally there. If it's not an illegal pitch with runners on, it's not illegal with no runners.
×