Register or Sign In to remove these ads


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by maven

  1. I'm having trouble making sense of the question. Can you provide more details?
  2. Although I agree with your exaggerated case, I'm surprised to see you press the more general point. You're usually the person who emphasizes that FED includes the concept of hindering the throw, and not only hindering the fielder taking the throw, in its definition of RLI: "This infraction is ignored if ... the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw" (8-4-1g). When a fielder is forced to throw around a BR who is out of the lane, FED counts the infraction as RLI.
  3. Yes, high school rules prohibit exactly that kind of fake tag: it is obstruction, and the umpire will issue a team warning; any subsequent offense will also be OBS and penalized by ejecting the fielder. Other codes lack this provision (AFAIK).
  4. First: that's not the penalty by rule. More important: your method won't put other runners back. With INT/FPSR, other runners return to their TOI/TOP bases (depending on the rule, code, etc.).
  5. I thought about that: I wasn't sure whether the OP was saying that the runner knocked the ball out (intent) or the collision did. The former will always be INT; the latter will require a judgment about protection.
  6. FIFY. But I agree: FED doesn't require a quality throw because they don't want fielders throwing at runners. The FED rule can lead to some interesting conversations when enforced correctly after F2 sails a throw into RF.
  7. A protected fielder's protection lasts from the time the ball is batted through his throw, attempted play on a runner, or misplay of the ball. A runner who hinders a protected fielder (contact sufficient but not required) is guilty of INT. A fielder has "misplayed" rather than just "played" a batted ball when he has to move from where he first attempted to play the ball. The OBR standard is a "step and a reach" beyond that location; in FED fielders lose their protection when they "have to move from their original location," though I interpret that by the same standard (step and reach). A fielder without protection who hinders a runner is guilty of OBS. For the OP, it will be umpire judgment whether the fielder is still playing the batted ball (protected) or has misplayed the ball (not protected). The correct ruling on the contact will be entailed by that judgment. It's difficult to assess that judgment call without video, unless the description is really obvious ("he didn't have to move at all, just picked up the ball," or "he had to run about 5 steps to get the misplayed ball"). I agree with johnpatrick's claim that contact during a batted ball is almost never nothing, and thus not incidental contact. Somebody has the right of way there, and the other guy is at fault.
  8. What is "cheap foul," I wonder? If a batted ball strikes a base and then goes out of play, it's a fair ball and a 2 base award (ground rule double).
  9. Some folks think that 'force play' means something about tagging a base instead of a runner. So, they reason in reverse, if a fielder tags a runner it isn't a force play. That's incorrect. noumpere posted the correct thinking.
  10. "Where they are supposed to be" and "doing what they are supposed to do" are not rules, but cheap rules shortcuts. Their use only worsens game management issues. This will be OBS if it occurs in front of the base, and usually nothing otherwise. FED has a case play that is exactly your play: IIRC it's 8.3.6K. I'll look it up and post it later if nobody else does so first.
  11. The distinction you mention is relevant to a batted, not a thrown, ball.
  12. That can't be batter INT because you no longer have a batter. It can't be BR INT because the BR didn't interfere. There's no such thing as bat INT. Unless the offense intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, the defense is responsible for what happens to it. Here, play the bounce.
  13. Sounds like tangle/untangle.
  14. In my experience, most umpires think that their timing for calls at 1B is really good. Empirical evidence demonstrates that it isn't. I video them. After, I ask: how long, in seconds, between the play and your call? Most will say 1-2 seconds. A stopwatch reveals that nearly all are less than 1 second, most less than 0.5 seconds. I'm not suggesting that there's a proper time interval. I'm suggesting that it FEELS like a long time when we learn to use proper timing. Proper use of the eyes, for an umpire with bad timing, FEELS like 20 minutes. Focusing on using your eyes correctly, as grayhawk has explained, is the proper approach. Timing will take care of itself, and you'll also give your brain time to process all the evidence. That last bit is important: since we're using both visual and auditory evidence, we have to coordinate two distinct parts of the sensory cortex, through the pre-frontal cortex (for decision making). The brain sends signals fast, but with more information across different parts of the brain, it takes correspondingly longer. Failing to give your brain time to coordinate its evidence is the cause of so much second-guessing.
  15. I got a phone call to decide a mechanics bet between two crewmates today. See if you'd give the gift card to the same umpire. 2 umpires mechanics. SITUATION: R1, outs don't matter. Batter hits a ground ball single into the outfield. PU rotates up to 3B, moving to the cutout when R1 commits to 3B. The ball is overthrown to 3B, and R1 starts toward HP. QUESTION: Who covers the play at HP, and why? PU's bet: BU should rotate home in this situation and take the play at the plate. BU's bet: PU has to bust home and cover the play at the plate. Who gets the gift card? Does it matter which 2-umpire system we're using?
  16. Q: How many software engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: None. That's a hardware problem.
  17. Mr

    If he swung enough to tip it foul, then it should be strike 3 in any case. Sorry, coach.
  18. In other news, John Gibbons's anger management training is paying dividends on the field.
  19. The suggestion that umpires "work harder" to do anything is objectionable on its face, as it is vague. Harder than what? It's generally doubletalk motivated by fanboy attitudes toward some call or action of an umpire and utterly unsubstantiated by data.
  20. Had this today in a showcase game. R3, no outs, batter hits a fly ball to the LC gap. F7 and F8 converge, and F8 gloves the ball as they collide. Both fielders go to the ground, and F8's glove comes off with the ball in it. R3 tags up and scores. After a moment, F8 recovers, gets up, picks up his glove with the ball in it (the ball never touched the ground), and throws it back into the infield. The defense appeals R3's retouch. Ruling? Cite applicable rules for full credit.
  21. The bears don't mind.
  22. That's a very good question indeed.
  23. Yeah, occupational hazard from my day job.
  24. Oh we can agree with that, but the assumption there is that interference involves hindrance. Your earlier post specified an "off-line" throw, which I read to be one that would not otherwise retire a runner. In that case, there would be no hindrance, and thus no INT.
  25. You're entitled to your own judgment of the play. If my ruling was that the runner did not merely continue to advance but intentionally positioned himself to hinder the defense, I might be wrong, but I'd win your protest.