Register or Sign In to remove these ads


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by maven

  1. IF the umpire determined that the collision could have been avoided, THEN lowering the shoulder would support that determination. The play to imagine there is one where the runner is gunning for F2 all along and has time to line him up and knock him down A runner lowering the shoulder does not REQUIRE the umpire to rule that the collision is avoidable. Given the timing on this play, ruling the collision avoidable is a stretch. Watch how fast it blows up in real time when F2 steps into the runner's path, and imagine the runner went in standing up.
  2. As you've observed, A, B, and C are all true. That makes them all equally good responses. D is better, as it includes 2 true responses. No available response is better than D. Choose D.
  3. The rules have already been posted. The difference is captured in our terminology: returning to 2B from 3B is something a runner does. Once a runner legally scores, he is no longer a runner, he's a retired/scored runner. By rule, only runners run the bases.
  4. No. He takes fly balls in that area ONLY when he goes out, and he goes out only on trouble balls (4 kinds). Otherwise, BU will come into the infield, pivot, and take the BR. In that case, PU has fly balls to RF. BU should watch the ball until his other responsibility (seeing the action around 1B when the BR arrives) takes him off it. Watch the ball, glance at runners.
  5. The issue in this play is not when his exemption from OBS begins, but when it ends. As you yourself asked previously, does his failure to field the throw cleanly leave him liable for OBS, or is he still protected as he recovers the ball provided that he does not further impede the runner?
  6. Frankly, I think you could make a "baseball case" for either interpretation. Neither one is obviously the right way to go. To promote consistency, NCAA will need an official interpretation of how they want umpires to rule on the OBS exception in their rule.
  7. You're too kind. I'm wrong plenty around here, plus I don't know pro ball as well as many others who contribute to this forum.
  8. True enough. But not only that: unlike plays at 1B or tag plays on the bases (of which we see many), we might go a week or more without a close play at the plate. Without much practice, it's difficult to acquire a skill.
  9. Not in pro ball. Why would he be? The collision rule aims to minimize collisions, but recognizes that some are unavoidable. Play the bounce. In OBR-based codes that have MC provisions, apply those accordingly.
  10. You're right: we can't get 2 outs for a BOO. This is not substantially different from a batter who grounds out, and then the defense appeals BOO. The BOO supersedes the out made during play (or the time at bat).
  11. I don't think that's how pro ball is interpreting the collision rule. In this play, they'd rule that F2 initiated the collision as he moved into the runner's path. Given the time frame, this collision also probably fails to satisfy the "avoidable collision" clause (that is, the runner could not reasonably be expected to have avoided it). The collision rule prohibits the runner from deviating from his path in order to initiate contact with F2. It does not require him to alter his path when F2 moves to block the plate. In short, not all collisions are the result of illegal action, either by a runner or F2. The rule is 6.01(i)(1):
  12. By the book, I agree. My state wants a signal even on a can of corn. Do as your supervisor instructs. Also: whoever dinged you for an "out" signal after an out needs to get out more.
  13. I was helping in the field and called a start/stop balk on my 5-year-old's coach last season. I thought he was going to pass out he was laughing so hard. A couple daddy-coaches coming up in that league that know the rules better than most.
  14. This, which is clearer than my "unscoring" terminology. In the contrast example, where R3's run is scored legally, even if the defense plays on R3 returning or appeals, R3 cannot be retired as he already scored.
  15. I agree with you: I have F2 legal under OBR in his attempt to field the throw. He moves into the runner's path to field the throw, and doesn't move as he recovers the bobble. No infraction for OBR. I am no authority on NCAA, but the language suggests that Jimurray is interpreting it correctly, and he seems to be leaning OBS here because of the fielder's failure to field the throw cleanly. If you're keeping score at home, if I have them right the results are: FED: OBS NCAA: OBS OBR: legal play
  16. FED answer: OBS, but it doesn't start that way. F2 sets up here: The umpire is in good position to see that the runner, approaching from foul territory, has a clear lane to reach the base. If F2 doesn't move until the ball arrives, and only then steps to block or turns and swipes, we'd have a legal play. But that's not what happens. As the ball approaches, F2 pivots and steps back with his left foot, blocking the plate. Again, the umpire is well positioned to see the OBS and rule on it: F2 has cut off the runner's access to the plate without possession of the ball (we can't see the bobble from this angle, but will shortly). Had he fielded that throw cleanly as he stepped back, this is probably legal (if we need super slo mo to see an infraction, then it's legal). If F2 backs up farther, so that the runner now has access to the front of the plate, we have to rule on whether that satisfies the OBS rule. Given how close the runner is to the plate here — a couple steps when running — he does not have time to adjust his path to reach the newly accessible portion of the plate. I'd still have OBS in that case. Since F2 did not field the ball cleanly, this is OBS: Here the ball is visible above F2's shoulder. We'd like to see the umpire rotating into fair as the runner approaches the plate (he does so immediately after this frame). For FED, we'd expect the umpire to point, announce the OBS, and leave the ball live until the end of playing action, then award the runner HP and observe his touch of the base. FWIW, I believe this play is legal in OBR, given the exclusion in the HP collision rule:
  17. By rule, yes. In practice, if it's part of him adjusting the ball, I'd allow it. If it's a neurological thing, I'd allow it (I once umpired a game where F1 had Tourette's, and his tics made him twitch in the set — after the offense figured out that I wasn't going to call it, everyone ignored it and the game proceeded without incident). If it's just a wiggling glove and I "can see it," I'd address it. If it doesn't stop, I'd balk it. Obviously, this is more a game management issue than a rules issue. We all know that game management can turn on 100 variables, and I've mentioned only a few. I doubt that one size fits all here.
  18. Only a handful of English words have -gm- in them, and we've mentioned 2 of them in this thread! [That should conclude the most boring hijack in the history of the internet — and maybe just in history.]
  19. He'll be here all week.
  20. Isn't that what basejester posted? He has the old number in there.... but yes, that's the OBR rule. And the 6000th post: I was going to be a wiseass and say that 1 post got deleted a couple years ago, so that was really #6001, but then I realized that the number is still way too high, and kinda embarrassing. Maybe Warren can reset it to 42 or something.
  21. Mea culpa.
  22. The governing concept for INT is not contact but hindrance. If F4 deliberately hinders R1, then we could get INT. That said, I'd have to be damn sure that he was doing it intentionally. I'd be looking for him diverting away from the base to get into F4's path, with or without contact. If they're just doing a little zig-zag dance trying to get out of each others' way and failing, that's not INT because not intentional hindrance.
  23. The bat didn't hit the fielder, it hit the ball. This provision does not apply to this case. The distinction is similar to runner interference with a (protected) fielder vs runner being hit by a batted ball. The rules are different.
  24. The defense will struggle to record an out at 1B with no fielder there. If I'm following the situation, F3 is crashing the bunt, and F4 is being held up by the runner.
  25. We have to rule whether F1 dropped the ball or made a (really bad) throw. If he dropped the ball, even accidentally, then it's a balk by rule (FED is 6-2-4a, OBR has the same provision). If he threw the ball, then it's a legal feint of a throw to 2B. Just as F1 can feint a throw to 2B by actually throwing to F6 away from the base, he can feint a throw to 2B by throwing it at the ground. I'm pretty sure he threw it. [That is, I'm not calling a balk for dropping the ball once he starts toward 2B; the "dropped ball" balk is generally called before any motion to pitch or pick.]