Register or Sign In to remove these ads

maven

Members
  • Content count

    6,541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    193

Everything posted by maven

  1. I would need to see him stop or kick at the ball, or the like, before I called this. It would have to be so obvious that his own coach was yelling at him as I was calling out the BR.
  2. This ruling might seem like an exception, but it is grounded in the key concept of interference, namely hindrance. When the fielders let the ball roll and make no attempt to field it, they cannot be hindered in their attempt to field it. So when R2 is hit by the batted ball, the contact hinders no one. No hindrance = no INT.
  3. That would be a different play. We could change the play in thousands of ways and generate thousands of posts that don't answer the question posed by the OP. Sometimes an analogy can help illuminate an explanation, but again focus is key.
  4. FIFY. The OP reports that R3 "tags up." No fourth out appeal should be granted.
  5. No biggie. Frankly, I didn't even notice the first time I read it that the post had "out of bounds."
  6. That's a pretty long narrative for a play where the offense advanced no runners and the defense recorded no outs.
  7. It's not just you. Tortured syntax is a by-product of committees writing.
  8. First of all, I suspect that by "out of bounds" the OP meant "foul ground." It would be highly unusual for a ball that lands anywhere in fair territory to go out of play before 1B. If that's right, then OP doesn't say whether the ball passed first base, nor, if it did, where it was when it passed the base. It says only that the ball touched both fair and foul ground before the base. That's not enough info to answer the question. Part of the problem with people not knowing the definition of fair/foul is that they don't know how much information to provide when asking about a particular play.
  9. Could not be caught with ordinary effort. Looks like a brain fart. Nice to have replay.
  10. Depending on whether the contact hindered F2's further play, this might also be INT: in codes where hurdling is illegal, resulting contact that hinders the fielder will also be illegal.
  11. If you have a legitimate umpiring question, feel free to post it. Arguing about cheating umpires is not appropriate for this site. There are plenty of other places on the internet where people will engage with your apparent desire to be right about how bad umpires are.
  12. Also called the "push": U1 comes in to pivot and takes the BR into 2B, as U2 takes R1 into 3B. Triggered with R1&R2 or bases loaded when U3 goes out.
  13. I think that's misleading. The fielder moving to tag the runner IS a physical tag attempt. He doesn't have to do anything more than that.
  14. I do. F4 runs right at him with the ball. Your threshold for "tag attempt" might need revision.
  15. RLI

    Remember that RLI has 3 necessary elements, without any one of which we properly no-call: Runner out of the lane by rule A throw to a fielder at 1B (not necessarily quality) Hindrance of the fielder taking the throw by the BR due to his illegal position The interp is based on the fact that, when the fielders play "inside" and the BR is "outside," his illegal position did not hinder the fielder taking the throw. If you want to read the case play as sneaking in the quality concept, that's probably not far off base. But it is firmly grounded in the baseball fundamental that no hindrance = no INT.
  16. Agree. Same ruling all codes. Lock it up.
  17. If it happened as I'm envisioning, then he does not require "protection" (or the exception for the last step or two). RLI properly called involves 3 things: runner outside lane + (quality) throw + hindrance of fielder taking throw. The exception/permission to be outside the lane for the last step or two concerns only the first condition. The second condition is required independent of the first: without a (quality) throw, the runner's position becomes irrelevant. The rationale is that the fielder can't be hindered taking a throw that he wouldn't have fielded anyway. All that said, I don't know whether this was ruled correctly; but in the still shot it looks suspect, on the grounds that the throw wasn't good enough. My point here is to focus concern on the throw, not on the runner's position.
  18. Mr.

    If fastpitch has the same rule as baseball, the fielder has (virtually) absolute right of way on a batted ball. Intent of the runner is irrelevant: he is required to avoid hindering the fielder (which can but need not involve contact). The ball is dead, the runner is out, and other runners must return. Depending on the code and situation, a second out might be part of the penalty.
  19. I don't know whether LL has a modification of straight OBR for RLI, but with F2 and F3 outside and the runner inside, pro umpires are not likely to call RLI on a bad throw inside that hits the runner. That's what I see in the still; I reserve judgment on the call until the video is posted.
  20. Mr

    What is the purpose of the lodged ball rule?
  21. The problem with trying to enforce both would be this: once one hindrance happens, it becomes impossible to tell whether the second would have happened without it. I would treat the second as a result of the first, and penalize just the first.