Register or Sign In to remove these ads

ricka56

Members
  • Content count

    2,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Everything posted by ricka56

  1. I messed up backends of many a few two DPs. Always because I stayed with the play at 2B too long and the banger at 1B blew-up on me. If an umpire has similar experience, the fix is to not do that anymore. Let PU, who has this responsibility, get the FPSR violation at 2B. PU having FPSR is on my pregame checklist. Be sure you don't have a partner like in the OP.
  2. Never said that. Staying with the play at 2B has to include some evaluation time (int or not). If an umpire is going to call FPSR, there is no need to see what happens at 1B, but if he decides that there is no interference, the banger at 1B is about to happen (if it hadn't already). 0.75 seconds goes by quick. I have all I can do to see the gloving/out at 2B, then turn to pickup BR approaching 1B. If you can stay with the play at 2B longer and still get the banger at 1B, more power to you. But if I was going to prioritize events, not missing the banger at 1B would be much higher than staying with the potential FPSR at 2B that PU is supposed to get.
  3. A middle infielder that can throw 75 mph gets the ball to F3 is about 0.75 seconds. If you can stay with a possible FPSR, get your head/eyes turned 90+ degrees, focus your vision on 1B in time to decide B/R safe/out "easily" in less than 0.75 seconds, then I tip my cap to you. 75 mi 1 hr 5280 ft ------- * ------- * ---------- = 110 ft/sec hr 3600 sec 1 mile Account for F3 stretch and MI inside 2B, then the ball travels about 83 feet. 83 feet time = ----------- = 0.75 seconds 110 ft/sec wonk, wonk
  4. Unless the PU is a U-E member, me thinks it'll probably remain unanswered.
  5. Of course there is support for calling interference if an umpire judges that a runner is not running the bases normally, 6.01a(5). The only controversy is the judgment of the play (not any rule to support a call). On-field umpires judged that the runner was running the base normally ... that means you have nothing. Given the judgment made, the rule application (or lack thereof) was correct, so the protest was denied.
  6. Holliday previously doing this, I read about ...hearsay....no video evidence...yet. I'm talking about future occurrences of this brilliant bambozzlement. I can't imagine that it'll be the last.
  7. If this retreat to 1B becomes "a thing" (I hear this isn't Holliday's first time doing this), I'm wondering how many occurrences it'll take before umpires start ruling that this is not running the bases normally. #bambozzle
  8. Exactly, the rule doesn't say that F1 is prohibited from getting any sign/signal from F2 (or anyone) when not engaged. The rule says that F1 takes sign from the rubber (not the same thing). If you are calling an illegal pitch ball/balk with F1 off the rubber (in Fed), you have ruled a violation before F1 has a chance to satisfy his obligation (when he engages the rubber). Once F1 engages, looks towards F2 who may or may not make a "discernible sign", and there is no quick pitch issue, the "taking signs from the rubber" obligation is satisfied.
  9. Why did the AL require F1 in contact originally ? ...to prevent quick pitching.
  10. 1. This rule was added to prevent quick pitches, if there isn't a quick pitch issue, I'd never bring up taking signs off the rubber. 2. If the OHC brought up the issue, and there are no quick pitch issues, I'd use the "is he REALLY getting a sign off the rubber" position and send OHC back to the dugout with an understanding that we're not going to delay the game further for this issue. 3. If there is a quick pitch issue associated with not taking signs from the rubber (never have seen it), then rule is to be enforced.
  11. We aren't supposed to get sarcastic with people asking ridiculous on this forum, but this one is hard to resist. When your league is making up crazy rules and you have to deal with unintended consequences that are not spelled out in said crazy rules, then you have the authority to supplement the situation with whatever crazy solution that comes to mind. 8.01(c)
  12. So the visitors are down by 4. The HT is stalling on defense, and your solution is to call penalty outs on the DT ? That is definitely a make $#!+ up rule. And if my partner is thinking about adding time to a game clock, forgetaboutit. Time has expired, game over. If he thinks there is still time on the clock, I hope his one-man skills are up to snuff. Let the TD deal with stalling
  13. Trump leaves voicemail for Brady
  14. Straddling HP (1BL/X) would be giving access to HP. Same position just 2-3 feet towards 3B (but HP exposed between F2's legs) I would not consider allowing access. That position invites either hard contact (not desired) or a deviation of the runners base path.
  15. Go to 2:07:40 of the following video, and tell me if anyone can see a game winning balk in there. http://www.nfhsnetwork.com/events/uil/634d259c45 full size this you tube video:
  16. How bad of an umpire etiquette faux pas is it to ask about a possible misapplication of rules as a pretext to ask WTF did you just do and correct if possible ?
  17. U3 (for those unaccustomed to 4-man) is the strangest experience. 2-man may be second nature now, but we don't ever work 'D' in 2-man. And even now, I still have to concentrate on WTF I'm supposed to be doing when in 'D' . A few years ago as U3 (Texas HS playoff game), I missed an easy balk call in 'D' (RHP/jab step/no throw). A balk would have ended the series with a R1/R3. I didn't have the balls to call it (neither did my 3 partners). OHC never complained ... must have thought F1 disengaged (which was my BS story, if asked). We got taken off the hook with a series ending RBI single. But every time I'm wondering WTF I'm supposed to be doing in 'D', I remember that no call and am determined not to let it happen again. So, in 'D', I'm looking for the balk that my other three partners (in a pressure packed environment) might miss. Maybe this U3 had a heightened balk sensor that got ahead of itself...I dunno. I do hope that U3 (and his crew) have been able to get some sleep since that game (I would have had trouble).
  18. I've heard of this. Never have seen one. I think it would take a lot of practice to do this without spraining an ankle. Son, you're going on the 15-day DL and that was a balk...insult to injury.
  19. I doubt he misapplied the rule. I think he thought that F1 didn't disengage. So would it be proper umpire etiquette for CC to ask about a misapplied rule as a pretext to ask about his obviously bad judgement ? If no, does proper etiquette trump getting this BIG play right ?
  20. So if we had a partner misapply a rule, we would correct the misapplied ruling. But balk calls have both judgement and "not-simple" rule application aspects to them. Do you think that the other 3 umpires, who had to be saying WTF, should have gone to U3 and clarify that he didn't bring an OBR balk rule with him onto the field and fix this mess ?
  21. Bad call, but bad coach rule understanding too. What HC said that U3 said makes no sense, and for HC not to get a clear understanding of what F1 did illegally is really inexcusable...not that that excuses the bad call.
  22. No, the OP was clear (unless you've editted it). MLB F1s have been allowed to go to a wind-up from what has been a traditional set position. But with runners on, non-pivot foot in front of the rubber, hands come together, and a discernible stop, THAT HAS to be considered the set/stop position. It would be unfair (and illegal) to rocker-step towards 1B (fake a move to 1B), then deliver a pitch. That's a balk.
  23. What ? Are you talking about the OP balk ? That was a fake to 3B (legal in HS). That move takes F1 off the rubber. From there he is another infielder and pitching rules (balks) do not apply.
  24. I didn't sign up to see it. They wanted $$$ for the live-stream, but that was two weeks ago and viewing is free now...not sure what incantation is required.