Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

beerguy55

Members
  • Content count

    915
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

beerguy55 last won the day on December 27 2016

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

187 Neutral

About beerguy55

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)
  1. How in the world can you change that call?

    The catcher dropped the ball
  2. How in the world can you change that call?

    You saw the catcher drop the ball in real time. I call extreme bullsh*# if in real time you discerned that the ball hit the ground, then the glove, then the ground again. You can barely see that in slow-mo.
  3. How in the world can you change that call?

    Not without replay - even the replay is incredibly close, in slow motion...in fact, all three of the infield umps could have easily and conceivably argued the ball never hit the ground, in real time. If Wolf got that info from the crew, then it would be easy for him to convince himself the two sounds were bat/glove. Edit: more accurately, in real time it could look like the ball hit the ground after hitting the glove (or even at the same time), and would not make the same, if any, discernible sound as the ball hitting the ground directly before going into the glove.
  4. Cross up or deke

    I've never understood why it would matter if it's a deke or cross up. The ball entered the strike zone. I understand the reality, and that reality has created a cottage industry in catcher framing clinics, and scouting umpire tendencies, but there's a difference between being crossed up (as an umpire) by the pitcher missing his spot...and consciously punishing the pitcher for missing his spot even when his miss was a strike....or rewarding a pitcher for hitting his spot, six inches off the plate.
  5. How in the world can you change that call?

    Unless you become convinced the catcher caught the ball...it was certainly very close to whether or not the catcher short-hopped it (he did) I get the impression he always heard two sounds, and convinced himself they were bat/glove rather than ground/glove.
  6. Fair/Foul

    Post should say when it should be ruled foul as in the OP....I knew what he meant. That is, people don't typically argue a ball touched in foul territory is fair because it touched the plate first...they argue the opposite...that any ball that touches the plate first is foul. If the OP was ruled foul, it's hard to see many scenarios where someone would argue it should be fair. If it was ruled fair, I can see people arguing it should be foul, but for the wrong reason (ie. it hit the plate). What I find in scenarios like this it sometimes gets lost why an umpire called it fair/foul, to determine whether or not it's a rule dispute or a judgment dispute. He often believes you're arguing judgment, and shuts down the conversation. Foul because the ball's in foul territory Foul because the ball hit the plate Foul because the catcher's in foul territory, not the ball Fair because the ball's in fair territory Fair because the catcher's in fair territory, not the ball Though everything above has judgment in it, three of them are rule issues. Then, do we have a scenario where he called it foul because it hit the plate...but the ball ended up foul anyway, but he stopped watching the ball after it hit the plate...and he's telling the coach it was foul because it hit the plate...and now nobody cares/knows if the ball was actually foul or not. Or do we simply have a case where the umpire ruled it fair, because he judged the ball was actually over fair territory when it was touched, and OP's declaration it was over foul territory is merely a matter of opinion.
  7. Fair/Foul

    Usually coaches/parents (and even several umpires in my time) declare the opposite - they think if it hits the plate first it's immediately foul. Or if the catcher's feet are in foul territory, but his glove touches the ball in fair territory, they still want a foul ball. I'm guessing that the catcher stepped forward into fair territory, and the ball spun backwards over his head, and he reached back and touched it in foul territory. That's the only scenario where I could see a rule dispute here, where many parents/players/coaches/umpires will incorrectly call fair based on where the player is, not the ball. Otherwise, it's a dispute of judgment, not rule...was the ball actually over foul territory or not....and in the entire ballpark the plate umpire likely has the best view to determine that...even the catcher likely wouldn't know for sure...and neither will most parent cams.
  8. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    Isn't that from Scanners?
  9. When you're trying to determine if someone is being malicious, or just stupid (ignorant), it's almost always stupid. Some coaches are definitely tactical when presenting this argument...most are just ignorant. Some "learned" it from an umpire who enforced it that way in a previous games. Others simply believe it for the same reason they believe the hands are part of the bat...they saw it in a feverish dream.
  10. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    Wow, do you save the sarcasm only for me, or are you applying this snark to ALL the people on this thread who believe that the OP is a foul ball (not a strike)? Any pitch that hits the batter's bat is a batted ball. The pitch doesn't stop being a pitch when the batter swings....the pitch stops being a pitch when it hits the bat, the batter, R3 stealing home, or the catcher (and I assume at some point after it passes the catcher if untouched). If it's still a pitch when it hits the bat, it's a batted ball. Unless there's some rule/case play/interpretation/comment/precedent/Supreme Court ruling that has a different definition for when a pitch ends I see no other way to interpret this. And a follow through/backswing can absolutely end in front of/at the batter - not past him (if the batter is bad enough to swing that early, they are bad enough to have form that will cause them to do a 180 or more on their follow through, bringing that bat into the strike zone a second time)...and certainly in front of the plate...and certainly well in front of the catcher. As to the CI - separate conversation with a different set of discussion points...and don't really care if I go to Turdville or not. If it's still a pitch then the batter can still hit it. If the catcher hinders that, it's CI. (at the same time, if Blue ruled against this in a game my argument would be half-hearted, if not non-existent)
  11. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    In the OP it's still a pitch - it hasn't passed the batter/reached the catcher yet. Bat hitting a "pitch" is a batted ball. You can take ten swings forward and backward if you want...if one of them hits the pitch it's in play. The rule refers to a ball that is no longer a pitch - it has probably gone off the catcher/umpire. The rule specifically mentions "in back of the batter" - 99.9% of batted balls are hit in front of the batter....the rule is talking about a ball that has already gone past the batter and is no longer a "pitch".
  12. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    Of course it would be hindrance. I have yet to see a scenario in my life where a bat hitting a catcher's mitt on a pitch was not ruled CI (even on a check swing), because the bat hitting the mitt is ALWAYS hindering the ability to hit the ball (even when the batter knocks it out of the park it's still CI, though ignored). This would also be true on a backswing/followthrough where the bat hits the mitt when the pitch is still considered a pitch. If it's still a pitch, it can still be batted...if it can still be batted, anything that prevents/hinders that must be interference. The bat coming around on the follow through and hitting the ball would be a batted ball, foul or fair. The bat coming around and hitting the mitt, deflected and missing the pitch as a result would be CI. The bat hitting the mitt should be judged hindrance, no matter the result. Provided it is still a pitch.
  13. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    Theoretically a batter should be able to "swing" as many times at a single pitch as he wants - the only determination is whether or not he struck at a pitch. Imagine an extreme change up where the batter had time to swing, and then swing again. Maybe I'm very wrong, but I know of no rule that says a batter is only allowed one chance to strike at any one pitch. A pitch can only result in one ball or one strike. He could stand up there like a mini-putt windmill twirling around and around. If a pitch is still a pitch, it doesn't matter if it's the swing, the follow through, a second swing, or no swing at all, if his bat contacts it, it's a batted ball.
  14. What's the Count?

    No, that's not what happened. It's right above in this very thread. mbates said "Ok now what about this? PU and BU have same count. Score keeper plus each coach has same count but different from yours. Who wins? (We gave in)" Your response was Me. Books and coaches don't pay close enough attention to override me or my click.... indicator. So, my response to you was directly related to this specific exchange. This isn't really a call. It's a dispute over fact. Two coaches and the scorekeeper tell you the count is 2-0...your clicker (and memory) says it's 2-1. It's not a discussion of judgment, or even rules, so it doesn't really matter how much you read and study, or how good your position on the field is. What's more likely - that they all forgot/missed a strike you called? Or that you perhaps forgot to reset your clicker after the last batter? No, but it should give you pause to at least reflect - why do they all believe this one fact and I believe something different. (again, I'm not talking about judgment calls...or even rule disputes). You better be able to go through each pitch. It's a little easier to explain the difference between 2-1 and 1-2 (no, I called that first pitch a strike)...a little more difficult to explain why one set of people thinks three pitches were thrown, and the umpire believes there were 2, or 4, or 5 thrown. I've seen too many umpires forget to click - especially on foul balls and wild pitches - to think the indicator is anything close to infallible. Hell, MLB umps have done it. And at the amateur level far too often I've seen base umps who don't follow the count, so they're no help in disputes...except to say "I can't dispute your count", which somehow gets interpreted to "he has the same count I do". If you're certain you're right, then go with it...but go with it because you're certain you're right, and that your memory is right (ideally, you can even determine why the coaches believe differently than you do), not because you don't want to be wrong, and not because "the clicker says 2-1, it must be 2-1".
  15. Is the issue one of economics, or population? Are there enough umpires sitting around at home doing nothing to fill any/all three-man lineup gaps? Because, frankly, most people I've dealt with would gladly pay for four-man crews all year long....in my experience cost hasn't been the issue in this decision. Coaching a club team where the outlay is in the neighborhood of $8000/year, including travel costs, per player, forking out an extra $250/player/year to ensure there is an extra umpire for all 80ish games is something most of the parents would gladly pay.
×