Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. Check Swing Question

    Hell, I've seen PU's (especially really green ones) miss full swings. The BU, in ALL scenarios, will have a better view than a PU, at some point, where he does see a swing. If he sees a swing, it's probably a swing...if he doesn't no harm no foul.
  2. Check Swing Question

    Not sure if softball says they cannot, but they are certainly able to refuse, and I've seen it. Common scenario is BU is situated behind shortstop with right-handed batter - not sure what help he's gonna provide. Even if PU doesn't refuse the request BU is saying "no" every time.
  3. Finger stiffeners

    http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/0/4/0/224919040/2017_Official_Baseball_Rules_dbt69t59.pdf Pages 7-9 - I don't see anything there that would disallow this.
  4. Baseball Rules Myths - Busted

    Thank you for the compliment. Here's my take on NFHS. h. is touched by a live ball securely held by a fielder or is touched by a fielder’s glove or hand with the live ball held therein, while the runner is not touching his base. i. does not retouch his base before a fielder tags him out or holds the ball while touching such base after any situation (8-2-1, 2-3 and 4). or j. fails to reach the next base before a fielder either tags the runner out or holds the ball while touching such base, after runner has been forced from the base he occupied because the batter became a runner (with ball in play) when other runners were on first base, or on first and second, or on first, second and third It seems to delineate between tagging the runner (tie goes to runner) and tagging the base (tie goes to defense) - whether it's a force or an appeal. Because of the language in i and j, which turns out to be redundant and circular (ie. the runner is out if he doesn't reach the base before he is tagged out, which must occur before he reaches the base), even on a force/appeal play, it seems if you tag the runner instead of the base the tie would go to the runner....based on Rule one, Section 24....following that even article one for a force out contains the language for a tag out. ART. 1 . . . A force-out is a putout during which a runner who is being forced to advance is tagged out, or is put out by a fielder who holds the ball while touching the base toward which the forced runner is advancing ART. 4 . . . A tag out is the put out of a runner, including the batter-runner, who is not in contact with his base when touched with a live ball, or with the glove or hand when the live ball is held securely therein by a fielder. . On a side note, I think Article Four alludes to the most compelling case for "tie goes to the runner", dismissing any technical/semantic discussion, in how anyone may have struggled to word a rule for any given scenario...the words "not in contact with his base". The premise and spirit of the game, in its purest form, has always held that if you're touching the (proper) base you are safe - and the opposite side of the coin, if you are tagged while not touching the base you are out. So, if you accept the notion that there can be ties, then in a scenario where the runner and the ball/tag do arrive at the exact same time, the runner must be safe because he is in contact with the base. In following the spirit of the game.
  5. Baseball Rules Myths - Busted

    I think it's simpler to say "the ball beat the runner" or "the runner beat the ball". If HC says "it was a tie" I think rather than getting into the philosophical/mathematical argument "there are no ties" (you can do that in the beer garden afterwards), I think a simple "I didn't see a tie" would end it, even if it is a white lie. My overall point in the context of the video is this is one myth that can't simply be dispelled by pointing to a single rule...there are too many instances of semantically conflicting language across multiple rule sets. The only way to really counter it is to say there are no ties, which is effectively how it was explained to me by my (believe it or not) coach almost 40 years ago. I've always seen it as a guideline - like breaking the wrists or crossing the plane are guidelines...not rules...that some people use to determine if there was a swing - to follow on close plays...basically putting the onus on the defense and giving the benefit of the doubt to the runner....something meant to make things a little easier at the younger levels...or in the playground.
  6. Baseball Rules Myths - Busted

    Interesting - definitely seen Softball Canada, NSA and ASA all let this go.
  7. Obstruction, Unsportsman like conduct or neither??

    It would have to be the really young levels for me. If by 14U you haven't learned to either watch for the ball or your coach you should be open season to this kind of deke. The one I've done as an outfielder is to call "I got it" on a line drive/falling fly ball hit to me, to freeze R1 to give me a chance to field the ball and try to force him out...and on occasion it worked. I'd hate to see this called OBS, even in high school - "well, Blue, I called 'I got it' on a ball that I did actually get"
  8. Baseball Rules Myths - Busted

    I have been told by some umps and coaches that while in the bunt stance the bat was across the plane of the plate, making it a strike...which, of course, is it's own myth.
  9. Baseball Rules Myths - Busted

    Great video For the record - the softball rule about bunt/strikes is the same as baseball. In fact, I find it is more common in softball, especially at the lower levels, for a batter to be taught to leave their bat in bunt position, and not pull the bat back if the pitch is out of the strike zone...and as long as they don't move the bat to the ball it will not be called a strike (provided it didn't enter the strike zone)...and with very few exceptions umpires call it this way. Especially with the very common softball practice of running bunts and running slaps, if the batter does not strike at the ball it won't be called a strike....merely running up the batter's box with a bat in bunting position is not automatically a strike. I think this myth comes from the somewhat related myth about breaking your wrists or crossing the plane of the plate to determine a swing - people think that if your bunt position brings the bat across the plane of the plate it must be "swing" However, to the "tie" myth...your statement about the one rule ignores two other instances in OBR that are the most likely sources of the myth. Rule 7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. Rule 7.08e Any runner is out when he or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced The first requires the runner to beat the defense...the second requires the defense to beat the runner....meaning in the second scenario a tie would go to the runner. As well, Rule 6.05j "A batter is out when, after a (dropped) third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base", would also suggest that the defense must beat the batter/runner. So it would seem we have two rules that indicate a tie goes to the runner, and one where a tie goes to the defense. HOwever, I would go one further as 7.01 does not say before he is "tagged"...it says before he is "out" (I literally have only noticed this now, for the first time). And 7.08 and 6.05 say that to be out he must be tagged before he touches the base. That would seem to indicate that, even under 7.01, a tie does indeed go to the runner. I think we have to go back to that infinite number of decimal points argument and just accept that there are no ties....it's a more precise and clean argument....or maybe the myth I've always thought was a myth, isn't.
  10. Missing outfielder

    I would also assume it's never ratified by a pitch to a following batter - you could conceivably nullify an entire inning, if no one noticed until the second or third batter? A scenario I can see is bottom of ninth with home team behind, defensive team down to only nine players suffers an injury/illness, and attempts to take field with only eight players hoping no one notices the forfeit. I'm suspecting this is the reason for the interpretation to nullify any play. You can't have a game-ending strikeout stand, just because fielding eight players gave the defense no advantage. Defense still needs to prove they can field nine players. Negating a game ending/tying home run is immaterial in this same scenario, except to the batter's stats, because the home team wins regardless.
  11. Does the homerun still count?

    The easy answer is "both/all of them". Who knows...maybe they both missed the plate. I did have this in a game once - I saw R1 miss second base on an eventual inside the park homerun...I said to the pitcher "he missed the base, throw to second base"...ball was thrown to F4 standing on two. Ump says "which one?" I said "the first one"...he said "safe"...I said "OK, the second one"...he said "out". I didn't see if the BR missed the base...I wasn't watching by the time he got there.
  12. Who's Out

    None of the above? Depending on whether or not BR touched first base. A B/R who hasn't reached first base yet can't be called for abandonment, can he? That would make the play live, with a force available at second, and even the opportunity for a DP, no? And if he did pass first pass the likelihood is he rounded it, and then passed R1 while he returned, making BR out and R1 find to stay at first base. Otherwise, BR would have to overrun first base, and immediately return to the dugout - which would then keep live the force of R1 to second? It's a good question. Did someone actually take advantage of the loophole in a game, or did an interpreter just realize it and updated the interpretation proactively? ie. Bases loaded, nobody out, ground ball to F1, R1 immediately runs to dugout in an attempt to negate the force at home, hoping F2 only tags the plate.
  13. Runout or boundary

  14. Batting out of order

    So I understand. I either got it, or I'm useless on this stuff. All this mess happened because HC waited a pitch, correct? And he got an out, simply because B1 put the ball in play? If B1 had swung and missed before HC appealed, B2's at bat would be legitimized, and then B3 would simply go to the plate with an 0-1 count, no? IF HC had called BOO before the pitch, then B1 would be out, and then B2 would go to the plate again? If offense had really screwed the pooch on batting order and B6, for example, had got the hit, then B1 hit the ball before the appeal, B7 would be out and then B8 would come to the plate?
  15. Help- before or after

    Wouldn't it depend on the nature of the play? If there are other base runners you can't be waiting for help before making a call. So I think out of habit you need to take the same approach, rather than knowing when you can pause and get help, and when you shouldn't. From the perspective of a coach, I'd rather see you make the call, and then look for help if asked by the coach - you can even do it and still appear (almost) proactive...going to your partner the moment the coach says "Blue?" Or even before he says anything. I've always looked at it this way...assume you don't have help. If you were a one man crew you'd have to make the call immediately, and live with it. So, suddenly having a partner shouldn't change that mentality - how often is your partner focusing on some other element of the play and isn't able to provide insight anyway?
  16. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    This goes to the question I have about timing. Is he out "immediately", and we're just waiting for confirmation on fair/foul? When the ball hits B/R it becomes fair, making the IFF valid, and the out is retroactively applied to the BR - meaning the batter was already "out" when the ball hit him? Or does the ball hitting BR turn it into interference? I'd lean toward the first. I've always thought of it as "the batter is out...oh, never mind, it's a foul ball."
  17. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    So, because of a technicality of definition, that suspends all use of logic and common sense? In an IFF situation, once an umpires says "Infield fly, batter is out if fair" there are only two possible outcomes; the batter will be out, or it will be a foul ball. That they occur a few seconds in the future is irrelevant. In neither scenario is there a reason for the b/r to continue running. This isn't Schrodinger's Infield Fly. Unless Hurricane Lucille comes out of nowhere and blows the fly ball over the home run fence...and even then I'm not sure if it changes the call.
  18. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    If the ball is fair he's out, if the ball is foul...well, it's foul - in either scenario he has no reason to run once IFF has been declared. Yes, I understand sometimes people need a few steps to slow down.
  19. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    Yeah...I didn't have to be so snotty. Once the ball becomes fair he becomes a runner, so no BI. But interference regardless....which is what the ruling would be if there were no runners on base. Just comes down to the rule on the timing...is IFF retroactive...or does IFF turn into interference (the same way it can "turn into" a foul ball) if it hits the batter? We do know that if that same IFF hit R1 you would have two out...it doesn't turn into interference in that scenario, which would then put BR on first base with a hit....it stays IFF for the batter, and adds the second out for R1 interference. (part of the riddle - how do you get a triple play with the ball never touching a fielder or the ground) So, I would say IFF is retroactive, and the batter is out for the IFF, not for being hit by the ball in fair territory.
  20. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    OK - I understand what you're saying now. However, I would go back to my original thought - once IFF is declared, there is no "running the bases normally". The batter is out, and has no reason to run the bases, or the ball is foul, and he has no reason to run the bases. To me, the spirit of the rule allowing a retired runner to continue to run the bases is conceding that he might not know he's out. I would rule an IFF a unique exception to this rule, but it's quite possible the universe of umpires would disagree with me. But that aside, yes, I would agree - retired batter/runner Could be protected from interference. I think it would be much harder on a ball that drops untouched to put the umpire in a position to rule whether or not it was intentional. But it makes perfect sense when ruling on a runner being hit by a batted ball (between second and third, for example) - because the spirit of the rule is that the runner prevented a fielder from an opportunity - once a fielder has had an opportunity to make a play, the runner is no longer in jeopardy. At the same time, I believe there is a lower standard for retired runners.
  21. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    In what alternate universe does this fit the standard of Batter's Interference?
  22. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    That would be true regardless, because it was touched by the fielder first. And I think it still brings in the possibility of the retired B/R interfering with a subsequent play on R1/R2. Whether letting it drop untouched, or fake dropping the ball, the purpose is to confuse the runners into thinking they have to run - in either scenario B/R could be interfering with a play if one of the runners fall for it. Even if the fielder didn't intend to drop the ball, same scenario occurs - runners get confused, may want to run, could be a play.
  23. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    He's not out twice. He's out once, for IFF. And a second out is called if we rule he interfered with a subsequent play on a runner. Retired Runners can be called for interference....it doesn't make them out twice.
  24. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    Even though the IFF isn't confirmed until the ball hits the batter (making it a fair ball), the batter is actually out, from a perspective of timing, the moment the umpire declared "IFF if fair" (if not, technically, at the moment he hit the ball). Think of it more like "batter's out...oh, wait, the ball went foul, never mind." At least, IMO, this is how it should be timed - I'd be curious if there is an official position on this. This, to me, is no different than if it takes the ball 60 seconds to stop bouncing and spinning and settle in fair territory without touching any player....the batter is out retroactively 60 seconds ago. If this is true, then the retired batter/runner "could" be called for interference resulting in R2 being called out as well - if you judge he interfered with a play on one of the other runners. It would be retired runner interference....I think. He becomes a runner the moment the ball is in play...and is immediately retired thereafter. Of course, we don't know if he's a runner until the ball is ruled fair.