Register or Sign In to remove these ads

beerguy55

Members
  • Content count

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. And if he gets injured at the end of his defensive half of the inning - say he gets hurt diving for the third out. Yeah, he will leave the field, but there's no need for anyone to take his place...not until they take the field again, or not until he bats. Same thing for batting. Let's say it's the last inning. OT is batting in bottom of ninth, in a tie game. Batter drops a sac bunt to move R2 to third base. And gets hurt running to first. He's out, so there's no need to replace him. There's R3 and one out. They cart BR off the field. Coach makes no announcement that he's out of the game. And there's no need to worry about it, from his perspective, unless these guys don't push the winning run across. According to NCAA rules the game is over "immediately" because the OT now only has eight players. But who decides when they only have eight players? Coach hasn't announced anything. When is that player "out of the game" in order to enforce the NCAA "immediately" instruction? When he checks into the hospital? All in all it's a ridiculously worded rule. Unless he's declared dead at the scene by paramedics there's no reason to close the door for the possibility he might return to the game. It's a rule that forces a coach to lie ("oh yeah, he'll be fine"), and forces an umpire to make an arbitrary judgment call.
  2. Yeah, they redefined that about 15 years ago - there were about 30 or 40 weather shortened PG's and NH's removed from the record books. They also removed some some no hitters that were lost in the 10th inning or later.
  3. This is typically ruled a hit. Misjudging a fly ball, taking a bad route, failing to hustle, or any other mental error that causes you to not be in position to catch the ball are typically ruled as hits. I don't always agree with that assessment, but that's the standard. It's ultimately a judgment call. "The official scorer shall not score mental mistakes or misjudgments as errors unless a specific rule prescribes otherwise." However... "The official scorer shall charge an outfielder with an error if such outfielder allows a fly ball to drop to the ground if, in the official scorer’s judgment, an outfielder at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball."
  4. Spirit of rule, letter of rule. Jim Evans has stated it should be allowed. I think Wendelstedt says not? NCAA says yes. OBR specifically mentions the fourth out scenario for appeals, but I believe the spirit/intent of the third out/run scored rule is to require the batter/runner to reach first safely to validate the run. I think the easiest solution is to reword the rule to simply say that the runner doesn't score if the third out is recorded before BR reaches first safely and/or any forced runners reach their required bases. OR, simply interpret the rule as worded to require BR to reach first safely before the third out is required. Either one removes the fourth out requirement in this rare scenario (BR not reaching first would be treated the same as BR being put out before reaching first), and leaves it specifically for appeal situations. Because, frankly, if you read the rule verbatim and take it literally, then a batter who hits a deep, high fly ball, and rounds first base before the ball is caught doesn't meet the conditions of the rule either, and the run should score. But it doesn't, because we know the spirit and intent of the rule.
  5. Ooops
  6. Never. Making a throw in an attempt to get a lead runner is almost never an error. Unless the score keeper judges that there was no way on God's green Earth the attempt should have been made. It would have to be egregious, like F8 trying to throw out R3 on a single. But trying to throw out R2 on a single - never an error. BR is simply given a single, and advances to second on throw. Well, the site does say "ask your baseball rules question" - and all score keeping rules are written in the baseball rule book - at least for OBR they are.
  7. What I mean is - just because a guy is injured doesn't mean he can't return to the game. At what point does someone decide that a player is "too hurt" to be able to get back into the game by the time his spot in the lineup comes around. Until that point, there's no reason to remove him from the lineup, and he's not needed until his spot in the lineup comes back (or the defense has to take the field). To say the game is over immediately means that someone has made a decision to remove him from the lineup immediately. Even if he's been dragged off the field in a gurney/ambulance/hearse, his name is still on the lineup card. So, besides verbally removing him from the lineup, what other condition removes a player from the lineup, requiring an immediate substitution - leaving the bench area? Leaving the field? Umpire judgment?
  8. And I'm willing to bet this rule is the result of some outfielder 120 years ago who would juggle a fly ball all the way back to the infield before completing the catch.
  9. Yeah, but he was leading off. As stated, it would have to be referenced in the local league specific rules/bi-laws. I've seen this as an auto-out, and I've also seen this as a "squeeze the lineup". Most of the time, any league that allows eight to take the field require a ninth spot in the batting order to be an auto-out. Then, the spot is available if the injured player can return, or if you started the game with eight, someone who arrives late can be slotted into that spot. Typically, if the team opts to go with an eight player batting order then they are stuck with eight players for the entire/remainder of the game. I've seen leagues let you start with seven with two auto-outs, but never at the youth level. I'd like to see how this is enforced in practice. Unless you see the player physically carted off the field in an ambulance with his leg sticking sideways at the knee, this shouldn't come up until the injured player is ready to bat (or perhaps expected to be on deck?), or when the defense returns to the field. But even then, he COULD be back in time
  10. Neglect and lack of knowledge have led me to this mistake somehow getting caught with the high relatively minimal price to pay of being away from the field that I enjoy and love so much. With much embarrassment and helplessness pragmatism and insincerity, I ask for forgiveness for unintentionally disrespecting so many people who have trusted in my work and have supported me so much doing everything I need to do to continue making millions of dollars, and avoid relegation to a minor league contract that is below minimum wage. I promise to learn the lesson that this ordeal has left me, and do a better job of avoiding detection in the future, like so many of my peers are able to do. God bless you
  11. Absolutely no dispute with that. I was seeing that as a separate issue. And I have no problem with the umpire correcting a "cheap" second out that he created by being hesitant or non-decisive.
  12. And there's the rub. If I "think" I caught the ball, or if I did catch the ball, but was ruled I didn't, my intent is appeal. But it doesn't matter, because if I didn't catch the ball the appeal doesn't exist, and tags/forces can be accidental, so my intent is irrelevant. My intent only comes into play if I was ruled to have caught the ball, but I didn't think so. But if an umpire is calling it a catch, you'd have to be a Jedi to conclude that I actually thought I trapped it, and was not making an appeal play. If you have ruled me to have caught the ball, and I throw the ball to a base where the runner is retreating, that should be unmistakable - even if BR is advancing to the same base. The reality is, for most ball players, especially at anything over 12 years old, this is a contingency play - my intent is contingent on what the umpire ruled.
  13. From a pure baseball play view, and how I think when I am on the field, I see it completely differently - mostly because I have predetermined about 20 scenarios in my head before the pitch was thrown. If I make a diving catch/non-catch and I throw to a base where one runner is advancing and another is retreating to it, my intent "should" be obvious - if I caught it it's an appeal, if I didn't catch it it's not. What I'm not going to do is hold on to the ball and wait to learn the call before I show my intent.
  14. According to OP BR beat throw and throw beat R1 with F3's foot on bag, so your statement is only true if you don't consider the throw to first an obvious appeal attempt. Like BU, F1 may not know what PU ruled. F1 certainly has a strong idea whether he caught the ball or didn't, and we can assume he's making the throw to first with an intent based on what he knows, but do we punish him if he doesn't know if it's a catch or not before he makes the throw - all he knows is he has to throw to first regardless. I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the appeal. Otherwise, you get into a rather awful attempt at mind-reading. ie. PU ruled it a catch, but F1 thought it hit the ground, so F1's explicit intent was to get the BR, not to appeal R1 leaving early.
  15. I have found the remedy for this, for almost any coach, player or parent, is to have them chalk a diamond, just once. It usually takes them just one time to realize that the foul lines are drawn from the point of the plate, making the plate inside fair territory.
  16. The throw passed by Robinson's right shoulder in the air, not via bounce. The only reason it's not getting caught is because Jackie Robinson is in the way. The catcher was likely trying to hit him square between the 4 and the 2.
  17. Last year a non-USA athlete took a drug that was legal where she was born and first prescribed to use it, a country already proven to engage in government sanctioned doping programs, but regardless, the drug was not approved in her country of residence, and therefore used illegally there. And though the drug was not technically banned by WADA until the beginning of said year, it had known performance enhancement qualities, for many years beforehand (leading to its eventually inclusion on the ban list) and any said medical reasons for taking said drug were almost certainly farcical, and simply cover for the real performance boosts gained. Much like the craze in the 90's of athletes taking Sudafed "to treat a head cold". Athletes are going to take any drug they can to boost their performance, and any time they can do it under the guise of a medical condition to warrant exemption or excuse, they're either going to find themselves inflicted with whatever medical condition is required...OR, if they do legitimately have a medical condition, they're going to find the otherwise banned drug to use to fix that condition.
  18. I don't disagree - I'm just saying in my experience, I have NEVER seen a crow hop called at any level, from minor ball to international competition, men/women/boys/girls, where the back foot didn't leave the ground...and I've never had a conversation/argument with an umpire that didn't end with "her back foot never left the ground." It just seems to me that leaping has been the bigger POE than planting. Now, maybe it just takes a couple of umpires to stand out on their own and call it as you state - she's replanting, it's a crow hop - and it will garner the discussion and exposure it needs.
  19. BI?

    I could go either way, but whether I called BI or nothing, if this was hockey I'd give the catcher two minutes for embellishment.
  20. If "throwing equipment" is an automatic ejection, and you ignore it, now you're entering "I'm going to enforce the rules when I see fit" territory. It's like ignoring the fact that a kid missed home plate on his home run trot, "not noticing" and calling him safe on appeal because the kid might cry that his home run got taken away. Opposing coach comes out and says that throwing your helmet is an automatic ejection - he knows this because one of his players got tossed last week, and he and his boys have learned their lesson. You have a choice between A) lying and saying you didn't see it, or B) telling the coach you're not enforcing the rule. HC asks you to talk to your partner to A) see if he saw it, or B) verify the rule. Either you refuse, or your partner says the kid should be ejected. You refuse again. Coach files a protest if you acknowledge the helmet throw, or, if both umpires claim to have not seen it, is left believing he has two umpires willing to lie to protect themselves. The ejection is an unfortunate situation, but ignoring a black and white rule leaves a mess. There are enough crappy umpires out there that most coaches are going into a game believing you're inept, and hoping you prove otherwise. Don't give them personal anecdotal experience to how they think you roll.
  21. After the Red Sox World Series obstruction call the prevailing argument I saw on FB/youtube from alleged full time high level umpires is that it shouldn't have been obstruction because he wasn't running on the base line. I found myself explaining that, first, that chalk line is for determining fair and foul balls not for telling the runners where to run, and second, baseball players don't round the bases at full speed at 90 degree angles. But apparently I'm wrong.
  22. As stated, it's FC, and an error is also recorded for the defense...likely E1. ie. batter reaches on FC, R1 reaches on error. If, in the score keeper's judgment, the runner would have been safe anyway, then it is a sac. There would only be an error recorded IF R1 was able to advance to third after the errant throw.
  23. Well, the problem is those FB umps are working games somewhere...maybe you get to be partnered with some of them from time to time. These are the guys who call batters out on home runs for high fiving the coach, think the hands are part of the bat, and in general, make most umpires look bad. So, if you're worried about contamination...
  24. For those really hot days, is there a standard thong I should be wearing?