Register or Sign In to remove these ads

beerguy55

Members
  • Content count

    803
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. It comes down to when a run "scores" - by rule a run doesn't score/count if BR makes the third out before reaching first base, or if any forced runners make the third out before reaching their bases. So, though it may be "immediate", it is still conditional. The winning run doesn't score until all other conditions are met...only at that point is the game over "immediately". In a bases loaded scenario with two out, if the batter hits a single to the outfield, all runners are required to get to their bases to complete their forces, and BR must reach first base, for the run to count. The debate is whether or not the fact that the batter got ball four on that same wild pitch forces the batter to touch first base to validate the run - my argument is that was not the spirit or intent of the rule...the run should count.
  2. The most significant difference is the fact that the bases weren't loaded. R3 wasn't forced. He scored on a WP. If the count had been 2-2, game is just over. There is no way on Earth that the intent and spirit of this rule is to penalize the batter who happens to get ball four on that wild pitch, and as he steps out of the box to see his team mate score the winning run, forgets to complete his BB. If the bases are loaded, by rule (at least in OBR) the runners aren't forced (on a walk) until the BR reaches first base. If BR never reaches first base, then R1/R2/R3 are not forced to advance, so I get the interpretation to cancel the run in that scenario (though I'm up for a hearty debate on whether or not a wild pitch should negate that, for the same reasons...especially a wild pitch for ball four that goes out of play)
  3. McGwire hugged the coach before he reached first base...then he ran past first base at which point the coach VERBALLY told him he missed the base - not the same thing at all. I however agree that the runner scored on a wild pitch. He wasn't forced to run. Game is over when R3 touches the plate. BR shouldn't have to reach first base in this scenario. It's not like he got a hit, or D3K, where he MUST reach first base at risk of being put out. He happened to also walk on the same WP that allowed R3 to score - he becomes a runner and advances to first without liability to be put out. Runners who haven't reached first base yet can't be called for abandonment.
  4. Thirty years of message board and e-mail etiquette and people still type in all caps. And yes, this isn't football - it doesn't matter what his feet are touching, only what they are over. I think it's more about people watching more football than they watch baseball.
  5. The situation defines a force, not where the tag was applied. A runner on first base is forced to second when the batter hits the ball. Whether you tag that runner (before he reaches second) or tag the base it is a force out. Same with the batter going to first, though as stated above, the batter is (technically) not forced - by rule a "force" only happens to runners on base. The batter is simply someone who must go to first base when he hits the ball. So, if a runner is forced out for the third out, or the batter makes the third out before reaching first base safely, the run doesn't score.
  6. Yes, and anything on or near the rubber, with the ball, is in position. Since you can be called for an illegal pitch for pitching when not in contact with the rubber. As well, if you are on the rubber, and start a pitch, and then never release the ball, that is also an illegal pitch. So, pitching from off the rubber is an illegal pitch, and starting a pitch from the rubber, but not releasing the ball, is an illegal pitch, why would starting a pitch from off the rubber, but not releasing the ball, not be an illegal pitch? There are many cases where an illegal "pitch" is called where the pitcher has not thrown the ball...in fact, not even started the windup.
  7. I can certainly tell you from experience you forget yourself when you see your kid hurt. I was coaching, my daughter's in right field - with two out and bases loaded she makes a Superman catch in the gap, and then promptly drives her head right into the knee of F8 coming the other way. I'm immediately running out there - I'm not thinking about the play, if she caught it or not, that there's actually a game going on. My kid's (I think) out cold in RF. As I get out there, she's rolling over onto her back, and just holding her head with her one hand, and her glove hand is just stretched out above her head. Then I become aware that the base ump is out there, and I can see the runners are still moving. The umpire looks at my daughter, looks at me, looks at the third base coach, who is halfheartedly waving the runners on and kind of giving a "what's the call?" look to Blue. He looks down, reaches into my daughter's glove, grabs the ball, shows it to the coach, and says "out". I have to say that the standing O from the other team's players and parents was pretty special.
  8. Ball misses cutoff and, of course, nobody is covering, and nobody else moves, so ball rolls all the way through first base side dugout opening. Or a community field with just a backstop, no fencing along baselines. Or, if it's a typical 10U community diamond, ball rolls to back stop and goes under the curled up fence.
  9. Run scores until a proper appeal is made, provided the runner left 3b before the ball was touched (not caught).
  10. Fine, one ump. He had a brain fart. How you made the leap to him actually deliberately benefiting the other team is beyond me. In decades of playing and coaching 2000+ games I have seen ONE case where an umpire "might" have been cheating - it was a 15 year old where his younger brother pitched for one of the teams - a situation in which he never should have been placed. Except for this guy possibly screwing up a call or two you have provided zero context or information to suggest why you came to the conclusion that he was cheating for the other team. I know this is New Jersey and everything, but I don't think mob-based point shaving schemes have extended to 8U coach pitch ball.
  11. No, it does not. I've seen umpires move towards coaches who "called" time to tell them to get off the field because the play is still live. Keep in mind you have two umpires. You're suggesting that both umpires conspired to cheat against an 8U team to allow a team to score two runs on this particular play, one by making up a rule and the second by feigning a time out. You called time, you expected to get it...you've probably taught your players this too - and so when YOU called time, your players stopped. The umpire should not have moved to talk to you. But it's apparent to me that no umpire granted time.
  12. 1. Runner makes his own base path. He is only out for moving three feet to avoid a tag - and by this, I mean an imminent tag...not that the catcher is 30 feet away and chasing the runner to tag him. If he is running away from F2 he can go any route he wants. I have no problem with this call, especially at 8U 2. You don't call time, you ask for it. Umpires call it. Even if you "call" time and walk onto the field, and talk to the umpire, doesn't mean he granted it...play on. 3. If you think the umpire misapplied a rule you can protest. How do you go from an umpire making a mistake, to that umpire being "in the bag", to that umpire cheating for the other team? You've made a pretty significant progression of accusations, based on nothing more than your imagination.
  13. mr

    In either scenario we have a balk, accompanied by a dislocated knee or torn rotator cuff.
  14. I don't know if it's true any more (I've heard it might have been changed) but as late as 2013 in ASA and NSA the batter/runner was out if (s)he retreated to home plate. Stopping is fine, any movement backwards is (was?) an out.
  15. mr

    Or steps to second but throws to third?
  16. mr

    Left-handed pitcher, I presume? Kicks his right leg up, rotates around and is going to throw to second to pick off runner...notices the runner has left so continues his rotation as much as he can and throws to third?
  17. I "believe" that a runner who has legally touched the plate may not unscore himself, if he has legally touched all bases. I believe that a runner who has not legally touched third base (any base) may unscore himself at home by touching home again and return to the missed base to correct the infraction (forgetting about any other runners for this time) I suspect that a runner who has not legally touched home plate (but has passed it) could conceivably pass it again, without touching it, and return to third (even if he legally touched all other bases), if he really wanted to (eg. he believed that he missed both home and third) So the question is, if the third statement is true, is that a way the first runner who missed home plate could correct his infraction, provided the second runner also missed home plate? Or would the second runner even have to "pass" the plate again back to third? Would they just both have to touch the plate in the correct order?
  18. Mr.

    This didn't happen many years ago. What happened many years ago is that half a dozen guys, while having drinks after their weekly slow pitch game, starting coming up with very strange hypotheticals, some of which created long debate and conversation...and after many drinks and many hypotheticals, fact and fiction merged, and now years later, after many more drinks, OP remembers the incident actually happened, rather than just being discussed over cheap beer.
  19. Even if both runners missed the plate? Would the second runner have to pass the plate again going back to third, without touching it, to allow the first runner to touch home plate? Or is the first runner screwed no matter what.
  20. Yes and no. This is true of anything - worry about the log in your eye before you worry about the splinter in mine. But if YOU, singular, do you have your yard clean, YOU should have the right to revile umpires and coaches alike....you don't need to wait for your brethren to improve collectively. I'll reiterate too, as you missed it, umpires are absolutely at a higher standard than coaches/volunteers (what the difference is can be debated for eternity) - but regardless of that difference there still is a baseline that both umpire and coach should be beyond. The fact that some coaches know things that some umpires don't is a different conversation, because that applies to a lot of coaches, a lot of umpires, and a lot of different rules, on any given day. In the end I expect that most umpires will know exponentially more than most coaches, and I expect both umpires and coaches to know the hands are part of the body, not the bat. I deal with player's parents, as a coach - and nothing drives me nuts more than seeing an umpire get the call absolutely right and then hearing one of MY parents screaming "the hands are part of the bat" especially since once of my codes of conduct are "know the rules" and I specifically use this rule as an example.
  21. For the same reason we expect people to know that the e-mail telling them that their cousin's, brother's friend woke up in a bathtub without his kidneys is fake, or that there is no rich Nigerian prince wanting to borrow your bank account. The knowledge is out there for anyone willing to listen or notice. I can use google (or any other search engine, past or present) and validate whether or not the hands are part of the bat in under 30 seconds. Other rules not so much. Though you might have a higher standard on umps than coaches, just because half of umpires don't know this rule, I'm not ready to forgive coaches, parents or players for not knowing this particular rule....I'm simply resetting my expectation that if half of umps don't know the rule then probably 3/4 of coaches don't know it. But it's not gonna stop me from shaking my head or reviling them for their ignorance.
  22. Five years ago this would have been a train wreck. Now, with the new rule, catcher was simply expecting BR to give himself up, which, of course, is not what the rule says is required.
  23. Now now - there's no reason to insult the douches out there.
  24. I've heard it called "Background of Obviousness" - not sure if that's a Steven Covey thing, but it's from that space. People don't establish that background/baseline with others, it almost always gets assumed. People assume others know what they know, and they assume others will act as they would. It's the same mentality that leads to the instruction "Please insert this DVD to learn how to use your DVD player". There certainly SHOULD be an expected baseline, but in this case I'm not sure who generates the consensus to where that baseline lies. In the IT space, I've watched the baseline shift in the 20+ years I've worked it - from rolling out Windows 95 and introducing the concept of a Start Menu for people who've only ever used dumb terminals, to now expecting anybody in the workplace to know how to navigate their desktop to find the applications they need. Going from "do you have e-mail" to "you don't have e-mail?!?!?" To now balancing a workforce who started working before the home computer was a novel idea, with a new workforce who has never known life without smartphones and high speed internet. So, though I don't expect everyone to know the basics of texting or how to update their phone - I do expect someone to understand that their phone isn't going to charge if the power is out. I think the baseline has (or should have) shifted for coaches too - the information is simply more accessible. There are rules coaches SHOULD know, and be expected to know. And this might shift - coaches in community will know far less than club coaches. There are other rules that only an umpire is going to understand. Umpire associations need to agree on what a coach should know...and then that should be advertised to sporting and coaching associations to establish that Background of Obviousness.
  25. Just curious - is this "new" or has this been a rule for as long as you can remember, as far as second base is concerned? I ask because playing a game 25 years ago, likely under OBR, F1 threw to F6 who was about 15-20 feet from second (if I remember correctly F6 was faking out runner, but pitcher thought F6 was going to bag - when pitcher realized F6 wasn't he completed the throw to where F6 was standing). Ump called balk, F6 argued he only has to be somewhere reasonably close to bag, ump argued he had to be "at" the bag. I never knew if it should have been a balk or not. I understand today it's not, but wondering if it would be true 25 years ago.