Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads


Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. Does Pitcher Have to Pitch Bottom of 1st

    And neither of these dispute anything I said. There are two purposes to the same set of stats, and those stats can be recorded differently for different scenarios. It is very easy to track a pitching appearance statistically, for posterity and completeness, and to exclude that same appearance for a specific purpose - ie. tracking a pitcher's inning/pitch count for youth pitchers, which meets a different intent - namely to reduce injury. If he didn't throw a pitch, no inning...if he did, one inning. There may be reasons you want to record it, but an inability to reconcile two disparate scenarios is not one of them. Again, not all "games played" count for "consecutive games played" metrics. The same stat recorded differently for two different purposes. You can appear in 101 straight games, but if game 51 was only a pinch run appearance, you only have two 50 consecutive game streaks....even if that pinch run appearance resulted in three stolen bases and a run scored. As well, you can have a 20 game hitting streak but actually play 21 or more consecutive games to achieve it - if you have a game where you have only four plate appearances with four walks your hitting streak gets to live another day, even though you played a full nine inning game without getting a hit...even if they were all with bases loaded and resulted in 4 RBI's. I understand the reasons, but those are clear cases where a stat is recorded for one scenario, but ignored for another. And though the pitcher picking off a runner gets 1/3 IP, he didn't "pitch" as a pitch is a ball delivered by the pitcher to the batter. And the purpose of youth inning/pitch counts is to protect pitchers, and to encourage the development of other pitchers, by reducing the number of pitches they throw. Not warm ups, not any other kind of throw to other players, not bean bag tosses...pitches.
  2. Does Pitcher Have to Pitch Bottom of 1st

    Why you can't reconcile the two? He's the pitcher of record, he gets a BB, and might even be charged with a run against no innings pitched. But he didn't throw a pitch, so he doesn't get charged with an inning for the purposes of "innings pitched" limits. This is analogous to the MLB rules around a consecutive games streak. If a player enters only as a pinch runner, his streak ends. If he gets ejected from a game before he has an at bat, or plays half an inning of defense, his streak doesn't end, but the game is not added to the streak. In both cases he statistically is recorded as a "game played" (as a pinch runner he may even have a SB or a R - as a defender who didn't complete the half inning before being ejected he may have a PO, an A, or an E), but it does not count for the purposes of the consecutive games played streak. Likewise, I see no reason why the pitcher can't be statistically recorded as having a pitching appearance (one batter, iBB, 0 or 1 earned runs), but not be charged for the purposes of pitch and inning limits.
  3. Does Pitcher Have to Pitch Bottom of 1st

    Depends on the exact rule wording. I know some leagues have both pitch counts and inning limits. You can only throw four innings, even if you've only thrown 20 pitches, for example. Typically, the wording in those rules is "Delivery of a single pitch in an inning counts for an inning" or something like that. If you don't deliver a pitch (like an IBB) you haven't "pitched" an inning yet....technically - your scoring point aside. The rule is there to both protect pitchers, and to encourage teams to develop pitchers. Not counting an inning here with an IBB still maintains the spirit of those rules...and, IMO, maintains the spirit of the rule of making the pitcher on the lineup face one batter.
  4. Does Pitcher Have to Pitch Bottom of 1st

    The OBR rule says the pitcher on the lineup card must pitch until the first batter is put out, or reaches base. So, you're up 13-0. Give the first batter an IBB, without throwing any pitches. Then he can change positions or come out of the game. And, since he never threw a pitch, you should be able to avoid counting it as an inning pitched. Otherwise, he has to pitch to the first batter - unless the ill or injured...so, if the pitcher can manage to throw up a lung, or develop a limp, he can probably get out of it, but he won't be playing that game, and might raise eyebrows if he's pitching the next game.
  5. wrong name on lineup card

    I remember playing against a team in community ball that had, if memory serves: Kayley Kailey Keely Kylie Hailey (x2) Hayley I would blow my brains out if I was that team's coach.
  6. wrong name on lineup card

    That's a good point. I forget that difference with baseball. Yes, this would be far more significant in softball, where in many codes, yes, an unreported substitution of the right fielder can result in the negation of the play (same principal as batting out of order), and for the illegal sub to be subbed out of the game.
  7. wrong name on lineup card

    First - I thought the number was irrelevant? Sure, it could be an identifier...but you could have nine number 12's on the field. And, even if the number is right it doesn't mean the person is who they say it is. Second - I want to be clear - it's petty. It's not something I would ever consider as a coach or player, and I ever donned the Blue, I hope I'd have the common sense to identify a simple spelling mistake for what it is. My question is about identification. Joe Smith is on the card, Joe Smyth is on the field. Who has the burden of proof to show that the name on the card is a mistake in spelling, and not actually the name of a different human being - that there actually isn't a Joe Smith as well. Coach A says he made a spelling mistake, it should say Joe Smyth...Coach B says no, Joe Smith actually exists, he's just not there that night, so the wrong player is on the card (or does it matter?) Twins play on a team - Bob and Fred Jones. On game night one twin gets sick and doesn't go to the game. The other one does. Coach puts Bob Jones on the lineup card. Three innings later the opposing coach points out that Fred Jones is playing, not Bob. What happens? To me, the misspelling COULD fall into this category - because you may not really know if it's a bad spelling, or if it's actually a different person. (or does it matter?) Is the lineup card supposed to represent an identification of who actually is playing the game? Or is it a label applied to a player in question - and that the label doesn't have to be technically correct, provided the same human uses the same label for the duration of the game? That is, a person named Joe Smith could be called Fred Flinstone on the lineup card? I know there has to be some validity to the name for pitchers to track pitch counts. And yeah, there's a whole different can of worms with a team that has two Joe Smith's, and only one Joe Smith on the lineup card...but to me it's again where the burden of proof does or doesn't lie to say if the right, or wrong, Joe Smith is on the field. (or does it matter?)
  8. wrong name on lineup card

    On the surface it does sound stupid (let alone petty), but I can see cases where it would make sense. I guess it comes down to what scrutiny is placed on whether or not the player on the field actually is the person listed on the lineup card - and when someone is expected to know what the coach meant. I'm just trying to follow this to a logical extension about the identity of the players, and whether it's valid. And if the kid is 12 years old you can't really ask them to produce their driver's license. If Joe Smith is written on the lineup card, what is an umpire or coach allowed to try to prove that the guy in center field actually is or is not Joe Smith. If the guy in the field is actually Fred Williams, that would be a problem (though, technically, you could just say you misspelt Williams when you wrote Smith). If the guy in the field is Joe Smyth...is that a misspelling, or a misidentification? Who has the burden of proof to show that there actually is both a Joe Smith and a Joe Smyth that could be playing ball in that situation?
  9. Mound visit with player from bench

    Not that I know of. They'll change it when some coach abuses it and brings his entire set of bench players to the mound every visit so they can all give their personal words of affirmation.
  10. Even if there are runners, in rule sets where there are no lead offs (eg. LL minor, any level of softball) there can be no balks, as you are unable to deceive the runner. It was an awkward moment for the ump because the ump wasn't clear on the rule, and/or may not fully understand the reason/concept of the balk rule. He did, however, know somewhere instinctively, that the pitcher's maneuver wasn't kosher. Just didn't know exactly what to do about it. However, that's no reason for a coach to publicly ridicule said umpire. Eject the asshat.
  11. Relocating due to rain

    He may be being petty...or he may have something personal going on in his life. Maybe he's just one of those people who don't handle change well. Or maybe he just had a $5000 dental bill, is trying to make extra money, and this unexpected drive is just one more expense on top of a crapload of other "surprises" he's had to deal with recently (at this point you're not thinking rationally and not realizing it's only a couple of bucks)....you know...the straw that broke the camels' back... To the question about relocation - any good tournament has a plan B...the teams that paid $400-800 to enter the tournament, plus all their travel expenses that aren't reimbursable - want to play...and they don't care where. I've been in a couple of tournaments where we ended up relocating to fields that were in better condition...it was better than not playing...Any umpire/coach/parent/player that isn't on board with that possible plan B just doesn't get it.
  12. Batter's Box

    To answer your question, not technically - there was a very brief period of time where the batter's box was entirely in foul territory. The batter's box was first drawn/enforced about 20 years after foul lines were. At one point (mid 1870's?) , all of home plate, and all of the batter's box, resided in foul territory...then a couple of years later it was moved back to look like what it does today, and at that time a fair ball was a fair ball, even if it was in the box. (except at that time the plate was a square...I think the plate we know today came to exist in the early 1900's) When the batter's box was first enforced, if you hit the ball while out of the box you were charged with a strike, not an out. This even predates the notion of ruling foul balls as "strikes" by about 30 years. Edit: the rule about the ball touching fair first being always fair was also true for foul balls - whatever it touched first determined if it was fair or foul - that also ended the mid 1870's - this was fun for umpires because during that period of time there were years where the plate was entirely in foul territory, or entirely in fair territory, or half and half - so, enjoy determining which half of the plate a ball struck.
  13. How in the world can you change that call?

    The catcher dropped the ball
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

    Isn't that from Scanners?
  21. 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.
  22. 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)
  23. 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".
  24. 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.
  25. 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.