Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


grayhawk last won the day on December 21 2018

grayhawk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,372 Excellent


About grayhawk

  • Rank
    Almost as good as I think I am
  • Birthday 08/27/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Laguna Niguel, CA

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
    CAL PAC, SCIAC, Orange Empire, South Coast, OCBOA
  • Occupation
    Owner of Oasis Senior Advisors of Coastal OC
  • Types/Levels of Baseball called
    NCAA Division 3, NAIA, Community College, High School
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

21,192 profile views
  1. grayhawk

    Spin move question

    I always think of a jab step as a move where the pivot foot moves towards third before the free foot moves. The Teheran move is all happening at once.
  2. grayhawk

    Spin move question

    As long as there is no knee pop, it's a legal move.
  3. grayhawk

    HS JV Game EJ on Friday

    Seems like I've read this somewhere before...
  4. grayhawk

    Runner Lane Interference

    Yes, but not due to 6-2g (which states runners return TOI. R1 had touched second base at TOI). It's 2-51 Note 2 that governs: Note 2: If the batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of interference, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch. If there was an intervening play made on another runner, all runners shall return to the base last touched at the time of interference.
  5. grayhawk

    Spin move question

    Describe the spin move - want to be sure we are thinking of the same thing.
  6. grayhawk

    Spin move question

    A direct step with the free foot is a legal pick-off move to first base by a right handed pitcher. It's awkward looking and nobody ever does it, but it's legal.
  7. grayhawk

    Ball thrown in dugout

    Not unless it was thrown by the pitcher from the rubber. Please provide more information.
  8. grayhawk

    Unusual FPSR Play

    So then if the runner goes inside, and the fielder is one step inside, then it can be FPSR?
  9. grayhawk

    Unusual FPSR Play

    So on the OP, if the runner goes inside, and the fielder is throwing home from the bag, then it can't be interference.
  10. grayhawk

    Unusual FPSR Play

    I think you misunderstood. Grounder to F4 who shoves to F6 for the out at 2B. F6 would normally take the throw, touch the bag and continue towards RF to make the throw to first, but seeing R1 peel inside, F6 decides to take the throw, stop and sidearm a throw to first from the inside to draw a call because he thinks his throw to 1B would be late. R1 ran away from where the fielder should be, but the fielder took advantage of the rule to draw a call.
  11. grayhawk

    Unusual FPSR Play

    What stops a shortstop from seeing a runner veering inside and staying inside to make the throw to draw the call?
  12. grayhawk

    Unusual FPSR Play

    I understand this perspective, but at the same time have a hard time understanding the difference between this play and one where the runner thinks he's veering off to the correct side away from the fielder but guesses wrong. How is this play different?
  13. grayhawk

    Unusual FPSR Play

    I believe this is a difficult play to officiate, and there have been good points made on both sides (interference, and not interference). The retired runner clearly hindered the play (I found out last night that he was hit by the throw, even though he was ducking to get out of the way), even though he did so unintentionally. Since this happened on a force play, I don't think we can call out R2. I'll use another example to clarify this point: R1 & R2 with no outs. The ball is hit to F5 who steps on third base and instead of throwing to first, he throws to second to retire R1. R2 doesn't slide and stops 10 feet from the bag thinking that F5 is going to throw to first. F5's throw hits R2. In this case, we would call interference and call out R2 and the BR and send R1 back to first. Why would the original play be any different? A well-respected D1 umpire here in CA said that the OP would be nothing unless R1's interference was intentional. I disagree with this interpretation even if one were to consider this interference by a retired runner. If you were to consider it that kind of interference, I would still require the retired runner to be aware of what was going on and make an active attempt to stay clear of the play. In other words, I would consider indifference to be synonymous with intent. Just because the defense didn't make the play that the retired runner thought they were going to make doesn't mean he can be oblivious to the play they actually made. My personal thoughts align more with Maven on this. The safest thing to do on a force play is to slide legally. Doing anything else puts you in jeopardy of being called for interference. While the runner thought he was running in a direction away from the play, he didn't. He ended up running to a spot that put him exactly in the throwing lane for the play F6 decided to make. It is actually similar to a video the NCAA used to show FPSR where R1 ran inside and F6 actually stayed inside rather than running outside where he normally would have been. R1 guessed wrong and paid the price. I have FPSR on the OP. R1 and the BR out, and R2 is returned to second base.
  14. grayhawk

    Unusual FPSR Play

    One of our association's umpires called me with this play that happened in his game: R1 & R2, no outs. B3 hits a grounder to F4 who fields it and tosses over to F6 who is covering second base. F6 catches the throw and tags second base while R1 sees that he's out and runs inside (away from F6) to avoid interfering with the throw to first. While this is happening, R2 has been running hard the whole way and has rounded third and heading home. F6 sees this and instead of throwing to first for the double play, he attempts to throw home and R1 unintentionally interferes with the throw. Ruling?
  15. grayhawk

    2019 NCAA Test Question

    Never mind. I got it. @Magic mentioned that at the NCAA clinic, they said trainers will not be required to wear helmets.