Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

maven

Established Member
  • Content count

    7,441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    234

Everything posted by maven

  1. maven

    Interference on Baserunner

    That's not what I said. It is surely relevant, it is just not decisive. The fact that F4 fielded the ball "cleanly" makes INT less likely to be the correct call. That's correct. Calling the batter out would be part of the penalty for INT in that case. Meh. And WAY too many people think that it can't be INT unless there's contact. It doesn't help that way too many umpires make goofy INT/OBS calls either....
  2. maven

    Interference on Baserunner

    It is difficult to assess this play without video. Although your description might support a conclusion that there was no INT (because no hindrance), it is also possible that there was hindrance. For example, F4 might have been charging the ball to have enough time to play on R1 at 2B, but slowed to allow the runner to pass. By the time the ball got to him, he could field it cleanly and play on the BR. But that might be sufficient hindrance to warrant an INT call. The FED provision to call 2 out is mainly applicable to a "routine" DP ball, which this does not seem to be (again, difficult to know without video). If not, I'd not have called out 2 runners on this play, even with INT (in either FED or, especially, OBR).
  3. The purpose of the fake tag rule is to prevent unnecessary slides, which are a primary cause of injury in baseball. Dekes that slow down runners are otherwise legal.
  4. maven

    Pick off attempt

    It sounds to me as if F1 is making a move to home ("spins on his right foot 90 degrees towards home") before stepping and throwing to 1B ("spin another 90 degrees towards first and throws the ball to first"). If so, that's a balk. The rules (all codes) require that F1 step and throw directly to a base. A move toward any other base prior to stepping and throwing to 1B (here) would constitute a balk.
  5. maven

    Is the play dead?

    Sounds like it might be worthwhile paying for real umpires.
  6. maven

    California Rules Question

    In general, the run scores if the runner touches HP before the defense records the 3rd out. The exceptional case is the one where the 3rd out is a force out (or the BR before he touches 1B). In your play, the appeal is not a force play (even though the defense tagged the base, not the runner). Thus the general rule applies: count the run.
  7. maven

    When is a Sac fly a Sac fly?

    It was a double play, but that's irrelevant to whether the run scores. In general, the run scores if the runner touches HP before the defense records the 3rd out. The exceptional case is the one where the 3rd out is a force out (or the BR before he touches 1B). In your play, the appeal is not a force play (even though the defense tagged the base, not the runner). Thus the general rule applies: count the run.
  8. maven

    Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing?

    This is a routine ground ball, hit right at a fielder, in a playoff game (presumably a decent youth fielder). I'm including the result of the play as evidence of hindrance. That evidence is not decisive—he might have booted it with no R1—but it's another piece pointing toward INT, not OBS. I'd be more confident of INT here if we had a look from the opposite side.
  9. maven

    Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing?

    You caught them as I was editing the post.
  10. maven

    Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing?

    OK. To some extent, this is "just" a judgment call, and as I've said, the one incorrect call in this nut-cutter is the one made on the field: a no-call. That said, here's what I see. The hindrance begins with the ball still in front of F4, as early as this. When the fielder adjusts his route to the ball because of the runner, that's INT. And here's the instant when the ball arrives (it's not visible in the shot, as it's going through the fielder), and R1 is right on top of him. The contact is imminent, and IMO explains the fielder booting the ball. That's hindrance. It's true that the contact does not arrive until after the ball goes through. But we all know that contact and hindrance are not the same concept. We can't give the runner a pass on the prior hindrance just because the contact happens after the fielder can possibly be hindered. I had INT live, I had INT when I reviewed it in slo-mo and frame-by-frame. And although I understand the point that a fielder who boots a ball is no longer protected (from an OBS call), that's not what I see here.
  11. maven

    Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing?

    The one thing this cannot be is 'nothing'. The only possible bad call in the situation. Given that...and the benefit of any doubt to the defense... INT. The hindrance happened before the ball went through F4...in fact, before R1 got to F4.
  12. Joe seemed to think that he was in the lane at TOI. He was wrong about that. He also seems to think that any judgment call made by Bill Miller is erroneous. He's wrong about that, too. He needed that base runner in that situation. Maybe coach him to run in the lane? They're calling RLI these days....
  13. maven

    Trapped ball at first

    Agree with Ives. Pinning the ball to the ground with the glove might in some sense "secure" it, but definition of TAG requires that the ball be securely held IN the glove. The fielder can sometimes demonstrate secure possession after the runner passes: mechanically, we want to wait for the subsequent evidence of secure possession (in the glove) at the time of the tag prior to ruling safe/out. And please don't say, "show me the ball!"
  14. maven

    Interference?

    This post needs its own thread. Play: bases loaded, 1 out. Ground ball to F5, who steps on 3B, retiring R2. Throws wild to 1B, R1 to 3B, BR to 2B. The defense fields the overthrow and throws to HP, playing on (retired) R3. The umpires rule R3 out (again) for INT. If I have that correct, the umpires were wrong, and doubly so. First, it's not INT. Second, no runner under any circumstances can be both the second and third outs in an inning. The result should have been 1 out on the play only, resulting in 2 outs for the inning with runners on 2B and 3B. Also: umpires, don't keep it secret when the defense records a force out, even if it's "obvious"!
  15. Mods: merge the other thread with this one? I have agreed. The only exception during a batted ball is tangle/untangle, and the rationale for that exception is that typically the fielder and BR hinder each other to approximately the same degree.
  16. maven

    Interference?

    You are correct, a case certainly could be made for INT here. F2 is the protected fielder (protected, that is from OBS, which he would otherwise be guilty of here), and R3 contacted him and knocked him off balance. We've seen less contact with F4/F6 called INT on such plays. I think it blew up on PU, who ruled that it was nothing. I'm guessing they let it stand? Ordinarily contact between a runner and a fielder on a batted ball cannot be nothing (except for tangle/untangle).
  17. maven

    It is all Angel's Fault

    "Hernandez’s call wasn’t to blame for the Cubs losing and splitting a four-game series with the worst team in the National League. A poor five-inning performance by Jon Lester, who gave up five runs on eight hits while striking out one, was a big factor." Uh, ya think?
  18. maven

    F2-only Putout On U3K?

    That's false in all codes, and AFAIK has never been the rule (except some particular umpire's MSU book).
  19. maven

    Another Force play slide INT video

    Good job. Keep at it. As I'm sure you know, at our age, rehab is harder and more essential. Safe home.
  20. maven

    OBS at Home Plate then Malicious Contact

    A couple last thoughts (I seldom post after "page 1" of a thread). Of course this is a judgment call, but since we have video we can assess the correctness of the judgment. That's one of the valuable uses of video. Given that it's a judgment call, we can't say that "this is MC by rule": no, that's a judgment call. Nobody posting here has gotten the rule wrong (which is difficult to do, as the rule includes no definition). Of course ejection (plus whatever suspension our respective states attach to ejections) is a serious penalty. It has to be in order to deter the infraction, which is also serious. By refusing to use it—or, what is in practice the same thing, maintaining too high a bar for MC—we undercut the deterrent effect of the penalty. Please reconsider.
  21. maven

    OBS at Home Plate then Malicious Contact

    We should have this attitude about any infraction. We don't want to guess on OBS, INT, or any other call. MC is no different. Ask any supervisor, and you'll hear that officials don't call MC enough, partly due to attitudes like this (not to pick on you). Kids would stop doing it so much if we started calling it more. Look at what has happened to high hits in college with the introduction of the targeting rule.
  22. maven

    More on throws deflected out of play

    They're not parallel, but it doesn't really matter.
  23. maven

    More on throws deflected out of play

    The only thing that would make the award a TOP award is a batted ball. If you remove that from the situation, the award will always be 2 bases, TOT, no matter how the fielder moves the ball out of play (throw, kick, blowing on it, telekinesis, ...).
  24. maven

    More on throws deflected out of play

    That would be odd. What would an accidental throw be?
×