Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by maven

  1. Opening the Season

    No snowman. I did stop a game to remove a groundhog, however.
  2. Batter interference on strike 3

    FED also gives PU the option not to go to BU on a checked swing. No umpire should use either option. Either the batter hindered F2, in which case we should rule R1 out for the (retired) batter's INT; or there was no hindrance, in which case there is no penalty. There is no situation where we would properly return R1 to 1B (that's the option allowed by rule but that we should never use).
  3. Defensive Shift and NFHS Question

    The 2009 interps use the phrase, "considered at the time of the play," which suggests something like the functional definition I was proposing. This case play describes a batted ball that is neither clearly in the outfield, nor clearly in the infield. An infielder (positioned normally at TOP) gets to it first, and makes the first play. I'm good with the ruling (TOP award) on that basis. I agree with your statement that, if F9 instead had reached it first, we'd go with a TOT award. Often infielders allow outfielders to get these, as their momentum vector is directed better for fielding and a subsequent throw (coming in, rather than running out).
  4. Defensive Shift and NFHS Question

    That's a natural reading, but not the only one possible. The language of the rule clearly defines three FIELDS (left, center, and right), but not necessarily three FIELDERS ("The players in..." those three fields....). I disagree with the rationale for the interpretation: coaches usually shift in order to position another infielder to make a play on the BR at 1B, not in order to have another outfielder. Where they want another outfielder, he's placed much deeper (as in 2009/SITUATION 20 posted above), and he typically has no play on the BR at 1B. One way to finesse the issue is to judge the play by action on the field. In the case from the DOD bulletin, we have an extra outfielder backing up an infielder on a batted ball over his (F4's) head. His (F5's) throw out of play should be a TOT award. Had the fielders lined up the same way and the batter grounded directly to a shifted F5, who made a wild throw to F3 in plenty of time to retire the BR (had the throw been good), then I'd have it as the first play by an infielder and make a TOP award. This approach uses a functional definition of 'infielder' rather than a positional definition, given the ambiguity of the latter in this case. It also yields the "right" rulings for the 2009 interps.
  5. Excellent! When UPS delivers my time machine and I go to PBUC 30 years ago, I'll nail it!
  6. Check Swing Question

    Yes, and he should, in all codes, every time. Yes, and he should, in all codes, every time. As BU, I give what I've got.
  7. Thank you for the clarification. I should have said "automatic" instead of "accidental." Automatic appeals are, of course, even more objectionable, as the fielder doesn't need to do anything at all: the appeal just happens. I get the rationale, though: basketball and football players don't have to appeal infractions to get a call (and indeed are generally prohibited by rule from doing so), so why require that in baseball?
  8. I was looking at 5.09(c)(3), specifically, "He overruns or overslides first base and fails to return to the base immediately, and he or the base is tagged prior to the runner returning to first base;" 5.09(b)(11) is clearer in distinguishing playing action—a move to 2B, which requires tagging the runner—from non-playing action, such as going to the dugout or returning to his position on the field, in which case either the runner or base may be tagged to appeal the infraction.
  9. Interference

    He can't throw out the runner. The ball is dead. Also, throwing out a runner is not a double play. With no INT, the defense never gets 2 outs for D3K.
  10. Interference

    Sounds like no INT. No hindrance = no INT. There might be some 1 in a million scenario where we could have D3K, genuine INT by the BR, and somehow F2 still has a shot at a double play. That still doesn't satisfy the description of an "obvious double play." At the end of the day, guys are going to call what they're going to call.
  11. Interference

    First off, the OP has R2, not R1. Go to the book. For OBR, to get 2 outs on INT, we have to judge the INT to be "a willful and deliberate" attempt to break up a DP. There's hardly ever a DP possible on D3K: when F2 fields it, he has to pick either 1B or 3B, and the other runner is going to be safe. If no DP is possible, then the BR can't reasonably intend to break one up (and we don't impute unreasonable intent just to get another out). BR out for his INT, R2 returns. For FED, which has a lower standard for getting 2 outs (if the INT "prevents a possible DP"), we still can't get 2 outs, because there was never going to be a DP on this play. So the INT didn't prevent one. BR out for his INT, R2 returns. That's the rule. No obvious DP here. That's a judgment call, of course, and your partner might disagree. But 2 outs is a severe penalty, and (for game management, if for no other reason) we want this judgment to be really obvious before we go there.
  12. I don't like the call. The batter, however stupid, did not offer at the pitch.
  13. Interference

    I like it: the batter has struck out, and the catcher has failed to catch the pitch legally. Ordinarily, this is an easy putout for the defense. We're not going to give the offense any advantages, as they've earned none.
  14. Interference

    The BR gets the benefit of tangle/untangle only on a batted ball, where ordinarily we'd get runner INT for hindering a fielder on a batted ball. He's earned that benefit by putting the ball in play. On a D3K, he's struck out, and may advance only because the third strike was not legally caught. FED extends some protection to such a BR anyway, making the bar for INT intentional hindrance. But OBR does not: Wendelstedt opines that "There is no 'both-players-doing-their-job' [tangle/untangle] exception as with batted balls out in front of the plate."
  15. New umpire instruction

    Perhaps the shorter training is just for 1-person mechanics, which are pretty easy (PU has it all, get out from behind the plate). You'd need longer to train 2-umpire mechanics. As I said, without hearing the details and rationale from the association, criticism is premature. And, as a person who does the training, I can tell you that it's time consuming and pays nothing. Many of those I'm expected to instruct don't want to be there and have no interest in improving (though for others it can be rewarding to teach them, and I personally enjoy the challenge of trying to "flip" the unmotivated).
  16. Interference

    The confusion arises in part because many umpires cannot define the difference between a batter and a batter-runner, so they don't know whether this is batter INT (delayed dead) or runner INT (dead, special provisions for the BR and D3K). Definitions, definitions, definitions.
  17. New umpire instruction

    My thought is: the question seems to concern the rationale for your association's training practices. I don't know what that is, so I'm not in a position to criticize it (either positively or negatively). A thread on the topic of recruitment is fine, but that doesn't relate to the training practices of one association. It also doesn't belong in the "Ask the Umpire" forum, which is dedicated to rules questions.
  18. Interference

    I don't see any of that in the OP. Indeed, the order of presentation suggests the opposite, that the BR hindered F2's attempt to retrieve the misplayed pitch, but once F2 got it, he was able to make a (unhindered) throw to F5 and retire R2 stealing (late, apparently). Moreover, we always need to remember that RLI involves (mainly) hindrance with the fielder taking the throw, which is not part of this play (I know grayhawk will be along to remind us that FED-RLI includes hindrance of the fielder fielding the ball; that is unlikely to involve F2, unless he gets up to the running lane, 45 feet away from HP, as fast as the BR). FWIW, I agree with your interpretation of 8-4-1a.
  19. Interference

    Well, I blame noumpere for that. This is runner INT by the BR. The ball is dead, the BR is out, and other runners return to their TOI bases. If it's the third out, the half inning is over. Same ruling, all codes. I'll qualify this response slightly, as the bar for runner INT by the BR is different in FED and OBR. For FED, it must be intentional (8-4-1a). For OBR, the standard is "clear hindrance [with F2, not with the ball]," which need not be intentional (6.01(a)(1)). As it's a given of the play that the BR DID interfere, the ruling will be the same. (OBR also has this as a TOP return, but that's not materially different.)
  20. Interference

    Sorry: I didn't mean to comment on the thread, just on the general phenomenon of prolonged umpire discussions with people who cannot be wrong about things.
  21. Still? A HS program? It's so easily defended, I can't imagine a program being known for running it!
  22. Does the homerun still count?

    ...so, if the situation were changed so that bases were loaded, and R1 still missed the plate, the appeal would still be upheld and 2 runs would score. R2 & R3 would score, R1's run would be nullified by the appeal, and the BR's would be disallowed by rule.
  23. Interference

    That's too long, or would be for me. If I'm asked a ruling, I will answer, plus one followup question. If the person wants to argue, life is too short: he can do with the info what he will. There are cases of gaps on the rules and conflicting interpretations that bear some extended discussion. This is not one of them.
  24. That's not the skunk. Skunk is the play where R1 takes his lead in RF, and it's legal and not appealable. 5.09(c)(3) is unrelated to skunk, though it otherwise addresses the play you describe.