Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ricka56

  1. ricka56

    The Devil

    I'll leave the Prager U political controversy aside, but I'd like to hear your well-founded rebuttal to this video.
  2. ricka56

    Does this run count?

    No, condescend accordingly.
  3. ricka56

    The Devil

  4. ricka56

    Does this run count?

    For an umpire, nothing. But most know-nothings (Ask the Umpire is a Baseball 101 page for the know-nothings) think that an appeal is when a call is changed after umpires confer. Elaboration. And since this is the page for know-nothings, I will include the definition of the this five syllable word for you. https://www.google.com/search?q=elaboration&oq=elaboration&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5167j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  5. ricka56

    Batters helmet

    Are we really going to tell a HS player to remove that piece of protective equipment ? I wouldn't. And shame on the opposing coach that insists on it's removal. Refer to signature sentence below.
  6. ricka56

    Does this run count?

    True, but this could be mis-interpreted (this is the newbie section). The plate umpire is watching whether R3 touches HP before/after R2 is tagged out at 2B (and by tagged I mean either the runner or the base). It is an appeal (not a force) and a time play. If the throw to 2B beats R3 touching HP, no run scores...vice versa, run scores.
  7. This web site is here to discuss baseball situations. I don't know what game the offense is playing in this situation, but it ain''t baseball. Coaches that teach these tactics prove that caning should be returned to our justice system ... and added to all youth sports rules to discourage such behavior. The question shouldn't be, did the umpire properly call TIME. The question should be who the FAQ thought it was a good idea to allow this coach anywhere near their kids.
  8. I think an umpire could get the crew in trouble if he discarded common sense and went looking for trouble using this rule. Yes, the fielder has to appeal on the proper runner, but common sense should tell an umpire which runner that (unmistakably) is. If the appeal on R2 (at 2B) was to be the third out, do we really need F4/F6 specifying R2 or R1? I wouldn't...the inning is over. I don't need to try to convince everyone in the park that I'm the smartest person on the field. If it wasn't the third out, I'd still see an unmistakable appeal of R2 when F4 stepping on 2B (after caught batted ball). If it really is an appeal on both, then I'd rule on the appeal that was unmistakable (R2) and not rule on a erroneous/not unmistakable appeal on R1. If you need to follow this NCAA rule to the letter, don't let the defense screw up this appeal on some technicality. Save the crew.
  9. No, the runner from 1B is not out yet. An appeal on him not retouching 1B (yes he also needs to retouch 2B) has not happened yet. Either tag R1 or 1B before that runner legally retouches 1B to get him out. No, again, the runner was on 1B at the time of the pitch. He needs to be appealed at 1B (or tagged before retouching 1B). If after F4 rolled the ball to the mound, R1, legally retouched 2B and 1B, then the inning is not over. That runner (R1) if he was VERY smart (or well coached) could retouched 2B, then 1B, then touches 2B, 3B, and HP, and score on that play.
  10. ricka56

    Force Play

    When the DHC comes out, and you say that you safed BR because tie goes to the runner, you (and your partner) are in trouble. It should be either: skip, I had the runner beating the throw, or skip, I had the throw beating the runner. Saying that it was a tie dooms the crew to abuse/ejections.
  11. ricka56

    Catcher kicks base runner diving for the plate

    That was an awesome play F2 made. Legal at HP and any base before and in any rule set. When you have the ball and the runner has not yet touched the base, make him pay for his base running error.
  12. ricka56

    Force Play

    Oh, and before instant replay (which can't distinguish events like an oscilloscope can), real bangers were decided by who screwed up the least. If the infielders made a sparkling play, the runner was out. If the infielder bobbled the ball, the runner was safe. It was an aspect of the game that contributed to baseball's charm. And it is a shame that we had to go to an imperfect replay system that CAN'T REALLY distinguish which event occurred first, to ruin a good thing. And now we have whiny piss-ants that want to invoke the letter of the rule, "tie goes to the runner" ... FAQ them, refer to my signature quote below. nostalgic techno-nerd
  13. ricka56

    Force Play

    My electrical engineering job sometimes had me measuring events in nanoseconds/picoseconds. That's 0.00000000001 seconds. The naked eye can only distinguish events 0.01 seconds part (if one's really good). Though an umpire may not be able to distinguish the timing of a REAL REAL banger like an oscilloscope can, the chances of a play at 1B being a tie (in picoseconds) is VERY small. When you're got a true baseball banger, it may look like a tie, but it ain't. Either the umpire (or replay official) nailed the call )by 3 picoseconds ), or they didn't. But it was highly unlikely a tie. Pitchers miss their spots, batters swing and miss, fielders boot grounders or throw the balls away, and umpires (replay officials) miss calls...get over it, buttercup.
  14. ricka56

    Is the game over?

    This Ask the Umpire question would make sense with the following corrections: Runners on the corners with 1 out. Batter hits a fly ball to right, which is caught. Runner at 3rd tags up legally and scores. However, the batter runner on first never re-touches first base. He just walks into the dugout. Is the game really over at this point? Doesn't the batter runner on first have to complete the play and re-touch first base? And the answer would be, yes, the game is over even if the defense appealed the runner on first's failure to retouch 1B after the run scored. That out would not be not a force play, it is an appeal ... a "time play". If that out happened before the run scored, then the run would not count. If that out happened after the run scored, then the run would count...game over.
  15. As described, no. This is probably just an E8. But one would have to be there to really judge. In other words, I may see and describe the same play where interference would be the correct call. Often people come on here and describe a situation in a manner that elicits an interpretation that they desire.
  16. ricka56

    Is the play dead?

    Depends on what the league is about. Its a rec-league. No one should get their panties in a twist over an incorrect call...crack open another beer and have fun. Umpires are needed to keep players from cheating in games that matter. If the outcome of the game (and plays) doesn't matter, why incur the expense.
  17. ricka56

    Pitcher Covering Home on Wild Pitch

    I'll take your word that the pitcher set up 1-2 seconds before that ball arrived. But that isn't the significant time frame that we need to know about. Before the runner gets in the vicinity of HP, the pitcher can be anywhere he wants. The time at which the runner had to choose his final path to HP, is the pertinent moment used to judge obstruction. If the runner had to altered his path because of the pitcher without the ball, then obstruction is the call. If the runner had to altered his path because of the pitcher with the ball, then there is no obstruction. This is always a tough call for an umpire to make. The offense and the defense will almost always see it oppositely. If there is obstruction, that benefit of doubt about the attempt to avoid contact may go to the runner. No obstruction, that benefit of the doubt most likely goes to the fielder. Even when the umpire understands how to properly officiate such a play, this is often a call that could go either way. A pure judgement call. And many umpire err on the side of caution and rule interference on the runner, in part to nip in the bud any thought of retaliation by the defense. Not that that's the right thing to do, but sometimes that's in the back of an umpire's head.
  18. ricka56

    Pitcher Covering Home on Wild Pitch

    Judging intent is not easy. All you usually only get are subtle pieces of evidence happening instantaneously, one way and the other. The umpire has to judge whether there was sufficient evidence that the runner attempted to avoid the contact to absolve him of the penalty. 99% hazardous and 1% attempt to avoid is too low an effort for me to even notice, let alone absolve a runner. And I've had the fielder 99% hazardous, where I ruled in the runner's favor. And you ignored the key phrase in the point that I was making. If there is a doubt about whether the runner complied with the slide/attempt to avoid rule, and the runner choose not to slide (when sliding would have had eliminated the need for judgement), then the runner is most likely not getting the benefit of that doubt.
  19. ricka56

    Pitcher Covering Home on Wild Pitch

    Still, the collision was entirely avoidable if he slid. When a runner slides, he has done the most he can do to avoid contact. If he chooses not to slide, then the runner does not get the benefit of the doubt as to whether his attempt to avoid contact was sufficient (even if he is the smaller of the two colliding).
  20. ricka56

    Third out

    Contrary to popular belief, the runner getting doubled off at 2B is not a force play. Force plays can only occur when a batter/runner forces runners to move up (refer to force play definition). Once the batter is out, no force play can occur. As stated above, your play was a time play. The runner from 3B scored before the runner from 2B was out, so the run counts.
  21. ricka56

    'REAL' job

    Chief branding manager for Dick's Sporting.
  22. ricka56

    interference/obstruction/play on???

    And rule interference ? That could be supported by the rules maybe, but only the delight DHC would buy that judgement call.
  23. ricka56

    3 feet, continuing to advance,

    Glad to see this clarification put into the rules/interp. Before that, umpires had a catch-22. If a runner stayed more than 3 feet away from the ball carrier (more than an arm's length away), then a tag attempt couldn't be made. If no tag attempt, then the rule didn't apply. And if the runner was within 3 feet (less than arm's reach), a tag could be made and you didn't need the rule. That made no sense. Runners getting themselves in a rundown are 99% out if the fielders don't screw it up. And you have to be Houdini to be in the other 1%.
  24. ricka56

    Fulmer calls out PU

    Am I the only one who's noticed that this exchange rate has inverted, rendering this expression obsolete... ... and betting donuts to dollars just doesn't have the same ring to it. Levity is the only contribution I can make to this thread.
  25. ricka56

    Horrible news - @grayhawk

    I just read this thread about Steve's accident. Horrible news. Thought and prayers to Grayhawk, one of the best contributors to this site, and judging by my convos with him, a fine man. Speedy recovery, bruda.