Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

goody14

Established Member
  • Content count

    266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

goody14 last won the day on September 4 2014

goody14 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

87 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,050 profile views
  1. Backswing interference?

    Am I right in saying that MLB and NFHS are now aligned on when to call the rule (enforcement is different since batter is out in high school and not in MLB for "weak" interference on a steal). The bat hitting the catcher is in and of itself enough to call the INT.
  2. Backswing interference?

    Joe Torre has accepted your challenge.
  3. Odd appeal play

    Had someone in my association call me with this one. College fall ball (but I think it would be the same in all codes). R3 0 outs. Fly ball to LF. Runner leaves early as seen by the PU. Throw goes to the catcher. R3 gets part way home and retreats back to third. Catcher throws the ball to F5 who is standing on the base. The ball clearly beats runner back. F5 attempts to apply a tag and misses. Umpire in the middle (who has no responsibility in watching the tag) rules the runner safe on the missed tag. Argument for out: The ball beat him back to third. F5 does not have to state he is appealing since the nature of this play is by itself an appeal. If this is the case, the plate guy would grab it. Argument for safe: F5 did not necessarily know the guy left early. His attempt to put down a tag means he was not appealing a missed base. The act of touching a base by itself is not an appeal. I think I have an out, but I would not bet @maven 's mortgage on it. So what do you have from a rule and also a mechanic perspective?
  4. Backswing interference?

    I originally thought the umps on the field got it right. In looking at my PBUC Manual, I am not so sure anymore. Here is section 7.14 from the 2014 edition:
  5. Had this question come to me and not sure of the answer. Hoping this is not one of the weird differences in FED. Batter bunts ball and drops bat. Bat is half in fair territory and half in foul. Ball rolls back and hits part of the bat that is in fair territory. It subsequently rolls into foul territory and stops. I have a foul ball - and I assumed this was the same in all codes. Someone brought to my attention FED rule 2-5-1f (emphasis is mine) That makes it sound like the situation above could result in a fair ball. But, then case play 2.5.1 E comes in: Ruling c has a foul ball but it has bat hitting ball and not ball hitting bat. I am inclined to apply the case ruling and keep my original play as a foul ball. What do you think FED was going for when putting the word equipment in the definition...it is not there in OBR.
  6. Ahhh....the clip played both feeds. The second one is most definitely Vin. Thanks
  7. Don't think that is Vin Scully. The feed says it is from FS San Diego. I think it is Dick Enberg.
  8. CR/Illegal Sub

    This popped up on my association's FB page today and I thought it was interesting. Please take the situation for what it is - yes, we all know that preventative umpiring could have stopped the whole thing. Pitcher #1 is removed from the game. The player who had previously been a CR for the pitcher is now playing in the field. Pitcher #2 gets a hit. Coach wants to use pitcher #1 as a CR. Game resumes and DHC calls the illegal CR to the attention of the ump. What I feel is clear: Pitcher #1 as an illegal CR is now an illegal sub and is called out and restricted. My question: Since the CR is officially an illegal substitute, did the offense just remove Pitcher #2 from the game (which means that if he was a sub he is done for the day and if a starter he has to burn re-entry to pitch again)? (For simplicity, let's assume that Pitcher #1 and Pitcher #2 are in different spots in the batting order. This means we cannot default to making the CR a legal substitute called the wrong thing by a coach).
  9. I have never seen information about this topic all put into one place. So, I am going to try and summarize this with my understanding of the rules. I am asking that people give this a look and correct me where needed. For some reason, I find all the usual manuals/books/etc lacking when describing these sorts of plays. Play - Batter throws bat and it interferes with fielder FED - Out NCAA - Out OBR - Out Play - Ball rolls into bat lying on ground in fair territory (ball hits bat) FED - Nothing NCAA - Nothing OBR - Nothing Play - Batter drops bat which hits a ball that is in fair territory (bat hits ball) FED - Nothing unless intentional NCAA - Interference and out OBR - Interference and out Play - Ball in fair territory hits batter or bat in batter's hand when he is in the box FED - Foul NCAA - Foul OBR - Foul Definition - What does it mean to be "in the box" FED - At least one foot on the ground in the box (does not matter where any other foot is at) NCAA - No feet completely on the ground outside the box OBR - Both feet have to be on the ground and in the box Do I have these right?
  10. RuleGraphics Book

    If you search for the Kindle version, they do have a "Look Inside" option set up. You can see the Table of Contents and what they have on there. And yes, blame @noumpere if you don't like it.
  11. Looks very interesting

    I have not had a chance to read through much of it, but I was honored to be asked to contribute. Fellow UE poster @Gil is a contributor as well. My apologies if I missed anyone else.
  12. RuleGraphics Book

    Very nice of you to say. If we ever meet in person I will sign it for you - that raises the value $0.25 Have a great season!
  13. RuleGraphics: Second Edition

    Your sister in law is a wise, wise woman. She is also my 4th favorite person this evening - wife and kids barely outrank! Glad you enjoy it and thanks for the kind words.
  14. Force Outs and Appeal Plays

    I was doing some pre-season reading and came across this in the 2016 version of the BRD (page 26 of the print version). This is the section on order of appeals. The point he is driving home is that there is no advantageous 4th out on this play, so the order of appeals matters. But, my question is - why is R1 not a force. Later in the book (pg 171) And I am assuming there "R3" is missing between the commas at the beginning of this play. Also, "was" at the end of the second line should be "way". Unless I am missing some nuance, I cannot comprehend why these two plays have differing outcomes. Further, given the OI that if at a time a base is missed it is a force, then it will be a force on appeal, I believe the 2nd play to be the "right" ruling.
  15. Baseball Points of Emphasis - 2017

    Here is old interp from 2007: The ruling states that a runner "cannot be expected to slide" because he is too far away from the base. The POE doubles down on the fact that runners do not have to slide (even calling out the FPSR). The POE seems to state that a player going straight into a base is fine as long as he does not interfere. The interp makes it sound like if the player is close to the base, they had better hit the ground. Which one is right? Or is this just verbal gymnastics?
×