Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


beerguy55 last won the day on December 27 2016

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

189 Neutral

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)
  1. Not sure how often you would see this in the US - I know of a situation in Quebec. At the plate meeting PU says to HC's before the game that the BU is French, knows English, but is not strong in it. In this case both teams are from Western Canada with no French speaking coaches (the further west you get, the less likely you are to find bilingual people, and the less likely you are to find it a requirement) PU is strong in both languages and offers to translate any conversations that are had with BU, just to be safe, and says he will come over for any conversation with BU. So, later in the game BU calls R2 out for interference on a ground ball to F6, where F6 bobbled it, allowing all runners to arrive safely. HC asks to talk to BU and PU comes over to translate. HC argues that R2 stopped, let the ball go by, and then ran, and the fielder was at least three paces behind the ball as the runner went by - nowhere close to being able to be interfered with - F6 just missed the ball. BU says that from his angle (which is directly behind F6) R2 stopped due to contact, or, if not contact, close enough to impact F6's ability to make the play, causing F6 to make the error. HC argues the ump couldn't possibly see that from his angle Umps talk back and forth in French, R2 is ruled out and game continues on. In between innings, the PU says to HC that in his opinion there was no interference. HC jaw drops. He asks, "then what was the point of the discussion we had? YOu were part of the discussion...you even spoke to the ump after I was done talking?" PU says "you didn't ask my partner to ask for help". HC acknowledges this, but simply says, "I argued that the umpire had a bad angle...I assumed at that point you and he would have discussed that...I assumed you guys were actually discussing that before making the final ruling." HC told me this story - I did say to him I saw the umpire's point. You didn't ask BU to get help...technically..."could we at least ask his opinion since he's here?" would probably have sufficed. So, I said lesson learned was not to assume anything, and make sure you're explicit in your requests. But, I also think at some point common sense has to prevail. The PU, even if for a different reason, was part of the conversation, and it's clear the HC was arguing that the BU wasn't in a good position to make the call. Have you ever had this type of scenario? How would you handle it? I'm thinking if you're making the offer to translate I think you need to make it clear that that is the limit of your role. I can see why a coach would make the assumption that since the second umpire is now part of the conversation that any appeal/request for help is implied (right, wrong or indifferent). Otherwise, PU is translating an argument of a judgment call, which is supposed to be against the rules. This is softball - relevant only to explain why BU is behind F6.
  2. Batter interference?? Who is out??

    "So, Coach, what you're saying is you want the catcher to throw the ball into your batter's ear hole before I call interference?" I've had the exact opposite experience with too many umpires - "well if the players didn't collide there's no interference/obstruction". And all they're doing is encourage coaches and players to create contact to get a call - and risk injury. I love seeing umpires who don't need to see a player sent to the hospital to call what you called. Thank you.
  3. Batter interference?? Who is out??

    As stated, I was merely attempting answer your question about what FED was (possibly) thinking when they created option #2. In practice, I have no problem ignoring #2...if nothing else, it gives the umpire an out, to apply a lesser sentence, as a warning, but I don't see the point myself.
  4. Batter interference?? Who is out??

    I think (pure speculation here) it goes to the possibility that F2 could want to throw to a base, even if there is no (realistic) chance of getting the runner...depending on the age level, some coaches want their catches throwing no matter what, just to create the habit, and get the practice/experience. The other scenario is even if you know you're beat, throw the ball and see if maybe the runner slides off the base or falls for a hidden ball trick. So, in that scenario, the batter has interfered with the catcher's desire to throw the ball to a base, but not with any realistic attempt to get the batter out. But you have hindered the catcher from doing SOMETHING. It's a question I have always wondered about in the practical application of hindrance. Hindering what? There are a lot of things you can hinder that don't necessarily equate to any realistic chance of getting a runner out, or reaching a base.
  5. Does Pitcher Have to Pitch Bottom of 1st

    And neither of these dispute anything I said. There are two purposes to the same set of stats, and those stats can be recorded differently for different scenarios. It is very easy to track a pitching appearance statistically, for posterity and completeness, and to exclude that same appearance for a specific purpose - ie. tracking a pitcher's inning/pitch count for youth pitchers, which meets a different intent - namely to reduce injury. If he didn't throw a pitch, no inning...if he did, one inning. There may be reasons you want to record it, but an inability to reconcile two disparate scenarios is not one of them. Again, not all "games played" count for "consecutive games played" metrics. The same stat recorded differently for two different purposes. You can appear in 101 straight games, but if game 51 was only a pinch run appearance, you only have two 50 consecutive game streaks....even if that pinch run appearance resulted in three stolen bases and a run scored. As well, you can have a 20 game hitting streak but actually play 21 or more consecutive games to achieve it - if you have a game where you have only four plate appearances with four walks your hitting streak gets to live another day, even though you played a full nine inning game without getting a hit...even if they were all with bases loaded and resulted in 4 RBI's. I understand the reasons, but those are clear cases where a stat is recorded for one scenario, but ignored for another. And though the pitcher picking off a runner gets 1/3 IP, he didn't "pitch" as a pitch is a ball delivered by the pitcher to the batter. And the purpose of youth inning/pitch counts is to protect pitchers, and to encourage the development of other pitchers, by reducing the number of pitches they throw. Not warm ups, not any other kind of throw to other players, not bean bag tosses...pitches.
  6. Does Pitcher Have to Pitch Bottom of 1st

    Why you can't reconcile the two? He's the pitcher of record, he gets a BB, and might even be charged with a run against no innings pitched. But he didn't throw a pitch, so he doesn't get charged with an inning for the purposes of "innings pitched" limits. This is analogous to the MLB rules around a consecutive games streak. If a player enters only as a pinch runner, his streak ends. If he gets ejected from a game before he has an at bat, or plays half an inning of defense, his streak doesn't end, but the game is not added to the streak. In both cases he statistically is recorded as a "game played" (as a pinch runner he may even have a SB or a R - as a defender who didn't complete the half inning before being ejected he may have a PO, an A, or an E), but it does not count for the purposes of the consecutive games played streak. Likewise, I see no reason why the pitcher can't be statistically recorded as having a pitching appearance (one batter, iBB, 0 or 1 earned runs), but not be charged for the purposes of pitch and inning limits.
  7. Does Pitcher Have to Pitch Bottom of 1st

    Depends on the exact rule wording. I know some leagues have both pitch counts and inning limits. You can only throw four innings, even if you've only thrown 20 pitches, for example. Typically, the wording in those rules is "Delivery of a single pitch in an inning counts for an inning" or something like that. If you don't deliver a pitch (like an IBB) you haven't "pitched" an inning yet....technically - your scoring point aside. The rule is there to both protect pitchers, and to encourage teams to develop pitchers. Not counting an inning here with an IBB still maintains the spirit of those rules...and, IMO, maintains the spirit of the rule of making the pitcher on the lineup face one batter.
  8. Does Pitcher Have to Pitch Bottom of 1st

    The OBR rule says the pitcher on the lineup card must pitch until the first batter is put out, or reaches base. So, you're up 13-0. Give the first batter an IBB, without throwing any pitches. Then he can change positions or come out of the game. And, since he never threw a pitch, you should be able to avoid counting it as an inning pitched. Otherwise, he has to pitch to the first batter - unless the ill or injured...so, if the pitcher can manage to throw up a lung, or develop a limp, he can probably get out of it, but he won't be playing that game, and might raise eyebrows if he's pitching the next game.
  9. wrong name on lineup card

    I remember playing against a team in community ball that had, if memory serves: Kayley Kailey Keely Kylie Hailey (x2) Hayley I would blow my brains out if I was that team's coach.
  10. wrong name on lineup card

    That's a good point. I forget that difference with baseball. Yes, this would be far more significant in softball, where in many codes, yes, an unreported substitution of the right fielder can result in the negation of the play (same principal as batting out of order), and for the illegal sub to be subbed out of the game.
  11. wrong name on lineup card

    First - I thought the number was irrelevant? Sure, it could be an identifier...but you could have nine number 12's on the field. And, even if the number is right it doesn't mean the person is who they say it is. Second - I want to be clear - it's petty. It's not something I would ever consider as a coach or player, and I ever donned the Blue, I hope I'd have the common sense to identify a simple spelling mistake for what it is. My question is about identification. Joe Smith is on the card, Joe Smyth is on the field. Who has the burden of proof to show that the name on the card is a mistake in spelling, and not actually the name of a different human being - that there actually isn't a Joe Smith as well. Coach A says he made a spelling mistake, it should say Joe Smyth...Coach B says no, Joe Smith actually exists, he's just not there that night, so the wrong player is on the card (or does it matter?) Twins play on a team - Bob and Fred Jones. On game night one twin gets sick and doesn't go to the game. The other one does. Coach puts Bob Jones on the lineup card. Three innings later the opposing coach points out that Fred Jones is playing, not Bob. What happens? To me, the misspelling COULD fall into this category - because you may not really know if it's a bad spelling, or if it's actually a different person. (or does it matter?) Is the lineup card supposed to represent an identification of who actually is playing the game? Or is it a label applied to a player in question - and that the label doesn't have to be technically correct, provided the same human uses the same label for the duration of the game? That is, a person named Joe Smith could be called Fred Flinstone on the lineup card? I know there has to be some validity to the name for pitchers to track pitch counts. And yeah, there's a whole different can of worms with a team that has two Joe Smith's, and only one Joe Smith on the lineup card...but to me it's again where the burden of proof does or doesn't lie to say if the right, or wrong, Joe Smith is on the field. (or does it matter?)
  12. wrong name on lineup card

    On the surface it does sound stupid (let alone petty), but I can see cases where it would make sense. I guess it comes down to what scrutiny is placed on whether or not the player on the field actually is the person listed on the lineup card - and when someone is expected to know what the coach meant. I'm just trying to follow this to a logical extension about the identity of the players, and whether it's valid. And if the kid is 12 years old you can't really ask them to produce their driver's license. If Joe Smith is written on the lineup card, what is an umpire or coach allowed to try to prove that the guy in center field actually is or is not Joe Smith. If the guy in the field is actually Fred Williams, that would be a problem (though, technically, you could just say you misspelt Williams when you wrote Smith). If the guy in the field is Joe Smyth...is that a misspelling, or a misidentification? Who has the burden of proof to show that there actually is both a Joe Smith and a Joe Smyth that could be playing ball in that situation?
  13. Mound visit with player from bench

    Not that I know of. They'll change it when some coach abuses it and brings his entire set of bench players to the mound every visit so they can all give their personal words of affirmation.
  14. Even if there are runners, in rule sets where there are no lead offs (eg. LL minor, any level of softball) there can be no balks, as you are unable to deceive the runner. It was an awkward moment for the ump because the ump wasn't clear on the rule, and/or may not fully understand the reason/concept of the balk rule. He did, however, know somewhere instinctively, that the pitcher's maneuver wasn't kosher. Just didn't know exactly what to do about it. However, that's no reason for a coach to publicly ridicule said umpire. Eject the asshat.
  15. Relocating due to rain

    He may be being petty...or he may have something personal going on in his life. Maybe he's just one of those people who don't handle change well. Or maybe he just had a $5000 dental bill, is trying to make extra money, and this unexpected drive is just one more expense on top of a crapload of other "surprises" he's had to deal with recently (at this point you're not thinking rationally and not realizing it's only a couple of bucks)....you know...the straw that broke the camels' back... To the question about relocation - any good tournament has a plan B...the teams that paid $400-800 to enter the tournament, plus all their travel expenses that aren't reimbursable - want to play...and they don't care where. I've been in a couple of tournaments where we ended up relocating to fields that were in better condition...it was better than not playing...Any umpire/coach/parent/player that isn't on board with that possible plan B just doesn't get it.