Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

beerguy55

Established Member
  • Content Count

    1,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

beerguy55 last won the day on November 14 2018

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

327 Good

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. beerguy55

    Catchers

    Oh I know what you were getting at. And I'm sure you're right.
  2. beerguy55

    NFHS changes 2019

    In the end, all you're doing is creating more action. I don't want to do a full hijack here but I can provide the baseball stats to back it up - including how many more runs are scored in the R2 zero out scenario, and how teams wrongly play for one run instead of more (and why it IS wrong) which just prolongs games. The argument can be made, and demonstrated, that games (or innings) with more runs scored typically take longer to complete. Which takes me back to my original point. The R2 rule just creates more action, more offense, more runs, and in turn, makes each inning longer. Even if you end the game an inning or two earlier, it may not be shorter. And the majority of extra inning games already end in the first or second extra inning anyway. Sorry for the hijack. I might create a thread in the free for all section about that, in case someone actually cares.
  3. beerguy55

    Catchers

    We tried that a few times back in Little League - I don't recall it ever working. Either R2 doesn't bite, or he's really fast, or F1 also airmails past F8 and R2 scores, or F8 makes a crap throw to F5.
  4. beerguy55

    NFHS changes 2019

    For the record, as my coaching experience is in softball, I have vast experience with this rule. It sucks. It does not, in my experience, ensure games end more quickly. It MAY reduce the number of those 16-18 inning games, but will likely have minimal impact on how many games end in the first extra inning, and will, even if going less innings, not necessarily reduce the actual TIME it takes to finish the game. Unless you have a coach who understands analytics, you almost always run into "sac R2 to third, push R3 across plate, end up with three out, one run scored" in BOTH the bottom and top of inning. The visiting coach SHOULD be going for more than one run and hitting away, not going for one run, but typically they go for one run and hope to shut down the home team in the bottom (even in NCAA and International softball games). if the visiting team scores one the home team, invariably, goes for the tie, not the win. You're just as likely to have both teams each score one run as you are to have a winner. I've seen games go four extra innings - 5-5, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8 before getting a winner - four extra innings with all those runs takes longer than 6 or 7 extra innings with no runs. It may add a twist and give fans a little extra interest and value in extra innings, but I doubt it will speed things up drastically. As it is something like 3/4 of MLB games end in the first or second extra inning anyway.
  5. beerguy55

    How Would You Handle This?

    Easy - R3 goes on contact, R2 forgets there are two out and tags up on the high fly ball, then realizing his mistake leaves for third, allowing R3 to score before the INT occurs. Forced runner making third out before reaching forced base should nullify run, no matter how he gets out. Otherwise, just run off baseline (or run to the dugout) to turn a would be force into a time play. Sorry - I'm a little bored today - reading old posts.
  6. beerguy55

    Catchers

    To the point where one possible answer is "if the ball is live and there is an active play (hit ball, steal attempt, etc) and there are runners/batters on the bases the pitcher can throw the ball to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants, like any other fielder". Sadly, I can see a scenario where, in some convoluted rundown where F1 ends up throwing to F7, someone claims that the pitcher isn't allowed to throw the ball to an outfielder.
  7. beerguy55

    Catchers

    Not for "whatever reason". The pitcher can only "pitch" to the catcher (technically, he's pitching to the batter). The pitcher may throw to any fielder when making a play on a runner (more accurately, he's throwing to the "base" - it doesn't really matter which fielder is there to receive the throw)
  8. This is where I think umpires should just get on a mic and explain the end result like NFL does. Looks like Harvey killed the play before Art Howe ran and touched second base, which makes the double play a reasonable resolution for me (at around 52:36 you see Howe touching second base for the third out, but you also see Harvey with his hand up - also seen better at about 55:31 Harvey appearing to be calling Time just as Howe is breaking for second base) Well, if it was any consolation, the Phillies ended up winning this game, the series, and then the World Series.
  9. beerguy55

    Coach interference?

    Well, if @Senor Azulcan't find a FED case play, it probably doesn't exist, so, going by the strict wording of the rule would be the safe position. Frankly, use the OBR case play as your guide and let someone protest it. The OBR rule and the FED rule language are very similar - "fail to vacate" specifically. Yet, OBR has a case play that broadens that terminology to allow for judgment on the coach's effort. Despite the difference in OBR requiring coaches on the field, and FED not, I think the same common sense would/could/should apply to both. That the defense made the overthrow doesn't really matter - the rule, I believe, applies to both thrown and batted balls.
  10. beerguy55

    Coach interference?

    But this was not a thrown ball - not in the OP anyway. F3 did not throw because coach was in the way. Based on the rule/interp wording alone, in both FED and OBR, are we not entering the same territory as RLI? There was no thrown ball to catch, so no fielder catching/fielding/receiving a thrown ball was interfered with. I too am confused. A consensus on what? How the OP should be ruled, or how an OBR case play would be ruled in FED? The OP doesn't mention this scenario, only the OBR case play does. I'm reading something very different - maybe I haven't had my coffee yet. In the OBR case play I'm reading that the coach is (not) dodging the fielder - the coach falls to the ground to (successfully) avoid the overthrown ball, and then (likely unintentionally) interferes with the fielder going to get the overthrown ball. In the OP, the coach is (not) dodging a potential throw - whether he did it intentionally, or simply wasn't paying attention (negligence vs intent) is unclear, and may not matter.
  11. beerguy55

    On deck batter

    NCAA and the pros, I'm good. They're typically further away (40+ feet), better at reacting, understand the risks, and can afford to fix their teeth. (keep in mind, though, that most of these stadiums have netting to protect the fans that are a few feet behind the ODB). The game's more competitive, more formal, and can use a little more rigidity in some scenarios. FED rules (frankly, any amateur setting, since some follow OBR - and, yes, I know NCAA is "technically" amateur) - a range of ages and skills, and, a wide array of facility arrangements can result in an ODB being awfully tight to the batter - I've seen many fields where this is under 15 feet - like @scrounge mentions above, I'd like to see umps use some discretion in those scenarios. I simply find the FED language a little contradictory to their typical leaning to safety. At the rec and younger levels the ODB isn't trying to block the view of the coach, nor overhear any strategic conversations - they're just trying to stay safe (and still warm up a bit). To blindly reject a batter going to the safer circle is a bit archaic and despotic. No offense. At least assess the situation - big field, 40 feet away, great, status quo...20 feet away, think about it for a second before ruling. I've actually seen umpires tell the kids (and/or inform the inexperienced coaches) to go to the safer circle. I also think it's a better alternative to keeping the ODB on the bench, which I've seen as a go to argument ("well, if you don't like it, just stay on the bench"). Though, I believe OBR, at least, requires the ODB to be in the circle, not the bench. There are many good reasons to have an ODB on the field. There are few good reasons to keep them anchored to one circle. I struggle with applying the pro mentality to amateur, rec, minor ball players, in lower end facilities - especially with a rule that has absolutely nothing to do with the play of the game itself.
  12. beerguy55

    On deck batter

    I'm sure you're heartbroken at my disappointment.
  13. beerguy55

    Bunt to Chop Swing

    One's necessary to the game, the other is not. Besides, the charging fielder is often closer than the pitcher (many times less than 30 feet away), and, at that age, is less prepared and equipped to protect himself (because he is almost blindly charging, expecting to run and pick up a slow moving or stationary ball) than the pitcher, who typically doesn't have the exaggerated follow throw older pitchers develop and is (usually) in position to field a hit by the time the batter makes contact. At older ages - NCAA and up (maybe HS too) they are not only more equipped to handle the play (better reaction and better skill) they also actually understand the risks...not to mention the likelihood that the batter will actually perform an actual chop slap, and not a full swing, which they likely wouldn't have time to accomplish anyway. Not to mention that you just don't see this play (very rarely) at the college and pro levels. So, if it's a play almost exclusive to the younger levels, and organically disappears as the players get older anyway, why would we even encourage or allow it at the development levels? (this is more an observation than anything - in softball the slap is an integral part of the game at college and international levels and I still think it should be banned at the younger/rec ages)
  14. beerguy55

    On deck batter

    I would be interested in the FED position on whether or not the "in the hole" batter would be allowed to hit off a tee behind the dugout. To me that's more a facility question than a real rule question - to your legal concern. If the facility allows it as a batting warm-up area I hope FED would stay out of it from a rules perspective (for everyone but the on deck batter). It is also, for me, a more practical way to let a batter get some practice swings in game - as a coach I would never want my on deck batter behind the dugout. For the on deck batter - personally, I think it's more about ensuring the on deck batter is on the field and ready to go to the plate in the most expedient manner, so, if the on deck hitter wants to sit in the dugout and not warm-up that would be his choice - being behind the dugout and hitting off a tee would risk slowing the game down. I am, however, disappointed that, with all their apparent focus on safety, that FED would not allow an on deck batter to take the on deck circle that is behind the batter, and, in spite of the explicit rule, I would be disappointed in any umpire that did not allow this, provided the on deck batter is not purposefully impeding the coach's line of sight to the catcher.
  15. beerguy55

    Bunt to Chop Swing

    I have seen it, and it's something you shouldn't need to see once before wanting to avoid it. Anecdotal evidence only takes you so far - you've never seen something until you do. Everything is unprecedented until it happens. It's a devastating event when it does happen, and the only question is whether or not the action that caused the event is necessary to the integrity of the game. Besides, I'm willing to bet you've seen some near misses in your 50 years - I know I've seen dozens. Don't dismiss the near misses - they are simply matters of luck, and represent what will inevitably happen. This is why Health and Safety practitioners record not only incidents, but also near misses - because they are leading indicators and predictors. I don't have a problem with a PROPERLY executed bunt/chop - what I find is many at the younger ages, especially at rec levels, end up doing a full swing, not a chop. Removing this from the younger/rec levels eliminates absolutely nothing from the integrity or enjoyment of the game, but does eliminate an absolutely unnecessary risk, no matter how small you think it is. You're making the same arguments that were made in opposition to batting helmets, and bulldozing catchers, and seat belts...And are currently being made to keep tackle football for youths, in spite of all that has been learned about concussions. This is more about resistance to change than anything else.
×