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 November 13

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

321 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

    Bunt to Chop Swing

    There are two factors to consider - what is the degree of injury that could happen (and its likelihood)...and, is modifying the rule going to change the game to any significant degree. Many youth leagues do make face masks attached to batter helmets mandatory, especially in fast pitch. Many leagues encourage, or mandate, the on deck batter stand in the circle behind the batter, regardless of where the bench is. Any umpire who forbids it is a dinosaur. The breakaway base issue is an economic one, and is difficult to enforce without reducing the number of facilities that can host games - especially at the rec level. Where it can be done, it is in many cases. Having said that, a broken ankle is a far cry from total reconstruction of a face, or brain damage, or death. Why do you think LL forbids head first slides - it's to reduce the chance of a broken neck. Is the rule 100% as written...no, but that's not the goal. Minimize risk, not eliminate. I'm not trying to put the kids in a bubble - I'm trying to reduce risk where the risk has no necessity. As to your overall question - why aren't they doing it? Stubbornness, a blind resistance to change, an archaic attitude about what is "tough", money, "tradition", etc, etc, blah blah blah. Same discussion is happening in football - despite all the evidence to the effect of concussions on kids before their skull is fully developed people still insist on letting and demanding five year olds play tackle football. The top two passing leaders in NFL history didn't play tackle football until they were teenagers. Three Super Bowl rings between them (one against each other). And one of them has a younger brother with two more rings who had the same restriction. And those two brothers had a dad who played in the NFL. But, we need to toughen those kids up, and flag football isn't real football, and you're ruining the game, and, and, and. The fact that you're asking the question assumes that the general position those leagues hold is "right", simply because of the fact that none of them are changing, so it must be right. Once the kids get into their teenage years, get a little more skilled and athletic, and understand not only the game, but their bodies, then they can play like the big boys. We had the same resistance with batting helmets. And hockey helmets. And hockey face masks for youths. And running over the catcher. Just because it's always been done that way isn't a defense to keep doing it.
  2. beerguy55

    Bunt to Chop Swing

    Do you need to see it once to do something? Do you need to see it more than once? I've seen it once, and that's enough. (and for the record, I held my opinion before the incident occurred - and it happened in a game I was not coaching, but watching) Your instruction is fine - but not all kids listen or get it right away...and less experienced coaches don't know better. I taught my kids to creep, not charge - that at least keeps them in a defending position...the "charge" assumes they will need to go to the ball, rather than the possibility of the ball coming to them.
  3. beerguy55

    Bunt to Chop Swing

    Call me a fool if you want - At the rec levels and/or younger kids I'd make face masks mandatory for the corners and pitchers, and some leagues have passed such rules for the smaller field. (or, as a compromise, drastically increase the education level so parents can make more informed decisions about their kids). I made the decision for my kid. And, yes, I would ban the fake bunt/swing at that level. In the situation I'm talking about you have a rec league where there is a varied level of skill and basic athletic ability, plus varied size. You can have a 12 year old batter, who is big for his age, facing a 10 year old third baseman, who is small for his age. On top of that, the batter is skilled, may even be good enough, or almost good enough, to play club ball, and the third baseman is playing his fifth game in his life. And then you have parents and coaches who don't really know what they're doing, and don't know enough about the game to understand what the risk really is. The one coach is playing to win, the other coach is just getting his kids familiar with their positions. And all that little inexperienced third baseman knows is at the last practice his coach told him when he sees the batter square to bunt he needs to move in so he can pick up the ball and throw it to first - and that coach knows that because that's what the league's "introduction to coaching" seminar taught him. And that batter is just doing what his coach told him to do, but doesn't yet understand the difference between a slap and a swing, and is not aware of the consequences of his actions. Any dismissal of an attempt to protect those kids at the rec level is irresponsible. It's no different than these knuckle draggers who still insist kids learn tackle football at five years old, because it's "real football".
  4. beerguy55

    Bunt to Chop Swing

    Don't blame me. I didn't pitch.
  5. I hate everything about this ruling. This rule effectively tells the umpire to ignore the abandonment rule in this one scenario, to the benefit of the offense. This is so much cleaner if the umpire just calls abandonment. Why wouldn't he? He would make this call if the runner ran into right field and started doing cartwheels in the previous 17 half innings..."obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base" Abandonment should be classed a force out when it's a forced runner (as should leaving the base path to avoid a tag)...why wouldn't it be? The forced runner made the third out before reaching the base to which he was forced....to me, this is what "forced out" means. The fundamental question for me is when does the play become dead? Once the play is dead the defense couldn't complete a force, and, also, the runner couldn't be called for abandonment. At that point, they would have to appeal. So, when does it die? When the (apparent) winning run scores? When B/R reaches first? Both (like on a BB?) When the defense leaves the field? When the umps get tired of waiting and leave? IMO, on a hit the play should be live until either all forced bases are touched or all the defense leaves fair territory. Until then it's a force, not an appeal. R1 didn't "miss" the base...he never reached it. But, I really don't care if my opinion is supported...draw a line SOMEWHERE. If there is a clear ruling on when a play dies on an apparent game ending run, then we know if it should be an appeal or a force. Which then leads to...so, if the play is dead, that means the base runner can't correct his error? ie. he's in the middle of right field and realizes he forgot to touch the base...can he go touch it before someone on the defense completes their appeal? Again - so much easier if the ump just called abandonment. IMO, even if you're ignoring abandonment, the OP is a force out, accidental or not. It's not an appeal.
  6. beerguy55

    Bunt to Chop Swing

    I've had the same argument in softball for different reasons - as the slap as an integral part of that game...and the sac bunt is still (not on any team I coached) a huge part of the game. I don't have a problem with slash bunts or proper slaps...I do have a problem with young players coming in when it looks like the batter is gonna sac bunt, and then he/she comes back and does a full swing (not a slash/slap) and drives the ball down the poor kid's left nostril, as he/she is now 30 feet away, not 60. I always felt it should be banned at the rec/community levels - as the batters don't know enough to do it properly, and the fielders don't know enough to field the positions properly. (or, make face masks mandatory) This is an act that has been banned in any adult fastpitch or baseball league I have ever played in. When I played Little League as a teenager (Big League, or whatever) where it was "allowed", those players who did it found the next pitch in their ear hole.
  7. I can see some day where this would (if allowed or not enforced) be a logical extension of the shift - based on analytics you may find a scenario where you could use six players to cover the area you need to defend a particular batter, and then stick someone in outfield foul territory (especially a park with a lot of foul territory). And especially in smaller fields, like Little League...or fastpitch (look at a NCAA fastpitch field - 60 foot bases and 220 to the fence - having said that in fastpitch this is clearly outlined as an illegal pitch) Personally, as a coach, it always drove me nuts when my fielders played too close to the line - defending foul territory rather than the gap - but if you have the gaps covered, I could see some doing it.
  8. Here's the OBR rule: 5.02 (4.03) Fielding Positions When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory...Except the pitcher and the catcher, any fielder may station himself anywhere in fair territory. And FED SECTION 1 POSITIONS OF PLAYERS ART. 4 . . . At the time of the pitch, all fielders shall be on fair ground except the catcher who shall be in the catcher's box. A fielder is in fair ground when at least one foot is touching fair ground. In FED it's an illegal pitch. In OBR??? It seems to put the onus on the umpire to notice before the ball is made live. Nothing about what happens after the ball is live....or even what happens if the ump didn't notice F9 was in foul territory when he said "play".
  9. beerguy55


    k - I'm going to make a leap here. With the word "her" I'm going softball - yes, I'm fully aware that there are female baseball players and some of them pitch...I'm just playing math here...there's about a 99% chance this is softball and I'll gladly be wrong 1% of the time. So, first, in softball there are no balks. The reason is there are no leadoffs, so there are no runners to deceive. The runner can't leave until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. Illegal pitches, yes. Balks no. Stopping the windup is an illegal pitch, and umpire yelling aside, it's a ball to the batter and a base for the runner(s). Second, as stated above, it does depend on what the umpire yelled at and why - "the umpires yells at something". What would an umpire yell at - during the wind up: The runner left early - umpire yells time, runner out. That's a dead ball. There is no pitch. So, it doesn't matter if the pitcher stops or not. Runner out, other runners return. No pitch. Some other reason to call "time" (eg. batter requested time and ump granted it) - again, nothing. That kills the play. No pitch. No illegal pitch. No nothing. An illegal pitch - pitcher already did something illegal, so ump calls it. Again, doesn't matter. It's technically a delayed dead ball and the pitch can be thrown and hit, but it doesn't matter. Ump can't call two illegal pitches on the same pitch. The umpire yelled at a coach/player who was arguing a previous play/pitch. Or maybe runner on first and first baseman are beaking at each other, so ump is telling them to knock it off - I would argue if he's not calling "time" he shouldn't be yelling anything. If he did inadvertently yell for some other reason, not realizing the pitcher started the wind up, he, and/or his partner, should be calling a "no pitch", not an illegal pitch...but I don't think they "have" to...it would just be irresponsible and petty if they didn't. If he is the only umpire, and he yelled something from behind the plate, then he should know why he yelled (or ump has Tourette Syndrome) And then the other possibility is it wasn't the umpire who yelled, generating a different discussion. Regardless, I find it highly unlikely that it's number four - the umpire isn't yelling at his wife in the stands (not if he knows what's good for him). If he's yelling, it's probably play-related and probably renders the stopped windup moot. In the end - what happened? Who yelled what? Who ruled what?
  10. beerguy55


    Entirely depends on league, tournament, rule set to whether the team can continue with only 8 players, or forfeit. However, in a setting where a team may finish with 8 players (or, heck, start with 8 players) I have never seen an 8-player lineup allowed - it's always a 9 player lineup with an auto out in the empty slot...in fact, we've always written Otto for the name into that spot in the lineup. In lineups where everyone bats and someone leaves the game (injury, ejection, illness, etc), I've seen both - squeeze the lineup, and Otto Out. It can get even funkier in games that have a rover - whether you are required to play ten, or ALLOWED to play ten.
  11. I have coached many softball tournaments from 12U to 18U, under at least five different rule sets - and most of them in quad or tri-diamond areas where this happens frequently....I've seen games that had one or two foul balls per inning enter the field (and likewise, foul balls from our game entering the other diamonds). I've also been in a couple of league settings where the facilities were tri/quads. First, in all scenarios I've experienced, where the facility is conducive to this event happening, either the tournament or the league has very clear and specific rules governing the situation. If the invading foul ball is seen/noticed before the pitch is thrown the umpires call time and kill the play - usually before the pitch, but if the pitch is in progress, anything that happens is nullified. If the play is in progress, in every scenario I have ever seen this happen it has always been "play on". The only scenario I could think of really changing this is if the foul ball injured one of the players...or if the foul ball hit the live ball in play (especially if you ended up not knowing which ball was which) - but I've never seen either of those so I don't know how they would be handled. In your scenario, I've always seen it handled as "play on".
  12. beerguy55

    Scorecard ruling?

    No, it's a single. He was not entitled to second base, so he could not have reached it safely - ie. if while both the runner and the batter/runner were standing on the base they were both tagged the batter/runner would be out. In more simplistic terms...at the end of the play, when the next batter is at the plate and ready to take a pitch, if the previous batter is on first base he can't have anything more than a single. The scoring rule says if the batter "stops" at second base it's a double...he didn't stop there, he stopped at first - he went as far as second, but he stopped (ie. ended the play) at first. It sucks, but there's not other way to score it - doesn't matter the level - base running errors can impact the batter's stats. I once had to turn a rock solid line drive base hit into the gap into a fielder's choice because the runner on first (and this was U18 club ball) had a brain fart and ended up being forced out at second.
  13. beerguy55

     How many runs count, AFTER battered declared out?

    Not in my experience. I know that's the fear (and, frankly, I had at one time assumed it would be the case), but, my anecdotal input is the fears are unfounded. I've coached in tournaments in five states and five provinces, hundreds of games as a coach, and a couple hundred more as a TD or scorekeeper...I can probably count the protests I've seen on one hand...certainly on both. And not a single one of those tournaments had a protest fee. Frankly, the biggest problem I've had with tournaments is the inconsistent or incorrect application of tie breaker rules (or badly written rules) for the round robin, and that has nothing to do with the umpires. In one scenario in a league with a $50 protest fee I opted not to protest, not because of the fee or fear of losing (I would definitely have won the protest)...it just wasn't worth my time or effort...not only to do the protest meeting some other night that week (or next), but then to replay/continue the game. That's an easy problem to solve. "We're done here coach - one more word and the next move is I eject you, and then you can go find the TD while we finish the game"...or, grant the 'protest' and then let the TD/UIC deal with it - "OK, coach, this is your freebie...if you protest a judgment call again you forfeit"...put it into the tournament by-laws if you have to. You saw 3 protests in a 48 game tournament...wow...I once went three years without seeing one.
  14. beerguy55

    Interesting Play

    Extend it to this. Your player who has stepped of the base to brush himself off, towards first, then decides to run to third - perhaps because the defense is sleeping, or perhaps because the defense throws the ball away trying to get him out. Would you not require R1 to touch second before proceeding to third? If so, I think you have to apply the "force reinstatement" in your original scenario, to be consistent.
  15. beerguy55

    Pine tar

    There were actually two incidents in 1975. One also involving the Yankees, where Munson was called out for having too much pine tar, but no protest was made. Then, later that year, John Mayberry hit a home run with a tarred bat, the umpires refused to penalize him, the Angels protested and the same Les McPhail affirmed the umpire's decision. https://web.archive.org/web/20130203005623/http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/printarticle/the-pine-tar-games/ On September 7...in Anaheim, Royals designated hitter John Mayberry swatted two home runs using a slathered bat...The umpire crew refused to penalize Mayberry for his tarry bat, so the Angels took that step that Bill Virdon never did, protesting the game to AL president Lee MacPhail.MacPhail's first move was to examine, not Mayberry's bat, but the rule in question. The Playing Rules Committee had added the rule in 1955, with the purpose of preventing bat contact from discoloring baseballs. As MacPhail recalled in 2003, "The clubs were losing a lot of balls because the pine tar was getting on them, and they'd have to be thrown out in batting practice and everything else."It was in this spirit that MacPhail denied California's protest. He dismissed the technical matter of how many inches of pine tar the bat had, calling instead on the original intent of the rule that didn't touch on competitive balance. For a protest to stand, the act in question must have adversely affected the protestor's chance of winning. MacPhail found no such adverse effect in a baseball being potentially discolored as it left the ballpark. Mayberry's home runs, and Kansas City's win, stood.With that, the focus on the pine tar rule drifted away. The Rules Committee amended rule 1.10(b) the next year to specifically mention pine tar and to state that bats breaking this rule were to be removed from the game. That was virtually all the attention anybody paid the rule for years. MacPhail's decision held as the final word—a word he would end up having to repeat.