beerguy55

My daughter is a university TA for an Ethics course...she had one paper she was grading that was detected as plagiarized...in an Ethics class. And now she's dealing with AI. Fun stuff.

Hockey (NHL - not sure how NCAA plays out) cut down on the fighting mostly organically, not through very much the league did through rule changes (instigator penalties, and "first player off the bench" rules aside). They drastically cut down on bench clearing brawls through rules...mano a mano fights dropped on their own, through sound strategic decision-making about lineups. Simply put, for the most part NHL GM's and coaches realized that having a "goon" on their roster creates a hole in their lineup...meaning 5% of their roster is taken by a player who could fight, but could not score, skate, pass or defend against NHL caliber players. Some 30 years ago, the talent pool was thin enough where you could afford to have a plug like this in your lineup, because there weren't great alternative options anyway...today, there are 500-1000 skilled players outside the NHL, just as talented as the bottom 150-200 that are on NHL rosters, and they're not boxing their way to a lineup (much like those MLB players who come from the Dominican Republic or Cuba say "you don't walk your way off the island") And, for the top end skilled players who can/will fight, coaches would rather they not risk breaking their hand on someone's helmet/face. Even with all that, fighting is still a (reduced) part of the game - either due to simple aggressive frustration, or to right a wrong the referees did not address - but still about 1 in 12 concussions for NHL players are caused by fighting. No matter what lawyer/president Gary Bettman says, the NHL has not done "everything it can" to eliminate concussions...because that would mean doing everything it can to eliminate fighting...which some of the Neanderthals still want.

Typically 7 in my experience, but you'll see 9 here and there.

Exactly... First - R2 isn't "stealing"...forced runners are going on the pitch with full count two outs. Second - the above is one of the first things kids learn at a young age...it's easy to remember, and it gives them a reason to run...they love it, look forward to it, and don't forget it. And if they aren't coached to do it...every time you have forced runners, two out and full count in an MLB game, the broadcast announcers are always saying "the runners will be going on the pitch"... Third - if the coach is teaching his kids to run in this situation, then he KNOWS that R2 can't be out at third (oversliding base aside)...said coach would not ask for a second opinion, he would be saying "the batter walked, he can't be out" - it's a discussion about rules, not judgment. Fourth - because these kids know the basic rule to run in this scenario, it's highly unlikely the catcher makes an attempt to throw R2 out (of all the unlikely things in the OP, this is really the most plausible of the bunch) Fifth - BU, who also doesn't seem to know that forced runners are always going in this situation, doesn't watch for check swing (or to see if the ball is hit), and calls a phantom out, and nobody bothers to ask why There are really only two possibilities here. 1. This is 8 year old rec ball where the players, coaches and umpires (likely parent volunteers) don't understand the game 2. This is a hypothetical created by someone who doesn't understand the game I'd bet a lot of money on 2.

Without getting into too much detail or sounding condescending about the literal impossibility of every action described in this play, I'll say that unless R2 over slides third base and is tagged out after doing so, the final outcome of this play is bases loaded and still two out. With BU saying there was no tag the only logical follow-up question, if only for morbid curiosity, is "then why did you call him out". You need to ask that because there is one scenario where the runner cannot be out by rule, and another where he can be by judgment (and then it's solely his decision to whether or not he changes his mind)...and you must understand what the BU saw to make that determination. Though if he's clear there was never any tag that might be moot anyway. If you don't see a strike it's a ball (F2's learn not to get into the plate ump's way)...if you don't see a swing there wasn't one (again, F2's learn to let the ump see what they need to see).

I frankly think this is the easiest part of the game, and it blows my mind how many amateur umpires...even after decades...still mess this up. Where I think people like the folks here are saints is the game management part...and that's the part I simply know I would fail at, so I've never done more than volunteering to ump once in a while.

Since R1 never actually reached home plate, the defensive appeal really should be the last thing that occurs, and shouldn't get to that point. Like you say in the OP, he didn't "miss" home plate...he never got to it. As I see the OP...R1 doesn't really "abandon"...yet. BR passes R1 while R1 is high fiving people...BR is out for passing...then R1 goes to the dugout without ever getting near home - now he has abandoned. Both are out...and that would be a dick move at this level. Since it's a dead ball wait until everyone is done running bases then make a decision. I think if you want to be clean about it, just call R1 out for abandonment (and rule that, in your judgment, abandonment happened before B/R passed R1). The other option is pick the most appropriate player to call out based on how R1 delayed his jog to home. If R1 never touches home, call him out for abandonment...if R1 was still on his way to, and eventually touches home, you might call BR for passing. I still go for calling R1 out...do what you can to not punish BR for R1's error. You may have to explain to the coach why it's abandonment and not a missed base appeal. He can also be informed that the choice is to turn a grand slam into a 3-run shot...or turn it into a 3 RBI triple (maybe even 2 RBI).

There's a point you can't keep ignoring it. Don't know if it's 15, 30, 90 seconds, but it's somewhere. "Coach, deal with it or I will"...the thing is, if this is men's slow pitch, that guy might actually be the coach.

Unsportsmanlike conduct is always a judgment call - HTBT. As far as delay of game...not sure the rule exists in a game that doesn't have a clock. Revert to your judgment of unsportsmanlike conduct. You could also probably call it a defensive conference.

Did he "kick" it...or was 6.01(a) clarified/updated in response to this play?

Contextual to the OP, which pertains to an IFF. 5.09 (b) (7) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has gone through, or by, an infielder and no other infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. The ball Rule 5.09(b)(7) to 5.09(b)(9) 47 is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance, except runners forced to advance. EXCEPTION: If a runner is touching his base when touched by an Infield Fly, he is not out, although the batter is out;

You are telling the runners no such thing...you are telling the runners that the batter is out (if fair) and they will not be forced to advance. THAT is the sole purpose of the rule, and that is all you are telling anyone. The runners still have obligations to avoid interfering with the fielder playing the batted ball. They are safe if the batted ball hits them in fair territory, while on the base...only during an IFF. And yes, if the ball was fair the batter is out on the IFF, and the runner is out for INT (there is still INT because there are still three other runners on base - the batter being out is irrelevant to the fielder's "right" to play the batted ball) Sometimes SH*# happens.

I will say this again, this is so much more complicated than it needs to be - we have turned a time saver suggestion (that does not save time) into a way for coaches to convince people that they're getting more players into the lineup...and to strategically create a special teams, by putting jackrabbits who can't hit on the bench, solely to run for F1/F2. First - drop the pitcher courtesy runner nonsense, they don't have pads to put on - this is not a time saver move. If they're on the bases for the third out, have someone on the bench bring them their glove/hat and collect their helmet/stuff. (bench players should be doing this for all baserunners when an inning ends anyway) Second - with two outs only, the batter furthest down the lineup from the current batter, who is not on base, takes F2's spot on the bases. This ensures the courtesy runner is never on base for his next at bat. That could be: - someone who batted after F2 reached base to make the second out - someone who made the second out before F2 reached base - another runner who made the second out while F2 was on base - someone who has scored, including the guy who scored on F2's hit with two outs - and once in a blue moon, someone who made the first out And it cannot be someone not in the current batting lineup. It cannot be the guy who is Defense Only. These prevent the coach from dedicating a speedy player for courtesy runner duty...fate, to some degree, determines who the courtesy runner is in any given inning...and they don't get to swap out the slow F2 with less than two out. The coach can opt to forego said runner. This takes five seconds to make the swap, and it's up to the defense to determine (and appeal) if the offense is putting the incorrect runner on base (or if they care). And it just works...at the most informal of rec leagues and exhibition games, to the National Gold Medal final game. Ump doesn't worry about a damned thing (except to grant time to allow the swap) unless the defense says something...and most umps will go hundreds of games without seeing that happen.

Game over or not, there's a blatant disregard for safety when he throws the helmet like that. Not really concerned about the sportsmanlike element.

In most (all) codes of softball the batter/runner is prohibited from retreating towards home to avoid being tagged out. It is treated like INT - immediately dead ball, batter/runner out, runners return TOP.* In baseball the runner is allowed to retreat as far as the plate. * if were to speculate, softball is different likely because of the 60 foot base paths and the higher occurrence of sac bunts to advance runners. Of course, it's always possible that a rule maker simply decided "it was stupid" and made it illegal.

If it truly is "pitcher of record" that is the standard, I'd say no. If, for example, HT is behind 3-2 and takes the lead in the bottom of the inning and goes on to win 9-3, the pitcher of record for the win would be the one who ended the top half inning as the pitcher...not the guy who pinch ran for him. Anyway - I can't seem to find it, but I seem to recall reading that a pinch hitter may not have a courtesy runner.

I would agree...that there's zero evidence. You also don't have the full report...Ohtani's camp has claimed the money was stolen, so we need to see what flushes out. Was the money really transferred without any of Ohtani's knowledge...or was his interpreter a go between for Ohtani's gambling...or something in between. Above you note "Ohtani said"...no, Mizuhara said...part of the problem is interviewers and investigators were hearing what Ohtani "said" from Mizuhara as his translator. I SUSPECT what happened was Ohtani's camp finally got wind (maybe via ESPN confirmation efforts) what Mizuhara was actually saying, and denied it. The more cynical conclusion (and not necessarily wrong) is Ohtani's camp realized their first cut at explaining this was going to go over like a lead fart, so they changed course. Assumes facts not in evidence, and even if an accurate portrayal it's a silly question. First, maybe they don't have an interpreter...or more importantly, an interpreter Ohtani trusts? Second, otherwise you're basically saying "if you've done nothing wrong you don't need a lawyer" or "if you have nothing to hide then let the cops search your car". You know how those work out. Yes, the Dodgers and Ohtani will need to show some transparency eventually, but at this point it's an official investigation and most people won't be able to say much anyway. They don't - there's no evidence here that any baseball gambling occurred, and in fact the statements by third parties categorically say there was none. The issue is that sports betting is illegal in California. And that is the only reason there was a debt to be paid...legal sports betting organizations require the money up front...illegal bookies typically take credit.

Not relevant - does not answer the question posed.

Which is the point I'm getting at. Yes, a "force" - baseball definition - can be removed. The B/R has no such luxury...it's closing time for them too... The B/R can't stay in the batter's box and hit again. He can't stand on home plate while the next batter is up. He MUST go to first base. To rule that he must be tagged between first and home, simply because he's already touched first, is silly. Yup...sort of..B/R may not retreat towards home plate to avoid being tagged - if they do, they're out, dead ball, and runners return TOP. But even in softball B/R could simply stand a few steps from home plate and wait.

Believe me, I understand your position, but don't dismiss the idea out of hand. New information doesn't have to come only from your partners. No, I'm not saying to blindly or openly go with a crowdsourced opinion, all I'm saying is there are many ways for you to obtain new/different information, even if working solo, if you do realize that you, on those rare occasions, laid an egg. Sure, you may want to save face and not appear to be a pushover...and in doing so you can stubbornly stick with a call that everyone, including you, knows is wrong. I'm not talking about a ball that lands three inches foul...I'm talking about a ball that lands three FEET foul (and don't dismiss it...I've seen this called a fair ball...more than once)

The purpose of the rule is to prevent a team from requesting (and being granted) Time while the walked batter is still in the batter's box....they want to keep the ball live until he's taken his award. And none of this documentation uses the word "touch". The walked batter is simply required to "go to" first base. Once BR reaches or acquires first base, even if they miss it, they will have met the requirements for the purposes of an umpire granting Time.

All right, for the purposes of the English language let's say he is "required" to advance to first. Obligated...mandated...ordered...enforced...anything to avoid the "f" word and keep panties from getting into knots. I've always said that for all intents and purposes the B/R going to first is a "force", if not by baseball definition, but by practicality. Are we really suggesting that THIS is the exception? So, let's play this out...B/R reaches and touches first...and for any number of reasons retreats five or six steps to home plate. Now playing action ends...and let's say the ball stays live. We just gonna let the B/R stay there for the next pitch? AND we're going to require a tag of the runner? Are we going to grant Time? He's "required" to be at or beyond first base. Touching the base should be enough, even if he's already been there. Let's get really stupid...You now going to allow a run down between home and first? Because the defense needs to tag him...even though he's not allowed to reach home and the MUST reach first. And now, F1 gets savvy. He just catches the ball and sits on first base...and waits. You really just going to let F1 stay on first and B/R stand 45 feet away until the end of time? The BR is out. And not by abandonment. Yeah, he's not "forced" by baseball definition, be he is by English definition...treat it that way.

I'm not sure you're interpreting the responses correctly...one said you shouldn't call the runner out at all because time was improperly called...others are simply quoting the rule, without remedy/comment on how to enforce it. There's consensus that you can't call the runner out after he's standing on the base. And I think there's consensus that a hypothetical substitute runner can correct the error. I would also argue that the rules and case plays above don't require the B/R to "touch" first base, but to only go to it - which would be consistent with other elements of the rule book that only require a runner to pass/reach a base to acquire it...not to necessarily touch it. In that respect, I think time was properly called, and all systems go. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe you shouldn't call the runner out in the hypothetical of an appeal made before the runner touches the base...but I would say, call the runner out on appeal (provided they haven't touched the base yet), and let the coach protest and see how the chips land. I agree, the problem I think is how does the BU who knows B/R hasn't touched first base yet communicate to the PU who thinks he has. But again, if the rule only requires the runner to pass/reach it, there's no reason to stop the PU from granting time.

There's no real advantage, let alone an unfair one - B/R had every opportunity to touch the base both before and after Time was granted (which was requested by the offense, btw - for whatever weight one might give that). As you said, the B/R can correct his error during a dead ball, and in the OP did so, before the appeal was made. This is not preventative umpiring - this is assisting the player and it should be avoided...in principle, it's no different than telling the defense to appeal the missed base. Preventative umpiring would be overruling the PU's granting of time...and if feasible, doing it as discretely/proactively as possible without giving anything away....ideally before he actually says the word. Perhaps trying to get in a loud and assertive "no, play on" before the PU has a chance to respond?? But I think worst case is a "not yet" after PU says Time...and you might give away the reasoning to a savvy coach, depending on how insistent you have to be to either the PU, or the OC, but c'est la vie...at least you've administered the rules/situation properly.

The rules imply your players must be bi-pedal. The batter's box and catcher's box rules require having "both" feet in (otherwise they'd say "all" feet). I think an ostrich would look pretty cool back there.