beerguy55

Show the source please. I'd like to see the full text. I do believe that in FED they even have a provision to make an exception for the defense intentionally sending the ball out of play while the batter/runner has missed first and passed second, which would otherwise prevent the runner from correcting the mistake. That is, if the ball went out of play unintentionally while the runner was at/beyond the next base, they would not be able to correct the mistake. Otherwise, if the runner can correct the mistake, AND go back to second, that's....icky.

out. 5.09 (c)(2) APPROVED RULING: (A) No runner may return to touch a missed base after a following runner has scored. (B) When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left after he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base This would be true even on a home run trot...if he missed first and passed second before deciding to do something about it, he would not be able to correct the mistake.

And in ruling that, the rule makers create a conflict, IMO. On a bases loaded BB with two outs...if R2 rounds third base and is tagged out before R3 reaches home, the run still counts, because R3 is considered to have obtained the next base, pending only a legal touch. IMO, TOT awards "should" compound, to align with the spirit of the above ruling, and to align with the spirit of the award itself. If a baserunner on a walk is immediately considered to have reached the next base, a subsequent TOT award should start from there. TOP awards would still be concurrent, and not stack; they are effectively two awards of the same base - eg. pitched ball four goes out of play. *the above represents only the editorial opinions of beerguy55 and do not represent the thoughts of anyone else whatsoever.

This one is about perspective. If the umpire sees a batter who is not looking at the pitcher he should be not allowing the pitch, and everything follows properly at that point. However, if the umpire does not observe this, but instead observes a batter who is ready and allows the pitch, then he is going to see this as a swing.

The problem with this is there are many cases - especially at younger levels - where the batter swings with the intent to NOT hit the pitch (eg. on a steal play to hopefully distract the catcher). That is indeed a swing, even though there was no "attempt to hit the pitch".

The batter becomes a runner when he hits a "fair" ball. While in the air the ball is neither fair nor foul. In this scenario the ball is not fair until the fielder touches it. The runner is not forced until that point. So there's about a microsecond where the runner is forced before the batter/runner is retired.

Not implied at all, in fact, the opposite - by definition, on a check(ed) swing the batter did NOT go. Was just making sure you're only volunteering if you saw a swing (ie. he did not check his swing). In case some newer umpires think this is a great idea, get overzealous and volunteer a no/safe signal before the plate umpire has had a chance to indicate the batter did swing.

Only if he went, right?

Coaching tip - coach your players to run in these scenarios. Yes there is an (asinine) argument that this will convince the ump you did swing. So what? Nothing bad can come from this. 1. If the ball got far enough away for R3 to score it got far enough away for B/R to reach first, and the run counts. 2. If this somehow convinces the ump you swung, you get a free base, and the run counts. 3. If the ump was going to call the swing anyway, you get a free base, and the run counts. 4. If the ump calls no-swing you get another crack, and the run counts. You notice a theme there? Coach your team properly and this kind of situation/argument doesn't happen. Yes, more advanced umpires will proactively ensure this swing/no-swing is announced, but that's out of your control.

Sorry - I wasn't clear....my point was, the rulebook (OBR and FED) clearly says that a caught ball is live whether it is fair or it is foul. (or more accurately, that only an uncaught foul is dead). That "should" be all the evidence you need. Umpires signal foul on caught foul balls. However, even if he's "wrong", the ball is caught, and the ball is live. The call of "foul" is moot. It's necessary to declare because a ball is foul before it's caught...but the catch renders it moot, except for scorekeeping purposes. To extend on that, would anything change, by rule or interpretation, in the question's scenario if the caught ball actually was in foul territory, and the umpired yelled "foul"? To me both scenarios are the same, and the answer should be the same, whether the ball was foul or not. The location of the ball is a red herring. THAT might be where we need interpretation. IMO, I think the context of the question matters to HOW the umpire declared the ball foul, and to what extent that was articulated and communicated. Basically, did the umpire yelling "foul" give the baserunner the indication that the ball was not caught, or dead, and influence his slow return to second base. That might need some guidance/clarification to how to administer that situation. But I don't think that's the spirit or purpose of the question. And we might need interpretation if the umpire called "foul" as the result of a perceived "no catch"...and then reversed himself on the catch....and again, how that was communicated. This is the biggest cluster F*#K as we would have an incorrectly declared non catch, leading to an incorrectly declared foul ball, followed by a reversal of either/both of those calls. And it still doesn't really matter if the ball actually was fair or foul. Again, I don't think that's the purpose of the question.

Does it matter? Or more importantly, do you need an interpretation? By rule a caught ball is live whether it is fair or foul. A ball caught in foul territory is still foul, it's just not dead. For the purposes of the question, when he "declared" was that verbally, or with a point? I could interpret the question both ways. And does it matter? Making it foul doesn't make it dead. Having said that, how would it play out if he was overly vocal and also put his hands up and made every indication the ball was not only foul, but dead? The more interesting scenario for me is he called it "foul" because he determined the ball wasn't caught (with or without a vocal "no catch")....and then overruled himself/changed his mind and declared it caught. That foul call would have to stand, wouldn't it?

What you describe isn't MC. And if you have any doubt in that regard you shouldn't be calling MC. If you believe F2 made some move to catch the ball, that made the collision with the runner unavoidable/inevitable, it's not MC. If the runner screwed up his slide, it's not MC. If the runner tripped and crashed into F2, it's not MC. Yes, you need to make a judgment call...but just because the collision looked ugly and even if the result of the collision was horrific, that does not, on its face, make it MC. You need intent to injure, or you need a blatant disregard for safety. ie. either the player tried to hurt the other player, or didn't care one way or the other if he did. In short, was the collision avoidable or not. You cannot determine that a collision was accidental and also rule it MC. Those two positions are diametrically opposed. Yes, on occasion you'll see intent where the collision was truly an accident and get the call "wrong"....you make the best judgment you can. But if you see an accident, and still rule it MC, that would be truly wrong. OBS and INT can be accidental. MC cannot. Likewise in football/hockey things like tripping and holding and interference can be accidental...unsportsmanlike conduct cannot.

Um...what?? No, you cannot "accidentally" maliciously contact someone, any more than you can accidentally maim/kill someone when drunk driving, or blowing throw a red light at 80 mph. You may not have had malice aforethought, but you had disregard and/or gross negligence and/or depravity...all of which rise to the level of intent, and dismiss any notion of an "accident". You accidentally leave the kitchen lights on when you go to bed...you don't accidentally barrel through a catcher you had every opportunity to avoid....and by extension, you don't "accidentally" break his leg or give him a concussion. Likewise, if you recklessly swing your bat in anger, or throw your helmet in frustration, there is no "accidentally" breaking someone's nose. I can declare my expertise too - the majority of my job is about cultural behavior change in a multi-billion dollar company. And I've been pretty successful at it. Strategically balancing the notion of having people come to me, willingly, to admit mistakes they have made, so that we may act in a timely manner to stop a small problem from turning into a large disaster...with how to handle people who keep making the same mistakes over and over again, which is thankfully rare. I'm definitely a carrot over stick guy. But at some point you got to drop the carrot and turn on the ceiling mounted machine gun turrets. Yes, I agree, there is a point where there is no real deterrent in play. People act as they act in a fit of passion/emotion (or any human condition where you're not thinking clearly) and aren't necessarily always thinking at that moment. But you need enough of a penalty where at least the subset of the population that does think before they act doesn't come to the conclusion of "what the Hell, the penalty is only xxx". The penalty in the NHL for fighting is a five minute rest with a bottle of water, away from other sweaty players, for example. At some point the question of deterrent turns into one of recidivism. And at some point, incident 2, 3, 5, or 10 has to result in running out of chances.* But yes, people still commit murder, even in death penalty states and nations. I will say, though, that the death penalty certainly deters the guy you convicted**. Ted Bundy hasn't killed anybody since he was executed. * fully aware that "3 strike legislation" has significant ramifications - sure, it gets a third time felon off the street. But a guy who's had two felonies doesn't really have any incentive to go down quietly if caught at his third...at that point B&E, or multiple homicides result in the same penalty - I would not expect a high school baseball player to take this extreme approach **in a Utopian world where nobody is falsely arrested/convicted

Why would it go in the rulebook? It's a mechanic/instruction for the umpire, not a rule, per se. The rulebook defines the ability to take the result of the play. The manual tells the umpires how to administer it, no? You make a rule on what the umpire MUST do then you're opening a protest can of worms. Does the NFHS football rulebook say that a team may decline any penalty...or does it say that the referee must ask/notify the coach on each penalty. The latter would be in a ref's manual wouldn't it? I know the NFL rulebook only talks about the ability to decline a penalty...I don't think it tells the ref how to go about finding out the coach's wishes, and doesn't instruct the ref on what to do (except for auto-declines on concurrent fouls)

Agreed - theoretically the umpire would have no foreknowledge about what strike a particular player is on. He can call the play on its own merit. I think an escalation framework for repeat offenders is necessary. I do however think the first strike still needs to be more than just that game's ejection - I've always believed that for any level, for any ejection...even if it's just one more game. It eliminates any notion of not caring about getting tossed in a game that is over, almost over, or the score has already determined its eventual outcome. Edited for typo

Whether or not you call MC on a particular play should have no bearing on a legal free for all. Whether you called MC or not has no bearing on the injury that occurred on the play in question. You might have a problem if this was the third incident in the same game with the same player, and he wasn't ejected for one of the earlier infractions. I'd speculate the ongoing POE approach here is to ensure they meet/surpass any legal/regulatory minimum standard, and can't be accused of fostering a culture that allows MC, and to show they're doing all they can to eliminate avoidable collisions. "Your Honor, our rules are there in black and white, AND we make it a Point of Emphasis at the beginning of every season - there is no reasonable coach or player who plays under these rules that would not have a clear understanding of the rule and its penalties." Where there could be ongoing issues if there's no real formal mechanism to escalate penalties to repeat offenders, or if someone claims that the base penalties are weak enough to simply look like nothing more than a platitude, and allow/encourage players to determine that the penalty is outweighed by any perceived benefits - rendering the rule mostly superficial. I would argue that expulsion from the game is often not enough of a deterrent (what if it was the last play of the game?). How about an automatic three game suspension for any MC call? How about an automatic two game suspension for ANY ejection? You might see some behavior change. Remember that you don't need "intent"..."disregard" or negligence rise to the level of equating to intent. You don't need to determine the runner tried to injure the fielder...only that he didn't give a SH*# if he did or not. At best, your job is to determine if the runner tried to avoid the collision (including bracing themselves for something unavoidable), which should be easier than trying to read their mind.

That depends on the nature of the play. If R2 is obstructed while a play is being made on him, then it's an immediate dead ball. If R2 is obstructed away from the play, then the ball remains live and any other runner can be put out on the play. To your second question...OBS only protects the runner who was obstructed.

Agreed. A glove can be judged to be distracting regardless of its coloring and design. A white glove must be removed, even if the umpire judges it is not distracting.

Well, the glove pictured above has the American Flag on it...so that alone would make it illegal I guess. Any ball glove with the MLB logo on it would be illegal.

Christ - these associations are expecting amateur coaches to know what many of their own umps don't. This is only appropriate for pro and perhaps NCAA levels where the coaches are actually paid...nothing below that.

Not your job to decide baseball strategy. Just be careful how far you determine what is "obvious". In slightly different plays where there is a decision to keep a run and accept an out to some it's "obvious" to take the run and accept the out. Don't assume the coach will take the run and accept the out...some will, some won't. Most of the time it's "wrong" to trade the run for the out.

"I wonder if it will be friends with me?" said the sperm whale.

The answer is 12, sir

I agree completely. The summer league team I mention above, the Okotoks Dawgs has a rabid following...I go to a couple of games every summer because it's basically the only ball I get around here...I'll go to Toronto or Seattle once in a while, but certainly not once or twice a year. Having said that, in the 90s the Calgary Cannons were the Mariners farm team. I'd make it to at least a few games every summer, and they too had their rabid following. I saw some young stars, including Bret Boone and some guy named Alex Rodriguez. But they didn't make me a Mariners fan in any way (Expos to this day - they'll never disappoint me again). Hell, I even saw them play AGAINST Eddie Murray when he was with the Albuquerque Dukes in 97. If anyone turned me into a Mariners...admirer...it was the combo of Griffey and Randy Johnson, the former Expo. Went to a Mariners game for a pitching duel between Cole Hamels and Felix Hernandez...it was 7-5 after the third.

I think it's two different discussions...and not even sure if either are applicable. Is MiLB an avenue for MLB to expand its brand? Is an MiLB team an avenue for its affiliated MLB to expand ITS brand? I'm not sure either are true, any more than I think the enormous popularity of high school football in Texas and Pennsylvania has anything to do with the NFL. You either like baseball or not, and what quality of baseball are you going to want to see in your area. Up here we have a couple of summer leagues that are designed for NCAA students to be able to play ball while out of school. And those teams have their following in those towns. (or cities) It's not high quality pro ball...but it's also a helluva lot better than HS or LL. So, MiLB was contracted to save money...and maybe even to reduce some watering down of the product...but it also means several hundred players need to find other options to play non-MLB ball (or get the hint and retire). Does this open the door for a competing non-affiliated league?? Is baseball simply something people want to see anywhere they can - and provided it's of some reasonable quality, they'll take any kind of baseball they can if they don't have access to MLB? I think so.