Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. No, flyingron clearly understands how to force out R2 (as shown in his first post three hours prior) - he simply didn't understand that "force" has nothing to do with tagging the base. I however misread runner when he said fielder in his followup. He was confirming that if F4, for example, happened to be on the bag when he caught the ball then R1 would be out and it would negate the force on R2 - meaning R2 would now be safe on the bag, which is right.
  2. I guess what would you do if the coach then came out and said "he just said it came off his knuckles, that should be a strike"? You're supposed to use all the information that is at your disposal to make your calls. It's a piece of information you have, whether you asked for it or not. You also may have unwittingly just reinforced a belief that both teams have, that the hands are part of the bat (which is why the coach didn't argue it...and why the kid didn't think twice about saying it). It's dicey, but I think calling the strike here is correct...and if you can sell it that you made the call yourself (or with your partner) without the kid incriminating himself, even better.
  3. No. Once the batter becomes a runner R1 is "forced" to advance. Then, because of that R2 is "forced". Tagging R2, no matter where he is (before he reaches third base), is a force out, while he is in that "forced" status. Only if B/R or R1 gets put out first, or if he reaches third base, does R2 lose the forced status.
  4. You should have put up a warning - watching that made my IQ drop 40 points.
  5. And to be clear - the hands are part of the batter, NOT the bat.
  6. beerguy55


    This sounds to me more like the case of the only reason the ball passed by R1 is because F4 stopped. I'm visualizing F4 is coming at an angle, from the second base side of the runner, from behind the base path, at a diagonal towards the runner and the ball...the fielder didn't stop because the runner restarted...the fielder stopped because he, the ball and R1 were all converging...what it may have/probably looked like was R1 stopped, then F4 stopped, but that doesn't make sense in the context of the description - if the ball is clearly past R1, and F4 is behind R1, then there's no reason for F4 to stop - because if he's going after the ball he isn't going to collide with R1. F4 stopped because he was afraid going after the ball would bring him into the path of the runner. Like many here have stated, HTBT, but I also have a long memory of a long line of plays where F6/F4 hold back to play a ball, rather than charge the ball and get clocked by the runner, and instead of getting the easy INT call (and a trip to the hospital), they don't get anybody out and don't get any INT call. Unless F4 did something really ridiculous here to effectively create interference, I'd like to see more umps lean to more INT calls on plays like this....rather than encouraging fielders to put themselves into harm's way, or closer to harm's way, to get an INT call.
  7. Most coaches know they can protest and most of them rarely/never use it even when there aren't rules and processes that discourage protests. I've seen the rules with fees, waiting periods and other hurdles to discourage protests because they're afraid of frivolous protests, but in my experience those fears are unfounded - I've coached and watched hundreds of games in tournament format where there was absolutely no obstacle to filing a protest...and have run 30 team tournaments as a TD...I can count the number of protests filed in all those tournaments on one hand. I think that quantity can go up a bit, even if some of them are outright dumb.
  8. beerguy55

    Balk or no balk?

    Until MLB/OBR changed it a few years ago I had heard for 30 years that it should be changed (and I agreed), specifically the fake to third throw to first, but at the same time I always asked, and still ask, has anyone ever seen it work? In all my years through Little League, Babe Ruth League, men's leagues, not to mention however many games I may have watched on TV...I don't know if I ever saw it catch the guy off first. Seems like it's a rule more about speeding up the game rather than deceiving the runner.
  9. Yeah, but on the score sheet it's only one error. His fielding percentage doesn't change whether the error allows one base or three bases, nor whether the runner ends up scoring or not. In the advanced metrics/stats of MLB F3 would be penalized in the "defensive runs saved/allowed" and defensive WAR categories....mental errors like this one, or misreading a fly ball, or missing a cutoff man, get tracked there for the big boys.
  10. meh - maybe he's a childish prick. And, maybe he's responding to something coming from the bench. I've played with and against many many players at this level. Most of them are more boys than men...and many of them don't have the intelligence justified by university enrollment. It doesn't really change much in the pros. I find the cameras, the mic's and the broadcasters rarely pick up, or know, what's coming from the bench, before and after a pitcher (who is the center of everyone and everything's attention) starts yapping. They see the pitcher and judge his actions in a bubble - nobody ever seems to know what's coming from the other dugout, and for how long it's been happening, before everyone sees the pitcher do/say something.
  11. beerguy55

    Ball 4

    This is a case of two different awards being awarded concurrently. The award for four pitches called as balls is first base. The award for a pitch that goes out of play is one base from Time of Pitch - meaning, for the batter/runner, first base.
  12. Which is immediately followed by "however it is not a balk if..." Read the whole bolded area and you will see there is no contradiction, but corroboration.
  13. The fielder is adapting to where the ball is being thrown. The runner can always see the fielder in front of him. Unless it's literally the last step there is rarely a problem. The point is, the fielder has the entire bag at their disposal and so does the runner. And, it doesn't mean the runner is penalized if they collide...it just means the fielder is not (usually).
  14. But only if the runner is tagged. The runner was never tagged so nothing else really matters.
  15. Because while the player is still batting the offense has an opportunity to discover and correct their mistake...the instant IBB ensures your free out. If you're not worried about that risk, then it would be a strategic decision based on the quality of the batter at the plate, the batter who missed their turn, and the batter who would come to the plate after you get your free out. If the mytab hitter is really good you may just take your free out. If the IBB ensures a weak batter gets out and a strong hitter comes up, you may wait to see what the batter does. If you're not worried about the offense correcting their mistake. I'm taking the free out about 999 times out of 1000.
  16. beerguy55


    That's my point...in order to hit a pitch that has not yet entered the strike zone (or reached the plate) you must (usually) strike at a pitch that has not yet entered the strike zone/reached the plate.
  17. beerguy55

    Been awhile....

    To quote Gladiator...."But not yet"
  18. Let's be real - nobody in this video is splitting the atom any time soon. Incidents like this start with a whole lotta stupid.
  19. beerguy55


    If the ball crosses the foul line it's a pitch, and if you swing, it's a strike (there was a case a couple of years ago in NCAA where a batter made a joke swing at such a pitch and was rung up). And, by rule, no "attempt" to hit the ball is required...the batter need only "strike at the ball". Case in point - at many levels, via coach instruction, a batter swings and intentionally misses the pitch in an attempt to distract the catcher - that is always called a strike even though everyone on the field knows the batter isn't trying to hit the ball. The other scenario is check swing strikes - even though the batter is clearly attempting to NOT hit the ball, the ump may judge the batter struck at the ball. I'm not sure about a ball that never reaches the plate - since you can hit pitches that haven't yet reached the plate, there has to be a line somewhere that a swing would be deemed a strike...and maybe it is pure judgment. I see no reason why you couldn't swing at any slipped pitch, no matter how far they travel, and have it ruled a strike. Likewise, there's a line when the pitch passes the plate where you can't decide to swing and take advantage of a pitch that has gone to the backstop. I don't know if those lines are defined.
  20. He was kidding. Tongue in cheek. It's a play on football's ability to decline penalties that don't improve, or make worse, your situation. NHL coaches often joke when their team gives up a couple of short handed goals that they will decline the next penalty, as they obviously play worse with an extra man. I'm actually surprised that a coach or announcer didn't argue that it shouldn't be a balk because Jansen couldn't possibly be deceiving the runner. I suppose if it ever came to that, or it was ever decided that a team could refuse a balk, Jansen could step off the rubber and throw the ball into the stands to let the other team score an unearned run.
  21. Kenley Jansen actually tells DJ Reyburn "I'm gonna balk" - just to get Hayward over to third base where he's not a distraction and can't pick up pitch signals. https://www.mlb.com/news/kenley-jansen-executes-intentional-balk https://www.mlb.com/video/jansen-s-intentional-balks-in-9th
  22. Oh don't get me wrong...I hate it and in many ways it defeats the purpose of the safety bag.
  23. This is something you should never find interesting, and unfortunately, because some people do find it interesting is why some people - those who don't understand statistics and variance and deviation, etc - decide that the ump is, umm, not showing optimal integrity. I want to see a pattern over dozens of calls, if not hundreds...and not the obvious ones because, (unless REALLY bold) even a full-blown cheat isn't going to make it obvious. I want to see dozens of close calls that all go towards one team or one player before I even start thinking that something is up. Even in rec league games where the home team provides a parent volunteer umpire, when you would expect that some close calls would favor the home team (unconsciously, not intentionally) you don't see that type of pattern. Unless the cheater is a real idiot you should never be able to determine he's cheating in the course of one or two games.
  24. Actually, yes, in some codes it is - if the throw is coming from that side of first base. I've seen codes say any live ball in first base foul (Official Rules of Softball), and others that say only dropped third strikes in first base foul. It's another "protection" rule where if the ball ends up on the first base foul side the defense can take the orange bag to prevent the throw from intersecting with the runner. I've also played in ASA tournaments that allowed F3 to take either side and then the runner needs to take the other.
  25. beerguy55

    Base Running

    No, it's not...but the rules encourage and allow the runner to continue running the bases even if he KNOWS he's out, let alone if he doesn't know. In fact, if he were to just keep running the bases after being called out, he would probably not be called for interference on a subsequent play where, for example, a thrown ball hit him. However, if he were to start running/jogging across the infield to the dugout, after being called out, and a thrown ball hit him resulting in hindering a play, interference would be called. There is very little reason for that runner to leave the field any time before the play is over, even if he's 100% certain he's out. The rules protect him if he just keeps running the bases, they don't if he doesn't. Also, I teach my players that the ball isn't foul until an umpire says so, and they aren't out until an umpire says so. It's the baseball equivalent of "play to the whistle".
  • Create New...