Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

beerguy55

Established Member
  • Content Count

    1,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by beerguy55

  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.
  16. beerguy55

    Stoping motion with no runners on.

    I don't disagree (though I'm sure the gamblers and bookies would have some input into whether or not they want dead heats)....but.... As the camera and timing technology get better those dead heats will disappear too. I've said it before - as far as I know the Olympics have ties to sometimes two, and usually three decimal places...in ALL race events - from the 50 meter swim sprint to the 50 km cross country ski. If they can live with ties, baseball can live with ties. And I truly hope they never go to four, five and six decimal places. Do we really want to get to a point where instant replay zooms in to 6000x, with 64k supreme-extreme-high definition to determine if the ball beat the runner? At that point you're arguing at the molecular level, and then I'd argue that at the molecular level objects never actually touch - so a ball is never caught, a tag is never made, and a runner never touches any base - and we'd have to cancel baseball altogether. I myself prefer the language in FED and softball, which, to paraphrase, say the runner is out if tagged while not in contact with the base. I think it is more simple, and is more in line with the historical spirit of the game. That is, if you're touching the (proper) base, you're safe. And, in a tie, you're touching the base. Ergo, tie goes to the runner. I know umps want outs. The fans want runs. As @Jimurray alludes, you can't say "it was a tie" because you just create a sh!tstorm - but I have no problem with an umpire in his head ruling it a tie and then simply saying "he was there". In reality, I don't really care if the ump is right or wrong at that point - if the call is truly that close the coach shouldn't be arguing, at all. If a coach utters the word tie he should be bitch slapped. As a coach, I wasn't saying a word to an umpire if the runner was out/safe by less than half a step (and more often than not it was a full step before I was asking him to talk to his partner) - it didn't mean I was right, but I better be certain, in my mind, it was an "obvious" miss - and no coach should be arguing "it was obviously a tie"....and this is where I segue into MLB replay rules - it should be "obvious" before challenging - meaning no phone calls, no TV's in the dugout - you have ten seconds to challenge - your player should be adamant the call was wrong (and he better be right)...and if the umps/head office can't see any reason to overturn the call in 15 seconds, the call stands. Because, back to my original point, I dread the day where advanced technology allows for replay reviews to the microscopic level.
  17. beerguy55

    answer

    But he was forced to retreat.
  18. beerguy55

    Obs, interference or no call

    Don't get me wrong - this is one of the biggest coachable moments - catcher's SHOULD be taught to do exactly that. And, in that spirit, to Childress' comment, I think an umpire is more than capable to judge if a catcher should have been able to make such a move, and make a clean throw that is catchable, even if the B/R was outside the line. I simply present the anecdotal evidence of my experience that the only way to get an RLI call appears to require throwing the ball into B/R's back (provided he is, of course, outside the running lane) - in spite of any instructions and direction umpires like Childress have made over the years. The practice is very different. If the throw gets past B/R, even if F3 missed due to an obvious screen while B/R was outside the line, in my experience RLI isn't called. Whereas, even where the catcher makes an obvious step to ensure B/R is in his way, firing the ball into B/R's back gets the RLI call. To your first question - I could take it or leave it. IMO, the spirit of the rule was meant to address the area from near the plate, and that would be my preference. The letter of the rule certainly doesn't say that, and I can understand the literal position. What I find is the current interpretation is neither in nor out - it's trying to find a weird middle ground which in the end equates to crossing your fingers behind your back. For me, pick one - require a throw, but allow RLI to be called even on a throw from F6. Or, my preference, RLI only occurs on (potential) throws from near the plate, but a throw isn't required. Pick one of the two. IMO both are better than then current interpretation. 1. RLI from plate area, no throw needed - umpire to judge if catcher simply needed to step aside and make a clean throw 2. RLI from anywhere, throw needed - ball that sails far to F3's left, the running lane protects the runner in interfering with any attempt by F3 to get to the ball - runner outside of lane in jeopardy if he does interfere with said attempt 3. Current interpretation - see Grand Old Duke of York Respectfully. And Merry Christmas to you and yours.
  19. beerguy55

    Obs, interference or no call

    I agree with the spirit applied in these to statements...the problem is in practice, in my experience, most umpires ignore, dismiss or don't consider the element of the runner screening F3. If the ball gets by the B/R, RLI isn't called. Even if the only conceivable reason F3 missed is he was screened. IMO it's a far bigger problem compared to, for example, the set of umpires who want contact to call INT/OBS. I have NEVER seen RLI called where the throw didn't hit the B/R. The interpretation of the rule, and how it is applied and judged, effectively encourages and rewards catchers to fire the ball into B/R's back. And now the umpires are forced to judge that intent (and I don't ever recall an umpire determining it was done on purpose). Personally, since umpires have already shown they are capable to judge interference (or not) on a non-throw in the case of batter's interference, I'm pretty sure they'd be just as capable to judge RLI (or not) on a non-throw from F1/F2 from the plate area I would see nothing wrong with an official interpretation (if it were to arise) determining that impeding/preventing a throw, by extension, impedes/prevents a catch.
  20. beerguy55

    In field fly

    I was responding to Lou B's question - evident by the fact that I quoted his post in my response. But keep 'em coming.
  21. beerguy55

    In field fly

    Yes - we know that. This is why I asked if the ump called him out anyway. That would imply I'm well aware the ump called it foul. We don't know what the umpire did after calling foul ball, nor do we know what the coach did/said. So, we don't know, for sure, why the question is being asked (except that the OP doesn't know for sure - and belittling him for not understanding that is unnecessary). I can see a scenario where the umpire somehow got this wrong, and the poster is asking because now they're not so sure of what they always believed to be true (ie. the poster may have always figured this was just a plain old foul ball, but the umpire called something else) The other possibility is it's just a hypothetical, and not actually experienced by the OP - he just doesn't know the answer - and, again, belittling him for not understanding that is unnecessary. You may guess to the reason for the post, and you may be right, but it's still speculation. As I stated above, I've seen it all when it comes to IFF's, from coaches and umpires alike - so I'm leaving all possibilities on the table.
  22. beerguy55

    In field fly

    Well, we don't have the context, do we? That is, what happened on the field to spark the question? Ump call batter out anyway? Or dead ball, no strike added? Or did coach argue one of those positions? (more likely) IFF tends to confuse people and shut their brains off in the moment - especially if they don't see it a lot. I've seen all these things argued by coaches, players and umps alike: IFF is a dead ball Runner must tag up until the ball LANDS IFF is in effect with only R1 IFF is in effect with two outs IFF is in effect with R2/R3 (no R1) And I've seen complete and total confusion around runners advancing on a foul ball, and the whole laws of foul balls changing when IFF is called - (ie. because IFF was called it's not REALLY a foul ball) So, yeah, it should be easy to understand, but I've seen many umps, coaches and players completely forget, in the moment, that once you throw the IFF out of the window, it's still just a plain old foul ball - everyone's focused on whether or not it's an IFF. I'll throw out a twist on this - if this is slow pitch with two strikes the batter is out regardless. And, again, I can see confusion in everyone just remembering it's not an IFF so the batter is fine, and forgetting that it's still a foul ball.
  23. beerguy55

    In field fly

    Invariably the batter hits the next pitch out of the park. Catcher is benched for the rest of the week.
  24. beerguy55

    2019 Changes

    This is, for me, odd. As I read this - If the pitch is in the batter's box then the batter has no obligation to attempt to avoid getting hit. Though this will certainly make an umpire's job easier (did he "let" it hit him, or did he just freeze), I'm not sure I like it. Yeah, put the onus on the pitcher to get the ball closer to the plate - but to me this is analogous to seeing a car stalled in an intersection but proceeding to t-bone him because you had the green light, and then giving the other guy a ticket for running a red light. But, I can live with it - the ump's job is hard enough to have to judge that nonsense. But, what's odd for me is the statement that the batter has an obligation to try to avoid a pitch that's out of the box...well, what the Hell is the batter doing out of the box when the pitch is coming. If he is out of the box, and gets hit, then he almost certainly had to have moved into the pitch...and then it's simply a matter of judging if he did it on purpose or not. This rule would only seem to practically apply to a batter whose elbows are out of the box, but in that six inch gap not over the plate. And frankly, that could easily just be called a strike - even without this rule change. (ie. if the ball is in that six inch gap there's a ~50/50 chance a part of the ball is over the plate)
  25. beerguy55

    Bunt to Chop Swing

    Isn't that true of every rule and law?
×