Jump to content

Dumb Rule Nomination


VolUmp
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2631 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Personally, I'd rather see the "protector" WITH a helmet and NOT a glove. Face it, the "protector" is usually one on the roster who is most unlikely to get in the game, or even a non-team member. All we need is some kid out there with a glove and long foul ball hit down there that he thinks is a chance for him to make a catch. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Guidry said:

Personally, I'd rather see the "protector" WITH a helmet and NOT a glove. Face it, the "protector" is usually one on the roster who is most unlikely to get in the game, or even a non-team member. All we need is some kid out there with a glove and long foul ball hit down there that he thinks is a chance for him to make a catch. 

And how then does he protect the bullpen players?  Maybe a hockey goalie stick and blocker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

And how then does he protect the bullpen players?  Maybe a hockey goalie stick and blocker?

"Heads up!"

Unless it's a screaming line drive down the line in foul territory, where the outfielder has no play, you don't want the protector trying to catch anything anyway at risk of interfering with a live play - like a hard ground ball that is fair and then rolls into the bullpen area - his first priority should be to alert the players that are warming up so they can get out of the way of both the ball and outfielder....not trying to shag a fly ball that is going to land between the catcher and pitcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

"Heads up!"

Unless it's a screaming line drive down the line in foul territory, where the outfielder has no play, you don't want the protector trying to catch anything anyway at risk of interfering with a live play - like a hard ground ball that is fair and then rolls into the bullpen area - his first priority should be to alert the players that are warming up so they can get out of the way of both the ball and outfielder....not trying to shag a fly ball that is going to land between the catcher and pitcher.

Think small field too. If the choice is catch or let it hit someone I'll vote for catch.  Fixing it is a God rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apply interference if he does interfere. My friend in HS did that. Everyone learned that day.

 

Seeing the Heads Up! reminds me of my summer tournament time working with retired NFL player Antwaan Randle-El, when we were in college. We were sitting at a picnic table, in between the 4 fields, and he kept looking at me so intensely and yelling "heads up!" and laughing because I'd duck and cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

And how then does he protect the bullpen players?  Maybe a hockey goalie stick and blocker?

Doesn't he actually have to fact the plate to catch the ball hit his way? More often than not, they are watching the pitcher throw (if standing next to F2) or talking to the pitcher (if standing by him... in the wrong place).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

More often than not, they are watching the pitcher throw (if standing next to F2) or talking to the pitcher (if standing by him... in the wrong place).

I see this frequently. I always call time and tell his coach what he needs to be doing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Balks.  The whole point seems to be to make stealing bases easier.  Make bases 85' or whatever, problem solved.

2. Too much?  OK, how about feints to all bases except second being balks?  How about they're all balks or none of them are balks?

3. The concept of foul caught fly balls.  The logical thing is to have fair, foul, and caught as three different non-overlapping sets.

4. 4th out appeal

5. Force-out appeals.  (Again, 3 different sets non-overlapping sets: force, unforced, and appeal)

6. Dead ball IBB.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, basejester said:

Wow ... not sure I agree with much of this.  (I know ... you didn't ask or care ... )

1. Balks.  The whole point seems to be to make stealing bases easier.  Make bases 85' or whatever, problem solved.

I'd suggest eliminating several of the 27 different MLB balks, but not doing away with them.

- Dropping the ball

- Exchanging the ball from hand to glove

- Stopping motion after batter screams, "TIME!" 

2. Too much?  OK, how about feints to all bases except second being balks?  How about they're all balks or none of them are balks?

- Clearly a delay of game preventive measure at 1B.  To hold him close, F1 wouldn't risk a bad throw as often.  And this is a FED forum, so no balk for 3B feints.

3. The concept of foul caught fly balls.  The logical thing is to have fair, foul, and caught as three different non-overlapping sets.

This, I agree with.  Catching a batted ball in flight over foul or fair ground makes no difference.  It also screws with the definition of foul ball (which are always dead).

4. 4th out appeal

What's the problem with this?  It can only come into play to prevent a run from scoring ... which seems very legit to me.

5. Force-out appeals.  (Again, 3 different sets non-overlapping sets: force, unforced, and appeal)

Not sure I follow you here.  I feel like appealing a force is handled fairly as is.

6. Dead ball IBB.

This is only in FED I believe, and since it's by announcement, it makes sense to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Balks.  The whole point seems to be to make stealing bases easier.  Make bases 85' or whatever, problem solved.

I'd suggest eliminating several of the 27 different MLB balks, but not doing away with them.

- Dropping the ball

- Exchanging the ball from hand to glove

- Stopping motion after batter screams, "TIME!" 
I don't think this is a balk under any code.  Certainly not under OBR.
 

5. Force-out appeals.  (Again, 3 different sets non-overlapping sets: force, unforced, and appeal)

Not sure I follow you here.  I feel like appealing a force is handled fairly as is.
 

Here's where it matters.

R1, R3.
1 out.

Ground ball to F4.
R1 misses second base. 
BR is put out F4-F3.
R3 steps on home.
F3 throws to F6 beating R1 diving back to 2B.

Run scores or not?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, basejester said:

I'd suggest eliminating several of the 27 different MLB balks, but not doing away with them.

- Dropping the ball

- Exchanging the ball from hand to glove

- Stopping motion after batter screams, "TIME!" 
I don't think this is a balk under any code.  Certainly not under OBR.
 

5. Force-out appeals.  (Again, 3 different sets non-overlapping sets: force, unforced, and appeal)

Not sure I follow you here.  I feel like appealing a force is handled fairly as is.
 

Here's where it matters.

R1, R3.
1 out.

Ground ball to F4.
R1 misses second base. 
BR is put out F4-F3.
R3 steps on home.
F3 throws to F6 beating R1 diving back to 2B.

Run scores or not?

 

 

 

Yes run scores... he corrected his running mistake when he returned 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, basejester said:

I'd suggest eliminating several of the 27 different MLB balks, but not doing away with them.

- Dropping the ball

- Exchanging the ball from hand to glove

- Stopping motion after batter screams, "TIME!" 
I don't think this is a balk under any code.  Certainly not under OBR.
 

5. Force-out appeals.  (Again, 3 different sets non-overlapping sets: force, unforced, and appeal)

Not sure I follow you here.  I feel like appealing a force is handled fairly as is.
 

Here's where it matters.

R1, R3.
1 out.

Ground ball to F4.
R1 misses second base. 
BR is put out F4-F3.
R3 steps on home.
F3 throws to F6 beating R1 diving back to 2B.

Run scores or not?

 

 

 

Batter causing a balk is not a balk in any code. OBR actually changed wording a tear or two ago eliminate a loophole.

Run scores. Appeal would be upheld in NCAA and OBR, who knows about FED?

But other scenarios are different in the codes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, basejester said:

I- Stopping motion after batter screams, "TIME!" 
I don't think this is a balk under any code.  Certainly not under OBR.

Perhaps not any longer ... but there was video not that long ago of an MLB game where the batter yelled "time" without stepping out or taking his hand off the bat and the pitcher stopped his motion.  Balk was called and upheld.  This may be the exact impetus for the wording change that Jimurray mentions above.

 

5. Force-out appeals.  (Again, 3 different sets non-overlapping sets: force, unforced, and appeal)

Not sure I follow you here.  I feel like appealing a force is handled fairly as is.

Here's where it matters.

R1, R3.
1 out.

Ground ball to F4.
R1 misses second base. 
BR is put out F4-F3.
R3 steps on home.
F3 throws to F6 beating R1 diving back to 2B.

Run scores or not?

Run scores.  The force was removed from R1 when BR was thrown out.  Simple time play.  I'd have no problem with this during a FED game.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suggest eliminating several of the 27 different MLB balks, but not doing away with them.

- Dropping the ball

- Exchanging the ball from hand to glove

- Stopping motion after batter screams, "TIME!" 

I don't think this is a balk under any code.  Certainly not under OBR.

 

5. Force-out appeals.  (Again, 3 different sets non-overlapping sets: force, unforced, and appeal)

Not sure I follow you here.  I feel like appealing a force is handled fairly as is.

 

Here's where it matters.

R1, R3.

1 out.

Ground ball to F4.

R1 misses second base. 

BR is put out F4-F3.

R3 steps on home.

F3 throws to F6 beating R1 diving back to 2B.

Run scores or not?

 

 

 

In that scenario as described, there isn't an appeal... So the R1 diving back into 2B is fine.

If the defense says they're appealing R1's original miss of 2B and throw it there before R1 returns, then yes, this is a force out appeal.

The runner missed the base to which he was forced to advance. The BR being thrown out prior does not negate the fact that the R1 missed the base originally while forced.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

 

I believe that was the impetus for the wording change the next year. I believe prior to the change many of us and many MLB umps would have not called that particular balk you mentioned. BUT one MLB ump hung his hat on the wording so they changed it.

Missed forced base appeals are called differently in OBR and NCAA and FED has noguidance. The run scores in @basejester

OP absent an appeal. What would you. Rule in an appeal of the missed base?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that scenario as described, there isn't an appeal... So the R1 diving back into 2B is fine.

If the defense says they're appealing R1's original miss of 2B and throw it there before R1 returns, then yes, this is a force out appeal.

The runner missed the base to which he was forced to advance. The BR being thrown out prior does not negate the fact that the R1 missed the base originally while forced.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

But now... I question the difference between 9.1.1 Situation H and 9.1.1 Situation K

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

But now... I question the difference between 9.1.1 Situation H and 9.1.1 Situation K

There's no substantive difference. They both involve (a) a play with 1 out, where (b) a runner misses a base to which he was forced, which (c) ended up being the third out.

9.1.1H, where the appealed runner is ruled to have been a force out so that no runs score, is an application of 9-1-1d and 2-24-1 (definition of a force out). IMO, correctly ruled.

I think that 9.1.1K, where the appealed runner is ruled NOT to have been a force out and thus a time play, is an (erroneous) interpretation and application of one of two rules.

First, it could be a misinterpretation of 'force out': was the runner forced when he missed the base or when he was retired? It should be the former, but the FED case writer might be employing the latter.

Second, 8-2-6k: "With two outs, if the base missed was the first to which the batter or runner was forced to advance, no runs would score." The case writer might have decided that, because this play started with just 1 out, the "with 2 outs" clause governs. In that case, the appeal does not satisfy this provision, and it becomes a time play. (That compounds bad baseball with bad syntax.)

Either way, 9.1.1K needs to be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, maven said:

There's no substantive difference. They both involve (a) a play with 1 out, where (b) a runner misses a base to which he was forced, which (c) ended up being the third out.

9.1.1H, where the appealed runner is ruled to have been a force out so that no runs score, is an application of 9-1-1d and 2-24-1 (definition of a force out). IMO, correctly ruled.

I think that 9.1.1K, where the appealed runner is ruled NOT to have been a force out and thus a time play, is an (erroneous) interpretation and application of one of two rules.

First, it could be a misinterpretation of 'force out': was the runner forced when he missed the base or when he was retired? It should be the former, but the FED case writer might be employing the latter.

Second, 8-2-6k: "With two outs, if the base missed was the first to which the batter or runner was forced to advance, no runs would score." The case writer might have decided that, because this play started with just 1 out, the "with 2 outs" clause governs. In that case, the appeal does not satisfy this provision, and it becomes a time play. (That compounds bad baseball with bad syntax.)

Either way, 9.1.1K needs to be removed.

Maven, (I'm going to use OBR runner designations here ...)

In a 4-3-6 "reverse" double play attempt, F3 knows that the force is removed from R1, and yells "tag!" as he throws to F6.  (Well in 12u ball he does).

In 9.1.1K, the force is removed from both R2 and R3 as soon as F6 throws to F4.

I'm wondering if the primary (and thus governing) difference between 9.1.1H and 9.1.1K is the timing of the runner getting to the bag.

In 9.1.1H he (R2) was forced at the time he missed 3rd base.

In 9.1.1K the force had been removed by the time he (R2) missed 3rd base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VolUmp said:

Maven, (I'm going to use OBR runner designations here ...)

In a 4-3-6 "reverse" double play attempt, F3 knows that the force is removed from R1, and yells "tag!" as he throws to F6.  (Well in 12u ball he does).

In 9.1.1K, the force is removed from both R2 and R3 as soon as F6 throws to F4.

I'm wondering if the primary (and thus governing) difference between 9.1.1H and 9.1.1K is the timing of the runner getting to the bag.

In 9.1.1H he (R2) was forced at the time he missed 3rd base.

In 9.1.1K the force had been removed by the time he (R2) missed 3rd base.

Did the case plays make that clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, maven said:

There's no substantive difference. They both involve (a) a play with 1 out, where (b) a runner misses a base to which he was forced, which (c) ended up being the third out.

9.1.1H, where the appealed runner is ruled to have been a force out so that no runs score, is an application of 9-1-1d and 2-24-1 (definition of a force out). IMO, correctly ruled.

I think that 9.1.1K, where the appealed runner is ruled NOT to have been a force out and thus a time play, is an (erroneous) interpretation and application of one of two rules.

First, it could be a misinterpretation of 'force out': was the runner forced when he missed the base or when he was retired? It should be the former, but the FED case writer might be employing the latter.

Second, 8-2-6k: "With two outs, if the base missed was the first to which the batter or runner was forced to advance, no runs would score." The case writer might have decided that, because this play started with just 1 out, the "with 2 outs" clause governs. In that case, the appeal does not satisfy this provision, and it becomes a time play. (That compounds bad baseball with bad syntax.)

Either way, 9.1.1K needs to be removed.

According to the 2015 BRD, 9.1.1K is the same for OBR and FED. That play, exactly, appears on page 164 of the 2015 BRD. Both OBR and FED agree. NCAA does not.

FED- A force is in effect at the time of the pitch and remains in effect for the entire play only if the baserunning error occurs BEFORE a following runner is put out. (8-2PEN; 9-1-1b; 9.1.1K)

Wendelstedt: If an out on a following runner occurs before a runner reaches his forced base, the force is removed. Any appeal upheld for missing that base would not be a force out. (WRIM/Definitions/Force Play/p.4)

NCAA does not agree....

If a runner is put out during live action, his out does not remove the force on any preceding runner who might later be called out for a baserunning infraction. (8-5j Ex)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...