Jump to content

Suicide Squeeze Scores Two


Mad Mike
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 523 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

I picked up a pretty interesting video clip of a suicide squeeze run by a JC team out of Montana. With a runner on second and third, they execute a suicide squeeze bunt. Both runners score. Pay attention to R2. He intentionally diverts his base path to miss third base, thereby cutting the distance he has to run to home plate. I was informed they have run this against 6 different teams successfully every time without any team catching on.

This is a 2 man umpire system used in the video. Since the plate umpire has to rule fair/foul on the bunt, he will not have touches at third and this would leave the base umpire to get touches, correct? Please discuss how you would handle this situation. If anyone has also had this play before, please chime in.

Also, as a point of discussion, is there any reason this would not be an appeal play, i.e. could this be considered abandonment of running the bases as it is obviously designed to clearly and intentionally alter the base path to gain an advantage? (I have my opinion(s) on how I would rule on this, but would like to hear from my fellow umpires.)

IMG_0305.mov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, PU has both fair/foul AND R2's touch of 3B. The mechanics don't change for this play. A good BU can help, but as he has the play on the BR at 1B, the touch of 3B will not be a priority.

This is not abandonment, which involves runners abandoning their effort to run the bases. R2 is still running the bases, he is merely doing so illegally. This could be an appeal play, if the defense appeals it. There are no automatic appeals outside of South Carolina (AFAIK).

No rule prohibits this tactic, which is designed to take advantage of a hole in 2-umpire mechanics. An umpire who got involved in this play without a proper appeal would be using the MSU handbook.

We have a few local teams that run this play. The PU needs to peek at R2 to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, maven said:

No rule prohibits this tactic, which is designed to take advantage of a hole in 2-umpire mechanics.

Really? How come this isn't considered not running the bases in proper order, making a travesty of the game or simply unsportsman-like conduct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

I picked up a pretty interesting video clip of a suicide squeeze run by a JC team out of Montana. With a runner on second and third, they execute a suicide squeeze bunt. Both runners score. Pay attention to R2. He intentionally diverts his base path to miss third base, thereby cutting the distance he has to run to home plate. I was informed they have run this against 6 different teams successfully every time without any team catching on.

This is a 2 man umpire system used in the video. Since the plate umpire has to rule fair/foul on the bunt, he will not have touches at third and this would leave the base umpire to get touches, correct? Please discuss how you would handle this situation. If anyone has also had this play before, please chime in.

Also, as a point of discussion, is there any reason this would not be an appeal play, i.e. could this be considered abandonment of running the bases as it is obviously designed to clearly and intentionally alter the base path to gain an advantage? (I have my opinion(s) on how I would rule on this, but would like to hear from my fellow umpires.)

IMG_0305.mov

The old Mississippi power play.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ElkOil said:

Really? How come this isn't considered not running the bases in proper order, making a travesty of the game or simply unsportsman-like conduct?

Because it is running bases in the proper order (counter-clockwise), it's a common though illegal tactic and so not a travesty, and though appealable not therefore a violation of the unsporting rule (3-3-1f), which are offenses unrelated to play.

The rules address missed bases, whether the miss is intentional or accidental. We have no authority to make up our own penalties, however offended our sense of propriety.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2017 at 7:24 PM, ElkOil said:

Really? How come this isn't considered not running the bases in proper order, making a travesty of the game or simply unsportsman-like conduct?

Because the spirit and history of 150 years of baseball entails and includes the circumvention of the rules, finding loopholes, and seeing what you can get away with both out of view, and in plain sight, of the officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Because the spirit and history of 150 years of baseball entails and includes the circumvention of the rules, finding loopholes, and seeing what you can get away with both out of view, and in plain sight, of the officials.

No, I don't think cheating is essential to the spirit of any game. For one thing, it's impossible to win by cheating, since winning is defined by the rules. One can give only the appearance of winning (which for some people is enough).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should only be the sucker on the first attempt. Six successful attempts do not speak well of JUCO umpires in Montana ability to communicate situations to be aware of. Or possibly coaches that do not know to appeal this. This play comes and goes. Once it dies down we relax. When it appears again we change our mechanics to suit the situation. That change might be to the detriment of the offending team, PU focused on play at plate and touch of third, BU looking at third and late to see play at 1B. Usually, the offended team will be strident about the cheating but it will never occur to them to appeal, granted that you would not be able to call the runner out on appeal since you didn't see it. Or did you? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, maven said:

No, I don't think cheating is essential to the spirit of any game.

Maybe not "essential", but human nature makes it part of the fabric of almost any game.  To the point where self-penalization in golf, and the "honor" therein, is viewed as a significant outlier in the sporting world.

17 hours ago, maven said:

For one thing, it's impossible to win by cheating, since winning is defined by the rules. One can give only the appearance of winning (which for some people is enough)

There are only a few thousand examples that prove otherwise.  If the final official score, the final standings, the historical records, the engraving on the trophy, say you won, you won.  It's one thing to circumvent the rules, and when you get caught accept the penalty therein - risk/reward.  Sometimes pass interference is far superior to letting the receiver catch the ball.  It's another thing to circumvent the rules and get away with it altogether...whether that's doing something behind an official's back, or something bigger, whether it's corking a bat, or taking HGH.   And except for PED's, baseball has pretty much snickered at players who cork bats and put substance on the ball.  They even put one guy in the HOF a decade after he wrote a book on exactly how he was cheating.

To paraphrase Mark Bavaro "But coach, I hold on every play".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Maybe not "essential", but human nature makes it part of the fabric of almost any game.  To the point where self-penalization in golf, and the "honor" therein, is viewed as a significant outlier in the sporting world.

There are only a few thousand examples that prove otherwise.  If the final official score, the final standings, the historical records, the engraving on the trophy, say you won, you won.  It's one thing to circumvent the rules, and when you get caught accept the penalty therein - risk/reward.  Sometimes pass interference is far superior to letting the receiver catch the ball.  It's another thing to circumvent the rules and get away with it altogether...whether that's doing something behind an official's back, or something bigger, whether it's corking a bat, or taking HGH.   And except for PED's, baseball has pretty much snickered at players who cork bats and put substance on the ball.  They even put one guy in the HOF a decade after he wrote a book on exactly how he was cheating.

To paraphrase Mark Bavaro "But coach, I hold on every play".

In the OP, just as with pass interference or holding in football, the rules of the game provide appropriate penalties to remedy the situation. In both sports it requires that an official sees the offense plus in the OP the defense needs to see it and properly appeal it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

In the OP, just as with pass interference or holding in football, the rules of the game provide appropriate penalties to remedy the situation. In both sports it requires that an official sees the offense plus in the OP the defense needs to see it and properly appeal it.

Which is my point - and goes to my original response to the question about unsportsmanlike conduct.  The act of blatantly and boldly circumventing the rules is not, in itself, unsportsmanlike conduct (or we'd apply it every time).  A team, or player, usually makes a conscious decision to break a rule, with a mindset that not breaking the rule results in a worse outcome than the penalty for breaking the rule and/or the risk of getting caught is outweighed by the benefit (and likelihood) of not being caught.

In such, it becomes a part of the game strategy....(risk of detection * penalty) vs (chance of avoiding detection * gain for success) - even with a 100% chance of being caught, taking pass interference and giving the team the ball on the one is better than letting the catch the immediate TD.

This is sometimes conscious...sometimes it's almost instinctive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former college coach, I can only comment that the play was executed wrong (the ball should be bunted up the first base line to get PU's sight-line and immediate attention away from 3B), and is run much more than we catch on.  I was taught this play when I played in college 16 years ago and have taught and run it as a high school coach.  The play happens so fast, that if the pitcher is working out of the wind-up, R2 can conceivably be past 3B in the baseline to third before we can see any touch, even if we do everything correctly.  This does indeed make it a huge hole in the 2-man system.  Coaches scout the umpires on bunt plays like this and if both in a 2-man follow the ball on the bunt and throw to 1B, it can be run all day long without being caught.  So, this is surely a situation that should be pregamed, especially in high school ball where squeeze plays come out of nowhere.  Take this thread as a notice. Do NOT get caught with your pants down in this play.  It's a very fast pace play that we need to focus on.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of teams where I work (HS & college) assign bench players to watch specific bases for missed touches.   If coaches know the rules well enough (and a missed base certainly seems like a pretty straightforward rule on which to appeal) then the assigned player notifies the coach, who instructs his team to appeal the missed base.   Looks as though this team didn't have that going. In this video, R2 appears to have cut the corner by a good 10 feet.   Thanks for sharing this, great clip.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2017 at 8:19 PM, BrianC14 said:

A lot of teams where I work (HS & college) assign bench players to watch specific bases for missed touches.   If coaches know the rules well enough (and a missed base certainly seems like a pretty straightforward rule on which to appeal) then the assigned player notifies the coach, who instructs his team to appeal the missed base.   Looks as though this team didn't have that going. In this video, R2 appears to have cut the corner by a good 10 feet.   Thanks for sharing this, great clip.  

You've missed the point of the video.

You can see right at the very end that the team is going to appeal the play (the catcher is pointing to third base).  The issue isn't whether or not the defensive team sees the miss, it's whether or not the umpires see it.

The appeal is moot if neither umpire is watching the touch on third base, which is the exact hole in a two-man crew the offensive team is trying to exploit by running this play.  PU is watching fair/foul up first base line, and BU is watching BR touching first.  If neither ump takes a peek at the right time the offense is going to get away with it.

They're not hoping the defense misses it (LF and SS - at the very least - are going to see it every time) - they're hoping the umpires miss it, because that's all that matters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a side note: The defense did not appeal the play. They used this 6 consecutive times without anyone appealing.

@beerguy55 is right, they are hoping the umps don't see it and therefore, they can't rule on it and will default to a "safe call".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mad Mike said:

Just as a side note: The defense did not appeal the play. They used this 6 consecutive times without anyone appealing.

@beerguy55 is right, they are hoping the umps don't see it and therefore, they can't rule on it and will default to a "safe call".

Thank you, that's what I understood in your original post.  If noone has "caught on" it's not being appealed, and we'll never know if the umpire(s) saw it or not.  The video doesn't show either umpire or what (or where) they might be looking at the time the R2 should be making the touch of 3B.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

You've missed the point of the video.

You can see right at the very end that the team is going to appeal the play (the catcher is pointing to third base).  The issue isn't whether or not the defensive team sees the miss, it's whether or not the umpires see it.

The appeal is moot if neither umpire is watching the touch on third base, which is the exact hole in a two-man crew the offensive team is trying to exploit by running this play.  PU is watching fair/foul up first base line, and BU is watching BR touching first.  If neither ump takes a peek at the right time the offense is going to get away with it.

They're not hoping the defense misses it (LF and SS - at the very least - are going to see it every time) - they're hoping the umpires miss it, because that's all that matters.

The point of the video, as I read the original post is this:  " Since the plate umpire has to rule fair/foul on the bunt, he will not have touches at third and this would leave the base umpire to get touches, correct? Please discuss how you would handle this situation. "

  Two-man mechanics are ripe for holes in coverage.  One thing can be seen - briefly - the base umpire doesn't have much responsibility on this play.  I think there's a case where he could at least take a peek for the touch at third, especially since it *seems* that PU has his focus on fair/foul and the developing play at home, but since we can't see in this video any of what PU is doing until it's all over, it's impossible to know if he was able to look up to even glance at 3B.  But the base umpire certainly has time and opportunity to look to his right for the touch of 3B - or hey - maybe even an obstruction. And as Mad Mike has already pointed out, that they didn't appeal on any of these, so we can never really know what might have been seen and/or called.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BrianC14 said:

The point of the video, as I read the original post is this:  " Since the plate umpire has to rule fair/foul on the bunt, he will not have touches at third and this would leave the base umpire to get touches, correct? Please discuss how you would handle this situation. "

  Two-man mechanics are ripe for holes in coverage.  One thing can be seen - briefly - the base umpire doesn't have much responsibility on this play.  I think there's a case where he could at least take a peek for the touch at third, especially since it *seems* that PU has his focus on fair/foul and the developing play at home, but since we can't see in this video any of what PU is doing until it's all over, it's impossible to know if he was able to look up to even glance at 3B.  But the base umpire certainly has time and opportunity to look to his right for the touch of 3B - or hey - maybe even an obstruction. And as Mad Mike has already pointed out, that they didn't appeal on any of these, so we can never really know what might have been seen and/or called.  

A BrianC14 sighting!!  YES!!! :nod: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

Just as a side note: The defense did not appeal the play. They used this 6 consecutive times without anyone appealing.

@beerguy55 is right, they are hoping the umps don't see it and therefore, they can't rule on it and will default to a "safe call".

It's interesting because you can clearly see the catcher at about 0:23-0:26 looking to his bench and pointing to third base.  So it looks to me like he's trying to tell someone the runner missed the base.  That, at the very least, may have been an attempt at a verbal appeal?   I'd be curious to hear what was said on the field by whom, because it looks like the catcher wanted to appeal (at least in this once instance of the six times), and, according to your statement, it was never formalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

It's interesting because you can clearly see the catcher at about 0:23-0:26 looking to his bench and pointing to third base.  So it looks to me like he's trying to tell someone the runner missed the base.  That, at the very least, may have been an attempt at a verbal appeal?   I'd be curious to hear what was said on the field by whom, because it looks like the catcher wanted to appeal (at least in this once instance of the six times), and, according to your statement, it was never formalized.

I agree, he's pointing over there for some reason, but as I see the angle, he doesn't appear to be looking in the direction of PU, but rather toward first base.  He also appears a bit angry, and I wonder if he wasn't chewing on F3 for not attempting a play "over there" at third.  Seems as though if he were trying to get the attention of PU, he'd have to be turned much farther behind him, toward home plate, as PU is (was) only a few feet up the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...