Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. It's even dumber to call it the other way, because then any hindrance by any runner at any time becomes INT. And yes, in FED, this would be OBS (not that that rule is a good one, but that's the result.)
  3. Is it just me, or should @lawump reach out to his old contact and tell them that this years rules/POE/baseballs has taken up 6 pages of contention and dislike on a respected website, and that they need to convert the entire system to OBR?
  4. Since FED has no exception for the ball "in fight [sic] directly toward and near the fielder, where he needed to occupy his position," I guess the correct call for FED (in this fellow's opinion) must be OBS. FWIW, someone mentioned an MLB play where the batter delayed. The one I recall (involving the Rays, I think) had F2 trying to field the batted ball, squibbed in front of HP. Because of the BR's delay it wasn't tangle/untangle. Because the BR hindered F2 fielding a batted ball, intent wasn't relevant. That play was correctly ruled INT, but its precedent does not apply to this play (F2 fielding a throw, not a batted ball). This ruling is dumb. It invites the following strategy: squeeze situation, RH batter bunts the ball to F1, who fields it and tries to throw home. BR maybe stumbles a bit out of the box, "accidentally" bumps into F2, preventing the play on scoring R3. If the throw gets away, BR gets at least 1B on the play, maybe more. This would be no harder to execute than a squeeze bunt, be more likely to succeed, and fails only if the umpire rules that the BR intended to interfere. Many amateur umpires would let it go.
  5. Today
  6. I'm really wondering if I am seeing the same play ... somebody mentioned the ball hitting straight down, somebody mentioned the ball going off the tip of the bat ... Watching it in full speed on the first viewing: I'm seeing a little line drive to the 1st base side of the pitchers mound. The batter initially thinks he fouled it off (OK). Then he picks up the ball, looks directly at the play coming in, and then (to me) appears to square up and make an attempt to bunt the incoming throw. Watch his hands and the bat. Sorry, I've got INT and 2 outs all day every day if I am calling this game.
  7. This is a Facebook post from UTD Umpires JG Utd Instructor Lee‎ regarding this particular play: This play is NOTHING. I know that this is an unpopular answer to this play, but the correct call here is no interference. For the NCAA we will use rule 8-5-d, and for OBR 6.01(a)(10). Both rules talk about how to have interference on a thrown ball, the act by the runner must be INTENTIONAL. I know there was some discussion about the fact that the batter-runner did not run immediately so by that alone he should be called out for interference. That would be incorrect here. You would need to judge that his action was something intentional. There is no rule that will back you to call him out simply because he did not immediately run. We can NOT use any rule that talks about better’s interference here; once the ball was batted this player is no longer a batter, but a batter-runner. Also, since this player is an active runner, we can’t use the rule that pertains to members off the offensive team not vacating a space for a fielder to make a play. That rule applies to on-deck hitters, coaches, runners who have already been put out and for a batter after the pitch has crossed the plate. There were a couple responses talking about obstruction here. I like how we are looking at and evaluating the entire play, but there is no OBS on this play. There is definitely the potential for it, should the ball have already passed the catcher or gone to another base, but there is nothing here. The ball was in fight directly toward and near the fielder, where he needed to occupy his position. He is considered to be in the act of fielding a thrown ball. This play was sent to the NCAA, MiLB and MLB. All three (independently) came back with a no-call here, citing the rule mentioned above about the interference needing to be intentional. And all three made the determination that the runner’s actions were not intentional here. While this is definitely a unique play, and everything we’ve been taught about common sense and fair would lead us immediately to call interference here, we need to fully understand the rule and how to apply it. Common sense and fair play can only apply if we have a rule to back us. Both ends of the stick here are dirty, and this end is definitely the dirtier end (in the public opinion). But it’s better to make the unpopular call and be supported by rule, then to make the favorable call and learn after the fact that you were incorrect. One final note here, if you should have this play in the future, and you deem the batter-runner did intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, you will call him out and return the runner(s) to their bases occupied at the time of the pitch (INT by the BR before reaching first base, runner(s) return to TOP). You would not call R3 out and award the BR first base. That rule only applies when the runner is stealing home or there is a passed ball, wild pitch and the batter interferes.
  8. All codes have a comparable provision, which I've always interpreted to apply to non-players (and possibly retired/scored runners). I'm rethinking that interp based on the last sentence of (q): it includes the batter. I guess NCAA (and perhaps other codes) could extend that to the BR once the ball is put in play. Reading it that way would certainly make the ruling here easy.
  9. Max, you are right ... I didn't pay attention to the link when I clicked on it. That is direct from the NFHS's website. I am still going to split the difference with you on the purpose (not going to disagree!) ... the NOCSAE standard is a safety standard. What NFHS is doing with it is bastardizing it so they don't have to be on the hook or shell out more money for developing and testing another standard. Baseball (and softball) can inherently be a dangerous sport. Adopting safety standards acknowledges that. My issue is with the deliberate direction to DISREGARD rules involving safety standards, namely the balls AND the chest protectors. Why are we bothering with any equipment then? Who cares if their helmets are cracked and missing all the inside padding? Who cares what bats they are using? If you DON't want the rule followed, DON'T implement the rule in the first place. Yes, the "somebody's going to die" and "I'm going to get sued" lines are the extreme reaction, but they are not impossibilities. That very instance is what brought all this about (although the lawsuit people point to was focused on bats and the kid was permanently brain damaged, not dead). Unfortunately, as we know all too well in baseball, it is the extreme $#!t that has to be reacted to and causes things to change. So why are we making the change and then purposely ignoring it? I agree with @johnnyg08 that it would only take ONE instance of a game not being played and then it would be a non-issue from there out. It isn't like this is a surprise or an undue burden ... they had THREE YEARS of knowing this (balls AND chest protectors). Curious ... what is the NCAA's stance on this? They adopted the NOCSAE requirement too, didn't they?
  10. In this instance, you have to go by the official NCAA video review guide. I have posted verbatim from the guide issued to NCAA umpires: 9. Hit By Pitch. Those plays for which there is a possibility that a pitched ball touches a batter, or his clothing. See, e.g., Rule 8.2 (d). Any doubt as to whether a pitched ball hit the bat (as opposed to the batter or his clothing) should be resolved by the Home Plate Umpire at that moment as hitting the bat and not the batter, and the Umpire should declare a fair or foul ball under the circumstances. Rule Change; 2019-20 8.2d.1 Allows for batter intent to be judged with the use of Instant replay, however the coach is not allowed to argue this ruling. Example 1. A pitch strikes the batter, but the Umpire erroneously rules that the pitch struck the bat instead and rules “foul ball.” The Head Coach on offense appropriately invokes replay and the Crew Chief reverses the call. The Crew Chief shall declare the ball dead at the moment it struck the batter and award bases accordingly. Example 2. A pitch strikes the bat, but the Umpire erroneously rules “hit batter – dead ball.” The Head Coach on defense appropriately invokes replay and the Crew Chief reverses the call. If the ball lands foul, the Crew Chief shall call the ball “foul.” If the ball landed fair, the Crew Chief, will acknowledge the erroneous call, return all runners to the base occupied and batter to the box, prior to the pitch and nullify the pitch. (The pitch does not count). Example 3. An umpire calls intentional hit by pitch, and rules that the batter should stay in the box and awards a strike. The offensive coach initiates a challenge or (Crew Chief, if late inning criteria are met). Upon Video Review, it is indisputable that the ball did not hit the batter, however, the ball did go all the way to the backstop. The Crew Chief will put the batter back in the box, awarding the pitch as ruled (ball or strike) and advance the runners as if the correct call would have been made originally. Should the Crew Chief rule that the runners would not have advanced (ball was in the immediate area of the catcher), then place the runner/s at their original starting position. Example 4. The offensive coach initiates a review or (crew chief), if late inning criteria are met. Following a call of a foul ball on an up and in pitch that the plate umpire rules to have hit the bat. Upon Video Review the crew chief or centralized replay determines with indisputable video evidence that the ball did hit the batter, but he intentionally tried to get hit. Even though the defense did not initiate a challenge, the entirety of HBP can be reviewed. The Crew Chief will determine the appropriate ruling on HBP, all aspects. For the purpose of deciding on HBP, any equipment worn by the batter; helmet, batting glove, or base running mitt etc. or protruding from their pocket, that is struct by the pitch will be considered part of the players uniform and therefore awarded first base, if they did not violate the intentional HBP portion of the rule. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, if the umpire rules hit by pitch (HBP), and it goes to video replay that it hit the knob of the bat, then you would follow example 2. In this case, the ball was fair, so the correct answer is to nullify the pitch and "do-over".
  11. USSSA to Employ Automated Strike-Zone in 2020, Parents to Call Balls/Strikes from the Stands https://thedingervilletimes.com/blog/2020/1/14/usssa-to-employ-automated-strike-zone-in-2020-parents-to-call-ballsstrikes-from-the-stands?rq=USSSA 0
  12. Personally, I have always found working the plate much "easier" than working the bases for newer umpires (including myself back when). It seems from a teaching/learning perspective people pick up on it faster. I don't know if it is because of more repetitions on fewer different tasks (I don't believe it is really fewer tasks, but it is a perception some people have told me), or if people just focus more on it because they put their own stress on it. It is far easier to get yourself in deeper trouble on the bases, IMO.
  13. it hit nothing, ... he 'cued' it off the end of the bat ......
  14. Is there nothing on Interference whether intentional or not? I thought it was either.
  15. I saw it first hit the ground beside the mound. It does look like it may have felt weird to the BR the way he looked at the bat. It was definitely a cleanly batted ball.
  16. When the ball was hit it went down then kicked out to F1. Both the batter and catcher thought it was by the plate. It hit something. that kicked it out to the pitcher. What did it hit?
  17. I think you might be putting the cart before the horse. First, think of the parameters involved. You have a batter-runner and a fielder fielding a thrown ball. Because of the latter, you have to figure out intent. All of those play into a) if this is legal or not, and b) what the penalty is.
  18. Yet, at least anecdotally, most MiLB guys wash out because of their base work and not because of their plate work.
  19. I think at all levels we have umpires who are better at B/S and I don't think of a higher compliment than when someone calls you a " good ball and strike guy". An old adage held that a good Umpire reputation is made behind the plate and not on the bases. I know the lower level of ball I used to call, the more Plates I seemed to be assigned. At higher levels, and among the better umpires I know, it can be a fist fight to see who gets the dish on the better games......
  20. I understand your rationale here, but ...if you really watch close, it DOES appear he has not clue when he hits the ball because he 'pool cues' it ....
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...