Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. Yours is getting sent out early next week.
  3. Or because, you know . . . it's explicitly illegal? Practical, sure.
  4. You went the opposite direction as I. I went from playing, to Dad watching, to Dad coaching, to umpire… mainly because while watching and coaching my kids, there were too many plays like this, and some more basic plays that made me say ” I can do better than half these guys….. at least I know the basic rules”.
  5. I have two pair. Plate and base. Smitty Poly Spandex w/o expanding waistband. Size 36x30. Slight fading but not bad at all. $70 shipped for both pair.
  6. After playing for over 12 years, coaching for about 12 years, and umpiring for 3, I'm being a dad and watching. I was beyond the OF fence. I told my wife that's an out, doesn't have to be intentional. It was catchable. Hit just beyond the glove even with the contact. Coach didn't question the call. They ultimately called it foul. I didn't know why, but assumed they had incorrectly called it so based on the idea the batter was vacating but still in the box maybe or didn't intentionally interfere. Ultimately batter was out at first on what I thought was a makeup call. I knew I would get the correct information here. Thanks!
  7. If this is a pop-up that the PU judges the F2 (catcher) has a play upon – and thus becoming the protected fielder – then yes, that’s INT. The entire flight of the ball needs to be observed, though, for in some (rare) backstops that are low or close upon the plate area, that pop-up may contact the netting or fencing, above a catchable height, making it (simply) a foul ball. There are amateur umpires who will fixate on the physical collision, and impose the INT penalty (an Out) regardless of it being uncatchable (think: local, youth umpire). Barring that, it was likely INT.
  8. Batter backed up, wasn’t running to first. I have interference. Batter out , runners return. If the batter bunted and started running to 1b, and tangles with the catcher I would have nothing ( tangle/ untangle) as long as neither player did anything intentional. Back to the OP, batter was not running , and interference does not have to be intentional in this case.
  9. The answer to your questions: Yes and No.
  10. Yesterday
  11. And I meant interference in the title. They went back and forth on the call.
  12. Batter pops up a bunt foul. Batter backs up to get out of the way but steps into the catcher's way. Catcher crashes into batter. Is this interference? Does interference have to be intentional on this?
  13. Can’t wait to get mine back!
  14. It's great to have those steps because too many umpires think the only choices are (1) ignote and(2) eject (heck, a few think forfeit is the second step. Doesn't mean all steps need be taken all the time.
  15. This is exactly the way to do it, and how we handle it in our district. Every league that participates is on the same page, and you have something to reference when questions arise.
  16. I feel you, @ArchAngel72. I do. Without details it's hard to fully assess the situation I mentioned. And lacking those details, we could gin up many, many scenarios. I see scenarios where not suspending the coach was the right thing given what occurred. I could also see scenarios where yeah, that coach should have been suspended based on what predicated the ejection. And so on... I don't want to speculate any further. I really just want to know what others in other jurisdictions are seeing and experiencing in this area. I hope for all of us everywhere, this is an exceptional circumstance and not a usual circumstance. ~Dawg
  17. Dog, So let me get this straight. An Umpire had something happen they deemed bad enough to go straight to EJ This was then appealed latter by a school? and overturned due to structure which allows what happened to happen but then they deem themselves who most likely were not AT the game to say nah it was not that bad lets undercut the umpire and allow the coach back out there. So um, no one take another game with that coach. As umpires we should all stand together and let that school know we do not feel safe around that school or their coach.
  18. We're like you in that we're supposed to follow those guidelines (Verbal, Written with Restriction to Dugout, Ejection). There are situations though where we may proceed straight to an ejection if it's egregious enough in our minds. Normally, a verbal warning and/or restriction is enough - but we all know that there are times when you have to "shoot one monkey so the rest will fall in line". While I've never had anyone overturn an ejection of mine, I have been kept from working that team's games the following year by the assignor. In his mind it's 'preventative assigning', in my mind it's 'passing the buck' and 'babying the coach'. YMMV
  19. My state athletic association and my local association have established the following game management discipline: 1) Verbal warning 2) Written warning 3) Dugout Restriction 4) Ejection We (the umpires) also know that there are several FED rules that provide for the umpires to make an assessment of the egregiousness of the situation and may issue an ejection without the proceeding steps. Locally, we had a coach ejection that was indeed deemed egregious enough to warrant an immediate ejection (sorry, no details...). The school appealed the suspension stating that a dugout restriction had not first been issued and the suspension was overturned and the coach returned for their next game. I am merely curious about what you guys are seeing out there in your games, states and localities and specifically if you are seeing this type of situation that I have described above? When coaches are ejected, if your state requires a suspension are those suspensions being enforced or overturned? ~Dawg
  20. You have to go back to a 1981 interp by Rumble as cited in the BRD. A runner touching his base cannot deliberately interfere. Without any cite in the rules Rumble says with less than 2 outs you call the runner and batter out. He must have been aware of the OBR rule.
  21. That's fair, but I was mainly trying to show FED doesn't seem to differentiate between intentional and unintentional INT for plays like these (Case Play and OP).
  22. While that caseplay says R3 "on" third it might be a generic on as being R3. A "foul fly near the third base line" might not have R3 on the base. But FED is less precise than OBR with "a runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield."
  23. Closest I can come is in the Case Book, 8.4.2 Situation B (page 83). It mentions R3's interference but does not specify intentional or unintentional. Ruling in that situation is R3 is out, batter remains at bat due to the foul ball. 8.4.2 Situation B: With R3 on third and R1 on first and a count of one-and-one, B3 hits a foul fly ball near the third-base line with one out. R3 interferes with F5 in F5's attempt to catch the ball. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R3 is declared out because of R3's interference with F5. B4 remains at bat with a count of one-and-two. Using that case play for the OP, I'd have R1 out on INT and the batter returns to bat with a strike added to the count.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...