BrianC14
-
Posts
2,977 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Everything posted by BrianC14
-
OK, we're getting outs on this. I will maintain that, just for the purposes of the 2013 OBR addition to the IFF rule, that it is poorly worded, and leave it at that. So we're getting two outs on this, and R3 is out due to the INT of his B/R teammate. So now let's continue the 'what if' game: Same setup for the situation, except that bases are not loaded, we have just R1 and R2, one out. Same situation with the pop fly hit up along 1B line. R1 and R2 both stay in contact with their respective bases, being pretty smart about the "IFF batter's out if fair" call that's been made. Ball is touched in fair territory by F3, who is / has been interfered with in his attempt to catch the ball. Question: Will R2 be called out on the INT by B/R?
-
Read the official ruling from 2013. I have been discussing the OP.
-
Agreed, if that's the way the play develops. That's a different situation then if the ball were to land foul, or be caught in foul territory. According to the modified ruling done in 2013: Added to Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) for 2013 is the phrase: That last part makes no sense.
-
From the article linked by Gfoley4, above: Added to Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) for 2013 is the phrase:
-
Different situation from the fair/foul call, IFF will get the batter if fair, and how are you going to get a 2nd out during an IFF - - reference: "...a runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved)." That is related to a double play that is in progress. Where is the opportunity for a double play during an IFF - - UNLESS, of course, the runners are putting themselves at risk by attempting to advance.
-
Does this include the IFF ruling as well? Not sure that it does....
-
From that linked article: According to baseball's modified infield fly rule for 2013, a similar play will now produce a double play (assuming the catcher did indeed touch the ball in fair territory). Also, it wasn't the batter/runner that caused the INT, it was (apparently) R1.
-
Does it say how to rule if "the runner who interfered" and "the batter" are the same person? Even if the pop fly is caught in foul ground, we're putting the batter back in the box? Wha-a-a-a-at?
-
Makes me glad to be an "off the rack" guy. I'd be sweating bullets taking a heat gun anywhere near plastic. My WV Platinum fit just fine right out of the box.
-
I looked at the video again and noted that U2 made the call, but he signaled "That's nothing". Agree with you that in 2-man, this should always be U1's call.
-
Thanks for posting this; I have been looking at buying these shoes for a while now, and have been after some straightforward feedback. As I understand the description, the metatarsal plate was redesigned to provide better coverage on the inside area of the foot. The older versions that New Balance made didn't quite cover that area as completely as this new version seems to. I still wear the original N B plate shoe, and to this day, I have been consciously adjusting my left foot (with a RH batter in the box) to a point where I'm almost pigeon-toed. I started doing this after hearing guys tell of how they get into their set position with both feet slightly angled outward, and there were cases where guys were hurt by taking a ball to the inside of the foot. I've posted a picture (kudos to www.ump-attire.com for providing multiple angles) of the new 460 shoe that shows how the metatarsal plate extends almost to the sole on the inside of the shoe. I would be interested in hearing from anyone else that has the latest version of NB plate shoes. Thanks again for posting.
-
I think that on a play as shown here, U1 should certainly be in a position to get this call.
-
Are the New Smitty Performance Polyspandex the Next New Umpire Pant?
BrianC14 replied to JimKirk's topic in Umpire Equipment
Never saw that as an attitude from Jimmy. He used it as necessary when he was instructing my high school group (which as I understand it, he did for free). The affectation as used by Jimmy came across to me as more of an admonition about staying razor sharp on all aspects of working games.- 379 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- smitty
- umpire pants
- (and 4 more)
-
Are the New Smitty Performance Polyspandex the Next New Umpire Pant?
BrianC14 replied to JimKirk's topic in Umpire Equipment
"You know ol' Charlie, right? Ol' Charlie's the guy that would brag that he had 20 years of experience as an umpire. Or was it ONE year experience 20 times?" - Jim Evans- 379 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- smitty
- umpire pants
- (and 4 more)
-
I agree with noumpere. In any plate conference I've had, we never discuss DBT as being in relation to where the player is, it's always in relation to where the ball is. Play on.
-
I'd say U1 has a better angle than this camera view, but his initial call may well be correct. The fielder then raises his glove over his head, controlling the ball. It's only when he drops his glove to his side that the ball comes out, but at that point, the playing action is over. One problem I have with U1 is that he is still moving as the play is at the critical stage. IMO, video would be better viewed with the audio muted. I've got an out.
-
Colorado, Denver metro.
-
-
Twi-night double header. (I'm old enough to remember when MLB had those).
-
Be thankful that you have that option. We don't have it where I work.
-
IITYWIMWYBMAD
-
On the subject of jackets. ... last Friday, game time temp 39 degrees, light sprinkleof rain. Raw. Long sleeves not going to get it done, nor will the "convertible" shell. Heavy jacket and two base layers did the trick. Today's forecast: 40, with showers followed by.... snow.
-
It is standard, and I should have. As the play continued, F1 immediately tossed it to F3 for an easy out. Later I questioned my inaction. Had F1 turned to 3B for a possible play, and BR reached, I could have created a crap storm by not calling 'No tag'. Thanks for the feedback.
-
That's a good idea, and something to work into the pregame. So let's simplify this situational mechanic: Let's say that B/R is clearly beyond the 45' mark, and U1 has the call. You see the miss; do you verbalize and signal the missed tag?
-
Reference the bold/italicized: That might be true UNTIL and unless the fielder (in this case, F1) steps into the PU's field of vision by placing himself between PU and the B/R. Further info: the attempted tag took place almost dead on the 45 foot mark. With runners on 2B only, or 3B and 2B, PU will also be required to note the touch at 3rd by R2. This isn't about whether the umpires should convo about the tag or no-tag; that's a given if there's a question by either team. This is about U1 making a verbal and physical signal to indicate that 'No tag' had occurred.
