mstaylor

I will try to combine the threads when I get home.I am back working a festival today.<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

This is an insane situation. http://www.sportsnola.com/sports/prep-sports/blogs/two-football-officials-released-from-jail-after-arrests-at-mandeville-st-pauls-game.html http://www.sportsnola.com/sports/prep-sports/blogs/two-football-officials-released-from-jail-after-arrests-at-mandeville-st-pauls-game.html The first link is the original story, the second is a follow up.

Yeah, every time I start reading 10.00 my head starts hurting.

If you know it came from the dugout, either ignore it or give them a look. If it persists, tell the dugout that it is enough. After that somebody has to go home.

An interp takes the rule and explains how it should be called, or clarifies language. A caseplay is exactly that, a play showing the correct application. Sometimes manuals mix the two together. Now. I edited some of the exchange at the end of this thread, the non-responsive portions. For some reason as things slow down on the field, the personal comments to each other increase. This is not an isolated situation, nor directed at just one or two people. I really hate editing posts but non-responsive, snarky or insulting comments are not needed by anybody. They are not needed nor wanted on this board.

I had a pretty good umpire tell a HS catcher that. The coach said he was too close and was losing strikes. Since I am the interpreter he asked me about it. I told him I prefer him to be close as possible without getting hit. I never got the chance to ask the umpire why he said that. The only thing I can figure is he can't see around him on the down and away pitches.

Couldn't get it to play.

I felt he went from answering the question, maybe on the rough side, to a rant on the conditions of MiLB that he didn't experience. In other words, I think he left the subject for a sour grapes rant. If I tried to take portions out it then got weird and disjointed. Hopefully he can repost it in a more orderly fashion. Much of what he said, again abrupt, was point on.

Aaaaah, a gratuitous Animal House reference. I like it. Maybe more apropos than intended.

Same with the MLBUM

What you fail to realize is it makes no difference which came first,the egg or the chicken, or break or feint. If you feint to third for any reason it is a balk.

2013 MLB Umpire Manual pg. 67 says: 8.05(D-H)Under the changes made to the OBR for 2013, the pitcher while in contact with the rubber, may no longer fake a throw to third base (in addition to not being allowed to fake to first). this rule change outlaws the so-called "Third to First Move"

Yes, you get the same 45 for the step but you have to throw to the bag. Think the same question at first.

HTH does the runner get 3/4 of the way to third if he didn't break? HW simply says the pitcher anticipates him doing it. Either way it's a balk. The caseplay is spot on.

Everyone agrees there. What was being argued was that in the same play he could feint, I said no. I showed an interp that says no.

What? You all were saying on a legit break you could feint to third. I show you the interp that says no and I'm still wrong? Please explain. In the interp he went 3/4 of the way, that is an attempt. What am I missing?

Sorry about that, my sarcasm button was broken.

What does the count have to do with it?

From HW's manual: P154, pg 209, Reference Plays: R1(stealing), R2(stealing), two outs, 3-2 count. After coming stopped in the Set Position, and anticipating the runners on the move, he steps directly towards third base to make a play on R2. However, when R2 holds up about 3/4 the way to third, he stops, chases towards R2, and gets him in a rundown. Ruling: That is a balk.

I gave it to him as it was argued here.

Ok, message sent. I gave the play, explained the two views without indicating which side I was on. We will see what happens.

Of course an umpire has to decide if a throw to an unoccupied base is a legitimate play or not. But for the sake of eliminating variables, I have the OP as a legitiamte attempt to make a play. We shouldn't "muddy the waters" with extra variables. If the OP was given as a legitimate play by F1 to an unoccupied base, do you still deny a rule conflict? Yes. Did he throw, yes, no balk;no, balk. It is that simple.

huh? Are you sayng that you only use that comment to justify a balk. There is no other side of the "if" ? He's saying that in most cases, umpires have no doubt whether a move is a balk by rule. In such cases, intent is irrelevant. OK, I agree. Suspend knowledge of (b) for one minute. Is there any doubt that F1 feinted a throw to an unoccupied base to make a play (d). There is no doubt of that either. We have conflicting rules here. I know it's hard to do when one has already decided precedence, but can anyone read (b) and (d) and not concede that there is a possible rule conflict here? If you can concede there is a conflict here, maybe you can see that intent may be the proper deciding factor. No, I do not concede there is a conflict. If a runner broke you could throw to the base to make a play. If the runner stops then the umpire has to decide if it was a legitimate attempt, if not then balk. If yes then no balk. Now introduce the rule change, no feint to third, he can now only throw to third to make a play. As to the comment added to 8.05. As umpires we know what a violation is, if we aren't sure, then we can use the comment to call the balk. I guess you can use lack of intent to not call a balk but I've never used it that way.

You could use it but I think incorrectly. That is a comment as a tiebreaker to call a balk, not to not call a balk.

I don't Jeff, I thought the same thing last night but with the different angles, it's close but I think he got him. It wouldn't be overturned on replay, that's for sure.