Jump to content

Jimurray

Established Member
  • Posts

    5,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Posts posted by Jimurray

  1. 1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

    Note that special penalties apply for batter INT with R3 stealing.

    Mr. maven, what special penalties are you referring to? Are you sure you are not thinking of the penalty for catcher’s interference on a steal attempt of home? Here is the penalty listed in the current OBR for batter’s interference and I wouldn’t classify the penalty as anything special or extraordinary (especially when compared to the double whammy penalty for catcher’s interference).

    EXCEPTION to Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4): Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

    Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

    If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

    If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

    The special penalty is 5.09(b):

    (8)  He attempts to score on a play in which the batter interferes with the play at home base before two are out. With two out, the interference puts the batter out and no score counts;"

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

    The current OBR INTERPRETATION is that the order of appeals DOES MATTER, EVEN IF BOTH APPEALS ARE FORCE PLAYS. This was not always the case, but according to Jim Evans the interpretation has  changed and under today’s interpretation an appeal on a following runner REMOVES THE FORCE ON OTHER RUNNERS! Jim sent me this current interpretation via Email on 9/23/2021. I also spoke to Matt (an instructor at Wendelstedt’s School) on or about Oct 20 (last month) and he confirmed what Jim said.

     

     

    So why not post that info in the original thread instead of revisiting with this thread without advising of what you already knew? 

    • Thanks 1
  3. 32 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

    Beer guy is properly applying 5.09(b and by the way the current interpretation in OBR is that the order of appeals DOES matter!!

    The order of appeals does matter if one is a missed forced base and one is a missed base that was not forced that add up to the third out. But who/what are you citing as to whether the order of two forced base appeals matters?

  4. 9 hours ago, Matt said:

    I'm not so sure. The email was from 2014. I don't think anything has changed. 

    This rule existed since at least 2013, my bold:

    8-5-j. "The individual fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags the runner or the base after the runner has been forced to advance because the batter became a runner; Exception—No runner can be forced out if a runner who follows in the batting order is put out first. However, if a runner is put out during live action, it does not remove the force on any runners who might subsequently be declared out for a running infraction."

  5. 1 hour ago, Matt said:

    I'm going off memory here, but I'm thinking of an email chain about ten years ago I initiated that had Jim Paronto and Jim Evans (I can't remember if Hopkins was involved.)

    I posited a bases-loaded situation with 2 out and a clean double with BR attempting to stretch it into a triple. R1 misses 2B. The play naturally plays out with BR being thrown out at 3B.

    The defense then appeals R1. Under the OBR interpretation, no runs score because it was a force at the time the base was missed, and it's a favorable fourth out. Under NCAA, the out on BR negates the force, so only R1's run is erased.

    That NCAA enforcement makes literally no F*#King sense to me (and my choice of words are intentional because of how strongly I feel.) The offense can choose to play for an extra base AND save all but one of the runs even though they were the violators. The BR can negate a force situation at a base they've already passed. Miss a forced base? Everyone might as well keep running, because there's no risk in doing so. 

    I don't know what the NCAA rules were back then but the current rules would make that advantageous fourth out a force out. Where NCAA differs from OBR is if it was 1 out and the batter missed 1B also appealing him first in relaxed action would make the appeal of missing R2 2B not a force any more.

  6. 15 minutes ago, MadMax said:

     

    The only League this is different within is actual Major League Baseball. Here, a once-dead baseball is Live as soon as F1, in possession of said ball, engages the pitcher’s plate (ie. rubber).  

    I mention all this to shed light upon how unique it is to Major League Baseball; 

     

    I believe MLB in the Jaska-Roder era actually had this as their procedure. Ball live when pitcher takes the rubber with it. In the following years MLB certainly seemed lax in a point or a "play" but their MLBUM did reference the need to do at least a point and have a batter in the box. In recent years most of them seem to be pointing the ball in play consistently. Muchlinski in game WS game 6 seemed to me to do it consistently.

  7. 1 hour ago, Vegas_Ump said:

    Looking way too deep into this one!

    Once the BR is retired at 1B, the force on any and all other runners is off.  R1 was forced to run to second when the batter became a batter runner.  But once the BR is out, no other defined force plays are possible.

    Yes, R1's running violation is appealable for the third out.  But now any scores are timing plays.

    Mike

    Las Vegas

    In OBR according to Wendelstedt if the force existed at the time of the miss it will be a forced base appeal.

    • Like 1
  8. 1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

    OBR 5.09(b)(6) Revisited 

     

    Loaded bases, 1 out. Batter bunts and the 1st baseman makes a diving attempt and fields the ball cleanly (on one hop). By the time he touches 1st base, barely retiring the batter-runner, R1 has missed and passed 2nd base, while R2 has stopped between second and third, not sure if the ball was caught in flight. NOW if the ball is thrown to third,  R2 MOST CERTAINLY HAS TO BE TAGGED TO BE RETIRED ( no one would argue otherwise)!

    Yet, many here say that R1 would be considered forced out if he was called out on appeal for missing 2nd base! So, in essence, we now have the lead runner (R2) NO LONGER FORCED, yet the runner immediately following him (R1) is still considered in a FORCE SITUATION! (WOW)

    So let’s carry out this play to its conclusion. Say the 1st baseman’s throw to third to retire R2 is wild, allowing R2 to cross the plate as R1 advances to 3rd ( without ever  touching 2nd base). Now the defense appeals and R2 is called out for missing 2nd base for the third out.

    Now the popular thinking on this thread (other than SENOR AZUL)  is  that the appealed third out in this play is a  FORCE OUT , BECAUSE OF “WHEN” THE RUNNER MISSED 2nd BASE, hence nullifying the runs scored by R3 and R2. Once again, this line of thinking has the lead runner no longer “forced”,  and yet another runner (from an immediate following base) still considered in a force situation. Somewhat “faulty” thinking?

    However, if one simply applies OBR 5.09(b)(6) on this play, then the out on the BR at 1st base (considered a force) simply removes the force on R1, REGARDLESS of WHEN R1 actually misses 2nd base.

    Conversely , “ if a following runner is retired in a manner OTHER THAN ON A FORCE PLAY, “THEN THE MOMENT THE PRECEDING RUNNER MISSES THE NEXT BASE DOES MATTER ”,  WITH REGARD TO WHETHER AN EVENTUAL APPEAL AT THAT BASE RESULTS IN A FORCE OUT OR NOT.

    I have never attempted to claim that the MOMENT a forced base is missed is inconsequential. Rather, I am attempting to point out, as 5.09(b)(6) clearly does, that A FORCE OUT ON A FOLLOWING RUNNER RENDERS THAT MOMENT A MOOT POINT.

    5.09(b)(c) does not clearly point out that the the force is removed when a missed base is appealed and the force existed at that the time of the miss. If fact the wording of that rule needs some common sense applied.

    "(6)  He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out." The BR out at 1B is not a force play but yes it does remove the force in live action. "The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out." While this sentence follows the following runner being put out sentence we know that the force has already been removed in live action and that force is not again removed by the runner touching the base. This refers to when the runner touches the base while still forced. "However, if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated, and he can again be put out if the defense tags the base to which he is forced;" The force play is reinstated if it still exists.

    In your OP you do not have a forced and unforced runner: "So, in essence, we now have the lead runner (R2) NO LONGER FORCED, yet the runner immediately following him (R1) is still considered in a FORCE SITUATION! (WOW)" Both have to be tagged. But if the missed base was appealed the Wendelstedt interp considers it a miss of a forced base.

  9. 7 hours ago, Matt said:

    The defensive coach was correct. There are requirements to put the ball in play and it is in violation of that rule to put it in play without all of them. Without the ball in play, there are no balks nor plays on runners.

    Just keeping up with my tally. 3 balks with a dead ball on U-E. 1 more I'm aware of personally. The question is, if you explain the rule kick to the umpire, will he acknowledge his error? The one I personally have knowledge of was agreed with by half my chapter that if they fool him into pointing it live it's a balk.

  10. 9 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

    But to invoke that you have to first rule it wasn't a bona fide slide. Which part of thei was not met?

    A “bona fide slide” for purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs
    when the runner:
    (1) begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground)
    before reaching the base;
    (2) is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or
    foot;
    (3) is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home
    plate) after completion of the slide; and
    (4) slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway
    for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder.

    I don't think he could have complied with #2. It looks like he goes directly at Correa who has stepped to the outfield side of 2B.

  11. 2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

    What rule do you think was broken?

     

    Did he attempt to make contact? "(j) Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts If a runner does not engage in a bona fide slide, and initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play".

    I don't know what happened after the camera pulls but the MLBUM advises that with no or minimal contact the umpire will judge if hindrance took place. So while it appears he tried to violate the rule he was unsuccessful. No hindrance equals no call.

    • Like 1
  12. Don't have DVR running so recalling from short term memory. Great DP by Altuve-Correa, Correa sidestepping to throw to 1B when I see R1 sliding towards him with no effect and not even close to 2B. Should have U2 called the MLB violation? "(j) Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts". There is a slight delay when seeing a violation at what ever level we call and sometimes if the out results at 1B we leave it alone and don't even raise a hand to signal the interference. Yes, I know we should call it upon seeing it but our natural reaction is to turn while thinking tht's INT and when a DP results sometimes we leave it alone if no runner scored. But do you think think this would/should have been called?

  13. 41 minutes ago, Velho said:

    I’m with you @Jimurray I noticed Freeman didn’t extend his lead until the knee came up.

    I’d love to see what would happen with someone more aggressive like Altuve on 3B. Would a balk would be called for Garcia stepping off in the middle of his salsa?

    I would consider the start of rocking to be TOP so I don’t think he could step off legally. 

  14. Game 3 tonite WS 3rd inning bases loaded with ATL Freeman at 3B and L. Garcia, the 3 step windup, on the mound. I never would have thought he would wind up like that with R3 but he did. Announcers were all agog. Me too. Why didn't Freeman steal home? Well the thing is Garcia has a TOP and then takes a long time to go home and he could never throw to 3B. But if R3 took off on Garcia's first step forward, toward 3B, Garcia could modify his windup to go straight home without the backword step. So R3 would have to wait until the foot was in the air backword. Now Garcia becomes quicker to the plate once that first step is finished. You don't have to windup the same way every time. But I don't know why Freeman wouldn't have extended his lead at Garcia's TOP except maybe HOU catcher Maldonaldo would make him scoot back every time after receiving.

     

  15. 8 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

    Maybe I'm just being an arrogant dick about it, but I'm not working 90' diamonds alone.  No.  Way.  If your league can't afford to pay two umpires for a game, they can't afford to run their league and/or they need to dial the schedule back to the point where they can.

    Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I'm now in my second state, and two other countries, and I have partners on that size fields.  Period.  Smaller fields, sure.  Big boy ball?  All kinds of nope.

    I think I saw this recommendation in an old PBUC.  If you are down to one in a MiLBUM game ask the teams to put a player on the bases. I can’t remember if they matched offense or defense to the player on the bases. I will do 90’ alone in scrimmage/friendly games. I do not do them behind the mound. 

  16. 23 minutes ago, Guest Astevenson said:

    We had a runner hit a ball into the outfield and ended up with an in the park homerun. As he rounded first he was interfered with by first basemen who was in the baseline but ran around him and play continued, no umpire time was called. After he touched home and headed to the dugout, umpire called interference on first basemen and returned runner to 2nd. This seems very off, what is the correct call in this situation?

    The correct call in any code, is obstruction not interference. So you did not have an umpire, you had a guy wearing an umpire uniform. The run should have scored as the obstruction did not affect the advance of the runner. Did anyone protest or talk to the umpire about his ruling?

    • Like 1
  17. 40 minutes ago, Jessebleu said:

    I have listened long enough TomUIC and Senor Azul are definitely correct in their interpretation. The following play illustrates this. 

    Play: Does the run count?
    R1 and R3, 1 out. Line drive to RF, fielder makes play cleanly on one hop. R1,after touching 2nd heads back toward 1st thinking the ball was caught. By the time the ball is thrown to 1st to retire the BR (who didn’t hustle) R1 has turned around and again advanced past 2nd (while failing to touch the base) and is safe at 3rd, while R3 has long crossed the plate.
    R1 is now called out on appeal for missing 2nd base for the third out.
    OBR 5.09(b)(6) CLEARLY STATES THAT IF A FOLLOWING RUNNER IS RETIRED ON A FORCE PLAY THE FORCE IS REMOVED.
    Hence,  when the appeal is sustained, R1 is now called out (not a force out) AND R3 scores a run.
    NOTE: Had the BR somehow been retired after touching 1st base (WITH R1 ALREADY BEYOND 2nd BASE), THEN THE APPEALED OUT ON R1 WOULD BE A FORCE OUT BECAUSE A FOLLOWING RUNNER WAS “NOT RETIRED ON A FORCE OUT” AND THEREFORE NO RUN WOULD SCORE. 
    THIS IS THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF 5.09(b)(6) and the rule itself (though maybe not intended) actually relieves the umpires of the “burden” of having to know the EXACT LOCATION of each runner when a force out and a separate base-running infraction occur during the same play.

     

    In your OP let’s have the BR safe at 1B because the throw was wild but he missed 1B and then continued to 2B as R1 advances to 3B having missed 2B. Does appealing the BR miss first remove the force from R1 and his miss is no longer a force?  Wendelstedt says no. If the force existed at the time of the miss it’s a forced base appeal. Was the following runner put out on a force play or is an appeal put out different?  I would currently rule as per the Wendelstedt interp. A second appeal of R1 would be a missed force base for the third out and no run would score. 

  18. 1 hour ago, Richvee said:

     

    FED - During delivery, he may lift his non-pivot foot in a step forward, a step sideways, or in a step backward and a step forward, but he shall not otherwise lift either foot

    NCAA - The pitcher shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in the actual delivery of the ball to the batter, the pitcher may take ONE step backward or sideward and one step forward with the free foot. 

    OBR - He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in the actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take ONE step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.

    What am I missing?

    Why does MLB allow this?

    At what level, if any, do we start enforcing this?

     

     

    See here where I wonder if MLB would allow a square windup pitcher to do that: https://umpire-empire.com/topic/76678-how-many-steps/?tab=comments#comment-401582 

    thanks for compiling the video. 

     

  19. 34 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

    Mr. Jimurray, I hope you are not implying that under OBR a pitcher cannot step laterally during his delivery. If you are, then you are wrong. The OBR rule concerning the steps allowed was changed in 2006/2007 to allow a lateral step. I could cite from every single manual but that does not seem to persuade anyone anymore. So here is a cite posted by one of our resident experts in July 2019—and a link to that thread--

    “Concerning the step to the side as the pitcher commits to pitch, make sure that this step is led by the heel and/or side of the foot. If the toes lead the way, consider it a step to the base, which is exactly what it will look like.”

    https://umpire-empire.com/topic/72812-legal-or-illegal-pitch/

    Please delete your post because it is misleading to our regular posters but even more importantly it is hurting our lurkers and newbies. We must let the world know how “woke” and virtuous we are!

    My post is about the number of steps not the direction although Garcia does step to his front and back and then to the plate and the rule still only references forward and backward. Even before the 2006/2007 rule change we allowed the free foot to step to the side. I have no problem with Garcia's delivery and wonder if MLB would allow a square windup pitcher to step forward, then backward then forward again with first step giving no advantage. 

  20. Great job by Luis Garcia HOU pitcher tonight, Sat., 10/22/21. I only ask because a year ago I encountered a bunch of NCAA anal sycophants literally enforcing a new NCAA rule regarding the pitcher's steps. Would any of you literally enforce the OBR rule of one step forward and one backsword for this sideways pitcher considering that forward would be toward 3B for this sideways pitcher. Would you enforce it for a square windup pitcher? This is a rhetorical question. 

  21. 2 hours ago, Guest Visitor said:

    I think the MLBUA could easily stave off the move if they were willing to hold their members accountable.  We can all name the MLB umpires with the poorest performances, they're very well known. If the union would create a merit based system instead of a seniority based system, the concern would be diminished significantly. 

    It can happen in my neck of the woods in HS.  Most of the time they both know who's coming and want ones strike zone. They don't get to decide who has plate. WE do. Close knit group, we know our partner is lights out, I mean he really is great and I'm just good. He gets plate. It goes both ways. Most games we both nail everything. Rare occurrence is PU has  a bad night. But regarding MLB, wouldn't they have the best evaluating tools, training and improving tools to take one of their umpires from poor performing to better performing? Or do they just say you sucked?  Based on my pilot training experiences most student pilots would improve with instruction but a few would not respond well to that instruction. So is MLB giving remedial training to the guys that are substandard if they have a substandard grade level?

  22. 2 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

    Just refer to Señor Azul’s response( Oct 14) and you will have the right answer. As he stated we are right and the others are wrong. Unless they can show us a current MLB interpretation, which evidently they cannot.

    I would have to ask @Senor Azul to check his latest BRD to see if Carl Childress communicated with Wendelstedt after we had a thread here in which Carl disagreed with the WRIM interp. I have a hazy recollection that Carl may have changed his "Appeals, Order of" to reflect the WRIM interp in some later BRDs. For sure in 2011 Carl cites PBUC, circa 2000, that forced order of appeals matter. So there have been changes to the interp over time but I'm going with the WRIM 2013 interp and I won't be springing for a new book. I would suggest @TOMUIC spring for the latest WRIM and see what it says. It's a good purchase anyway and will enhance your rules knowledge.

  23. 36 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

    You might be talking about the same thing I caught out of the corner of my eye, not totally focused on the game. 8th inning I think, I was thinking what was that. But no replay. You are not wrong. A throw is not required. But the reason for no throw should be hindrance as opposed to no play. Video would help.

    I caught some video and it was not the occurrence I glimpsed. Not a good night for Laz. 

×
×
  • Create New...