Jimurray

I agree. I was envisioning an obvious left early as in a bonehead or forgot the outs move where the runner is returning to 3B. The throw would then go to 3B.

Who screwed up does not matter. What the umpire judges as an unmistakeable appeal does.

HTBT, College, a throw going home means a not obvious leaving earlier except possibly to F5 and onlookers not involved on the field. So F5 gloving a throw standing on the base and looking at the umpire would indicate an appeal to me. F2 might not have been appealing but F5 still could glove the throw and make an unmistakeable appeal. Not sure he did.

You quoted something he did not say. What he said was "I was dead wrong". Unless he said what you quoted in another statement in addition to the "dead wrong" statement. The other difference is what you admit to. He did not have a foul tip. P

I don't think he said "I blew the call." I would infer from what he did say that he did not origionnally have a foul tip: “After talking with the crew (I was told) the ball did not necessarily bounce, but it hit the ground the same time as (it hit) the mitt,” Wolf told a pool reporter. “After hearing that, then I heard two distinct separate sounds. And after hearing from the crew that the ball did not bounce — it did hit the ground but it did not bounce — I basically talked myself into ‘He did foul tip it.’ ... And after looking at it, I was dead wrong. I talked myself into the whole thing.”

I didn't see a foul tip signal from Wolf. If one of his crew thought Wolf had a foul tip, without seeing it signaled, then it was incumbent on them to give a crew determined signal that the ball was on the ground or he needed to consult with them. It's possible with the noise and everything and his responding to Granderson and Roberts that Wolf did not see an initial signal and after talking with Roberts he turned and saw the magic sign from his crew. But the foul tip story doesn't make sense with what Wolf signaled on the field. Who is saying that Wolf had a foul tip origionally.

Jim, we are going with your call.

So if it wasn't appeasement what was it? Getting it right? OK WTF did guys 90' away convince him of?

I think that would only apply to a batted ball off the batter or a tip that hit the dirt. This belongs to the PU and he got it. He appeased Roberts because Roberts has a great demeanor and one of his crew effed up from 90 plus feet away.

Do not appease.

T7, Cubs LA, 2 outs, 3-2 count. Contreras sets up way inside, gloves an outside strike with a reach. That's a ball. No problem, according to announcers. But if you recognize a deke catcher setup why not call the pitch. Obviously this ump as well as many of us sometimes do not realize it was a deke.

That's because the movement of blocking the plate was not necessary to receiving the throw.

ULF ? LA CUBS B 9 Tuesday

A segue generated by a comment on close call sports: Still, that’s an interesting twist. @ Gil. A normal situation and common practice would would allow the ump to put it in play as long as an 89 foot lead did not exist. But if Judge was safe at 2B and the ball was put in play before he retouched 1B after the dead ball thus having an unfair and illegal lead, while the defense was waiting to appeal or throw him out on his steal of 2B and waiting for the live ball point what would we have:

I see no redirection. I see a legal block in both NCAA 2017 videos and the illegal OBR:/MLB OP which would be legal in NCAA. The redirect video is not the current interp as far as I can tell.

What's not official about Drouches verbal in the explanations of the video on the NCAA website?

I've seen that video. I thought it made sense. It is at odds with the more NCAA video current interps. I might have referenced the conflict in an earlier thread. I think I did screen grabs of similar plays from the videos, intending to post the conflict. Can't remember if I did or just mentioned the conflict a previous post. But, currently, NCAA has made it clear to me and @humanbackstop19 that that is how they want it called. Whether that filtered down to the rank and file, many of whom do not even pay their money to see the info on the site and just depend on their assignor/paycheck's interps to rule, I don't know. BTW, this conflicting interp should not be a reason to not pay your money, not take their tests for any umpire doing JUCO, D1-3 ball. But many do not avail themselves and their assignors don't care. I do know this: Making sense of the MLB/OBR and NCAA rule verbiage is a lawyers dream, except for @lawump.

Game 3, ALCS, HOU at NYY. HOU pitcher Morton puts hand to mouth which has a wad of gum sticking out. He wipes on uni or fingers after. I'm guessing he's done it all season and MLB is good with it but seems strange to me.

From an earlier thread: Jimurray Members 550 3,296 posts Report post Posted June 12 Screen grabs from NCAA rule videos. Both legal as ball is on the way. Catcher can block plate with some body part while the ball is within 60'. That movement of the body part does not have to be a neccessary movement for fielding the ball. Quote Edit Options

Give us a few surprise not on its.

Have you viewed the video interps for this year?

Yes, pay $110 to see it. Allthough some screen grabs or actual videos might exist in threads here.

I segued off your post kind of randomly. I am not defending Darling.

Cubs -Dodgers game two NLCS, fourth inning I think. Fly near the RF line, caught by OF running in. Nosht fair but expected nice crisp fair point from URF. What did not happen was a catch signal or or turn of the head as the OF ran past and exhibited secure possession without a voluntary release. But what if the ball came out without URF looking at the OF. No problem U1 was right there. Still seems strange.

This was not a play with the catcher in peril. This and the NCAA rule were written to prevent unnecessary and violent collisions, primarily to protect catchers. If you read the NCAA rule literally the result would be the same, a violation. Yet, their video rule interps allow a catcher to block the plate with his leg as he receives the ball, the position of the leg not being necessary to receiving the ball. Edited to add: MLB and NCAA need a great legal/umpire, @lawump, mind to revise their rule wording.