Jump to content

Jimurray

Established Member
  • Posts

    5,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by Jimurray

  1. But what do we have to prevent the 89' lead after a fair fly is caught and time has been called to an appeal on a previous runner as might happen in this sit, which luckily no one has had to deal with and hopefully in the future won't have to. Or even when any time is called other then a foul ball. luckily no one has pressed that issue.
  2. If you were in the coach box and that pop was hit that high wouldn't you be saying "stay on the base." While Miller says Eddings was unaware he somehow realized that he had called an improper force almost right away. Maybe F5's path to the ball generated some doubt in the PU, U1 and U2. A verbal might have helped the players in the immediate vicinity but even in high school coaches have missed my verbal due to noise. I don't put much stock in my verbal being heard or noticed even at my levels.
  3. That would be breaking the plane while still in the air. The pitcher was committed in this case to feint which he did with a feint to 2B with, as you say, a step clear of the rubber. He then became an infielder. But you were talking about the pivot foot. What has changed your mind regarding the pivot foot. .In my mind I don't know why the balk was called by rule but maybe we don't have enough info which will probably not be cleared up by MLB. There is plenty of that going around as exemplified by Miller explaining that Eddings didn't know the IFF had been called when calling a force out yet a second later realizing it was not a force because he now telepathically realized it was an IFF and he effed up so he called time. We all eff up. MLB less than us but they do. Do not rationalize their eff ups. Learn from them or if they result from current MLB umps not knowing the rules consider maybe that some of them have not taken umpire Doug Harvey's advise.
  4. Where the trail/pivot foot goes doesn't matter. As per Jim Evans at a clinic, a legal step toward a base that can be feinted to is a legal disengage. Either Nelson perceived no step/clearance to 2B or we don't know his reason for the balk.
  5. If you say he cleared the rubber and stepped to 2B then he became an infielder and could run to 3B. The step qualifies as a feint if it cleared the rubber.
  6. The quote should be an IF, no force, is an IF, no force, is an IF no force. After seeing a MiLB or might have been MLB guy call a force out at 3B quite a few years ago I added a non verbal no force after my IF call and trained new guys to always tell themselves no force when calling IF. I think another call like that happened again either in college or MiLB in more recent memory which further reinforced my resolution to marry IF with no force
  7. He didn't wait but took a little time to process but less time than the PU.
  8. He did signal before the ball landed so he wasn't waiting for fair or foul.
  9. It seems that way. No review possible but why not come out and ask Joe what he had with the possibility of getting with the crew.
  10. You might advise them that in rewriting the rule in 2011 they added the actual MLBUM interp wording that kills the play if the runner is tagged out.
  11. I see a signal when the ball drops. I was under the impression that we still point and signal when the IFF is possible with a ball near the foul line and add "if fair". Did Morales wait to signal until the ball was fair and is that the proper technique?
  12. Too much too process at this late hour but it’s possible some of this crew will not be in the post season. U2 does not recognize an IFF and calls an out on a failure to tag up and then calls time. PU who knows what he was doing. U3 does give a late signal. Still need slomo to really judge what happened.
  13. It's not actually in the rules. Other codes don't charge a visit and most of us at the amateur level would probably rule the same in an OBR game. But I think the pro interp is that counts as a trip.
  14. But ain't. Watching, distractedly, NYY-BOS tonight 9/24. I look up and see the rabbit, Joe doing a shuffle to get where he needs to be. I'm thinking, Joe you need to retire. Then, in the T9, he walks into a perfect spot to see R1 come off 2B on the steal for an out which was not even taken to replay. BTW it does not seem Covid is an issue in that stadium.
  15. If the continuous action created by the batted ball ends, action has relaxed, they can appeal with the live ball as you say. But a throw out of play or a play on a runner at that point would negate any further appeal. After R3 was safe they could continue to play on other runners and even play on R3 if he went home and still be able to appeal. But once action was relaxed any play or throw out of play negates an appeal.
  16. If F1 continued with the appeal throw after his arm fake had R3 stumble they probably would have gotten R3 after F5 caught the throw. So if put in that position the defense should not take rubber until he is immediately ready to throw to 3B. R3 should book it home as soon as the ball is put into play. The question is how much of a lead do you allow R3 when you put the ball in play. The only requirement for a retouch is after a foul ball but I think we would extend to any dead ball if someone tried an 89’ lead.
  17. I think @Senor Azul was facetiously implying that our resident experts, me included, were saying that 4 MLB umps got it wrong and possibly we are wrong in saying that. But I only am saying that 1 umpire, U2, did not call time as the MLBUM interp directs and that then caused a lot of confusion which the crew correctly sorted out. They might even had recognized that time should have been called on the tag and thus you then have bases loaded with no outs. CCS rationalizes the runner placement with some round about reasoning and doesn't seem to be aware of the MLBUM interp. CCS usually does not admit to errors and in this case they may have actually marked a comment as spam that points out their error with worthwhile cites. I don't even know if I would be quick enough to apply the MLBUM interp in real time. Even in the WS obstruction call the home plate umpire called safe instead of time and later said he should have called time. Stuff sometimes happens quick. I think @Senor Azul still questions whether the MLBUM interp is correct.
  18. NCAA is different than OBR but it might be without a difference. OBR specifies an intervening play at the plate with a following RLI. NCAA references any intervening play with any interference before the batter touches 1B. I’m drinking strong coffee this am but I can’t concoct any other play in NCAA where that wording would apply other than the equivalent OBR play.
  19. Like I said, Referee has been wrong before but that is not an aspersion. I’ve been wrong before. What it is saying is that we don’t know if all those guys wanted to emulate the OBR rule and mechanic or only wanted to emulate the rule and specifically wanted to change the mechanic. Them having reviewed the manuscript seems to indicate that they did only want to emulate the rule and found fault with the MLBUM interp. While we can see that an immediate time call on a tag can eliminate confusion maybe NCAA wanted to continue as to get more outs or runs. Or they were not aware of the MLBUM interp or glossed over the review.
  20. A now marked as spam poster on CCS confirms that he was trained to call time when the runner was tagged as early as 1997 and Jaska - Roder had that in their manual. The interp to call time definitely existed in my 2004 PBUC. Whether Rapuano was aware of the interp we don’t know. Stuff happened quick and maybe he was late in processing it. It does show why the interp might have been developed, to avoid confusion such as happened.
  21. Upon reviewing my MLBTV replay there is one angle that shows a definite step off by F1. There was no balk. Initially F1 faked a throw to hold the runner which is not a play and the ball could have gone to 3B as an appeal. But then F1, now legally disengaged, ran at the runner which is a play so when the ball went to F5 touching 3B we no longer have an appeal.
  22. It was initiated by the offense but if the defense had not reacted and threw to 3B from the rubber we would have a valid appeal. But by reacting to the offense and feinting to 3B do we have a balk?
  23. Looks like it developed into a feint and thus a balk. If he had immediately thrown to F5 touching 3B I think that appeal would be obvious and ruled on even if F5 immediately threw to HP to get the current R3. The ball ended up with F5 at 3B but they did not consider that an appeal so then you have a balk for feinting to 3B.
  24. For those lurking and @Senor Azul I did some further digging. NCAA changed their obstruction rule back to the pro rule in 2011 and referenced emulating the pro rule as they had prior to 2004 in their 2012 preseason guide. We don't know if they wanted to emulate the pro mechanic from the PBUC/MiLBUM/MLBUM interp regarding Note 1 but NCAA did actually copy that into their rule. That note would not be necessary if you say it applies only to a single runner on the bases. A tag of that runner would comply with all play ceasing. An clarification of the original wording of when to call time appears in my 2017 MLBUM. The word "exception" was added sometime between 2012 and 2017: "The ball is not dead, however, and the umpire will allow all play to continue until all play has ceased and no further action is possible (see exception in NOTE (1) below)." But further reading of the interp manuals will bring up play 6 in the "Obstruction and Interference Plays - Approved Rulings" which has been there at least since my 2004 PBUC: "(6) Runner on first base, no one out. On a hit-and-run play, the batter hits a fair ball down the right-field line. In rounding second base and heading for third, the runner from first collides with the shortstop and falls down. Because of the collision, the runner is not able to advance to third base and returns to second as the ball is being thrown back to the infield. Had the runner not collided with the shortstop, the runner would have easily advanced to third base. Ruling: Obstruction is called when the collision occurs, but the ball remains in play because no play was being made on the obstructed runner at the moment such runner was obstructed. “Time” is called when all action has ceased, and the obstructed runner is awarded third base because that is the base such runner would have reached had no obstruction occurred. The batter-runner would also be placed at the base such batter-runner would have reached had no obstruction occurred (either first or second, depending on the umpire’s judgment). NOTE: In this play, if the runner from first had been thrown out going back into second base, the umpire would call “Time” the moment the runner is tagged out. The obstructed runner would then be awarded third base (assuming that is the base such runner would have reached had no obstruction occurred), and the batter-runner would also be placed at the base the batter-runner would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, had no obstruction occurred." We don't know if NCAA wanted to emulate the rule and the mechanic or just the rule and use a different mechanic but NCAA put the actual Note 1 verbiage in their rule. We do know that the Referee Study Guide is not an official NCAA publication and they have been wrong before.
×
×
  • Create New...