Jump to content

Jimurray

Established Member
  • Posts

    5,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Posts posted by Jimurray

  1. 1 minute ago, Senor Azul said:

    The first part of the current 5.06(b)(4)(G) Comment entered the rule book as part of the Notes—Case Book—Comment section in the back of the 1951 rules. It was exactly the same as it is today—

    In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stands.

    APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.

    All the rest of what is today’s comment entered the rule book in 1976 and it was simply added to the end of the previous part of the Comment. Then the text (the exact same as today’s text) from the Case Book was added to the rule book proper in 1978. So for 45 years there has been no problem with the rule.

    Until we get some who reads all of the rule with which there has been no problem, but then reads the comment which has a problem we ignore.

  2. 3 hours ago, Richvee said:

    Never ever ever start in the dirt. The infield grass/dirt line is the line of demarcation. If the grass/ dirt line is where F 6 is playing, stay inside him in normal C. If F6 is way in that’s when you can move back to the grass/ dirt line. This lets you get into position for plays at any base with just a few steps. 

    If F6 is playing the normal "in" he usually is right at the grass line or will be there as the pitch starts. I like to be next to him in deep C. Normal C is where he usually ends up on a dribbler when he charges and I don't want to be trying to get out of his way. Always an eye on F5 for a possible pick from F1 and if the pitch gets to the catcher I am taking a step or two to be ready for a backpick, an eye on F5 helping there also.

    • Like 1
  3. 1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

    From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (pp. 61-62):

    When it is a time-of-throw (TOT) award each runner is awarded two bases beyond the base occupied by the runner at the time the throw originated (left the fielder’s hand).

    The lead runner is always the first runner awarded his bases; such runner is never awarded three bases to allow a two-base award for a following runner.

    Example: TOT Award (second play)

    R1, one out, hit and run. A grounder is batted to the second baseman, who tosses to the shortstop, but the runner beats the throw and is safe at second. The shortstop overthrows past first: the force try at second is a play, so the throw to first was a second play, and the award is TOT. R1 awarded home (he had occupied second at TOT), batter-runner to second.

    The OP has read the rule, which he cites, but actually is concerned with a sentence in the comment: "The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call" It doesn't make sense and we ignore it as a glitch in the writing of the rules.

  4. 42 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

    This is a cop out and I hate this statement with every fiber of my being.   Any ump who says this is almost certainly shirking their responsibility. Even U2, who certainly knew the situation, wasn't aware that IFF had been called.

    So, the players are supposed to know it's an IFF, even if nobody says so, or it's not widely evident that someone said so, or the call comes really late, and just stay on their bases.

    And if the umps don't call IFF and the runners just stayed on their bases, then getting forced out, then the players were supposed to know they're supposed to run...because nobody called IFF.

    Which is it?

    Even if everyone knows the situation they are lost without knowing the umpire's judgment...an IFF is only an IFF if the umpire says so.  Less than two out, check.  R1/R2, check.  Pop fly to an infielder, check.  Could be caught with ordinary effort, check.  What does the umpire think?   Haven't heard anything.  As a runner and fielder am I required to take my eye off the ball and look at all four umpires in hope to find one who's calling IFF.  Do I sit back on my base and just hope the umps "get it right"?   

    Every player at every level knows that a ball that lands three feet right of the right outfield foul line is a foul ball...they know the situation.   To the point where most outfielders will just let up and jog to the ball - it's "obviously" foul (you know, so obvious that at many levels the umps don't even say anything)...Only to realize that the umpire is in fact pointing fair.  (real world example of something that really happened...and without exaggeration...if anything, I'm being generous by saying only three feet)

    Knowing the rule book cold doesn't help you a single bit when you don't know the umpire's judgment....or you assume wrongly about their judgment, no matter how out of whack it may be...because, by rule (MLB replay rules aside) an umpire's judgment cannot be wrong.

    The only defense we have is clear communication of said judgment.   And when that doesn't happen (even if the explanation is completely legitimate for why it couldn't happen - including loud crowd noise) don't blame the players for not knowing the situation.

    U2 knew as soon as he called the force out that he messed up and it was an IF. What we don't know is if he was aware of U3 or the PU signal. His time call would have been correct using a BRD J-R interp if he thought no one signaled an IF and a DP resulted. That interp, no IF called, DP,  has the batter out and runners back on TOP bases. 

  5. 17 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

    As far as I can tell OBR is the only code that has an interpretation allowing a base runner to return to the vicinity of his original base after a dead ball. Here are the actual rules and the OBR interpretation found in the 2016 BRD (section 466, p. 311):

    2019 NFHS rule 8 SECTION 2 TOUCHING, OCCUPYING AND RETURNING TO A BASE

    ART. 2 . . . A returning runner shall retouch the bases in reverse order. If the ball is dead because of an uncaught foul, it is not necessary for a returning runner to retouch intervening bases. The umpire will not make the ball live until the runner returns to the appropriate base.

    2019-2020 NCAA rule 6 Immediate Dead Ball—Runners Return

    SECTION 2. The ball becomes dead and base runners return when:

    a. A foul is hit that is not caught. Runners return and the umpire shall not put the ball in play until all runners have retouched their bases;

    2019 OBR rule 5.06 Running the Bases

    (b) Advancing Bases

    (1) In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order. If forced to return, he shall retouch all bases in reverse order, unless the ball is dead under any provision of Rule 5.06(c). In such cases, the runner may go directly to his original base.

    (c) Dead Balls

    The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when:

    (5) A foul ball is not caught, in which case runners return to their bases. The umpire-in-chief shall not put the ball in play until all runners have retouched their bases;

    OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  (1) The ball becomes dead after a foul. All runners must return to the VICINITY of their original bases. If runners attempt to take advantage of the “vicinity” allowance, the umpire should require that they retouch their original bases before the ball is put back into play.

     

    So you see, Rod, there is no penalty for not returning to retouch your base provided by the rules. In fact, the burden is on the umpire not to make the ball live again until all runners have returned to their time-of-pitch base.

    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.

  6. 38 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

    Does anyone know if U3 verbalized this...we see him point...then we see PU point (presumably because he saw U3's signal)...but it's quite evident that U2, R1 and R2 were not aware...not to mention the defense who played for the force rather than tag.  Goldschmidt seemed to realize right at the end that it was an IFF, but judging by his reaction to the force at second, he wasn't aware at that point...I think he finally noticed U3 pointing (or maybe even saying something) right at the end.

    I see two options - U3 didn't verbalize...or he was drowned out by crowd noise.   Am I wrong to expect a pro ump to come up HUGE with this call?   A non-verbal signal isn't good enough here...the players are looking at the ball, not the umpires.

    Ending this play with only one out is the right thing to do, but frankly, IMO, if IFF is communicated properly, loudly and in time, those runners stay on first and second...otherwise, R2 is tagged out by about ten feet at third.

    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.

  7. 48 minutes ago, umpstu said:

    9-1-b-3) When the pitcher starts the delivery from the set position and the entire free foot or any part of the stride leg breaks the plane of the back edge of the pitcher’s rubber, the pitcher is committed to throw or feint a motion toward second base or pitch to home plate

    To me it looks as if his non pivot foot goes behind the rubber and he throws to third.

    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. 

  8. 37 minutes ago, umpstu said:

    His non pivot foot cleared the rubber.  He did not step off towards 2nd with his pivot foot.  

    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. 

  9. 2 hours ago, umpstu said:

    Not arguing about the OP.  To me on this Jeff called a balk because he did clear the rubber and then threw to third.  When he cleared the rubber he could only feint or throw to second or pitch.  At least I believe that's the rule.

    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.

  10. 32 minutes ago, Velho said:

    And U2 is certainly quoting Lady Macbeth at the moment.

    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

    • Like 1
  11. 10 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

    Right.  Thus my response.  You asked "Did Morales wait to signal," I responded that he did not, as he'd had his arm up well before the ball came down.  I can't speak to MLB/MiLB proper technique, but MY teaching has been what you described - point and say "infield fly," adding "if fair" if there might be some doubt to the ball's status.

    He didn't wait but took a little time to process but less time than the PU.

  12. 3 minutes ago, Matt said:

     

    I have confirmed that the mechanic in the manual intentionally differs from the pro mechanic as they felt letting play continue was the better choice. (And made it clear that I don't agree during that discussion...lol.)

    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. 

  13. 4 hours ago, Catch18 said:


    It was a great on-time call by Morales (U3) Go watch Gil’s video. He signals immediately.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    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? 

  14. 27 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

     

    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. 

  15. 13 minutes ago, Guest Ted H said:

    So a coach walking from the 1st base coaches box can stop at the mound, on the way to the dugout, and not have his team charged with a visit? Still not seeing it in MLB

    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.

  16. 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.

  17. 8 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

    I'm not sure I understand this...if action is relaxed, but the play/ball is still live - no ump has called "time" or otherwise killed the play - the defense can still just step on third and say "he left early".  They don't need to step on the rubber and step off and all that.

    Do you mean if action relaxes, the ball goes back to the pitcher, he steps on the rubber and then goes through the appeal process...with time never called (like what happens at most non-pro levels)?  That makes sense there...if he then plays the runner he loses the appeal.

    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.

    • Like 1
  18. 7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

    As I understand it, dead ball appeals aside, I believe in FED they would still be allowed to appeal because it was the offense that initiated the action - is that right?

     

    Besides that, I'd like to see the circumstances around time being called...it may have been allowed a little too quickly, as it seems several players on the defense were calling for an appeal to third, very shortly after the throw from the outfield, but by then the play was dead.

    If the play is still live, it's moot.

    The interesting thing here is, even if they stuck with making the appeal, R3 likely scores, making it a tie game anyway.   It's a low risk scenario for the offense.   Arizona was outcoached by Houston.  They tell their runner to go...F1/F5 should have been told "if this happens" step on third then go for the runner - this would, frankly, be the same thing if R3 had just simply returned to third - like on a pick off attempt...F5 may have been tempted to try to tag him out first, then touch the base.  

    If anything, R3 should have left REALLY early...just go for the steal.

    Whitey Herzog did this back in the 80's as well.

     

    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. 

    • Like 1
  19. 4 hours ago, SH0102 said:

    Wow, used to have respect for Azul, no longer.  My 14 year old son knows to respect fellow umpires and not talk poorly of them to others.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...