SoCal Lurker

In a Pony Bronco game with R3, my son was pitching and saw F5 flash the subtle pick to third signal. Alas, F5 was just scratching an itch, not giving the signal. (Ahh, 12 year old boys!) So as my son makes his move to third, F5 just stares at him, not moving toward the bag; caught in mid motion, by son threw to F5 and was balked for not throwing to the bag. So, if I understand correctly, my son legally could have: stopped his motion to third, thereby making a legal feint (unless the tournament was applying the new third base balk rule); thrown at third gently and hoped F5 would move quickly enough to catch the ball. Anything else he could do (and do I have any of that wrong)? Thx SCL

Assuming that the ball was not in the strike zone. (I wrestld with how a check swing plays out with "unless . . . The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball" -- I guess the check of the swing is an attempt to avoid the ball.)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130525/umpire-expresses-regret-on-botched-call.ap/?sct=obinsite Umpire's comment . . . .

at 1:10 I think he gets the plate when he slides off from the shinguard -- if I had to make the call from that view, I'd have him safe -- but nowhere near clear enough (IMO) to reverse or to say it's a "bad" call . . . with one look at high speed, there's no way to expect the ump to be able to discern that when the first and best contact was with the shin guard.

On the first one . . . it looks to me like Trout's hand was behind the bag by the time the tag is made . . . looks to me like a tough angle to see that the hand missed the back corder of the bag . . .

Looks like one was called and one was a foul from the color on my monitor . . . Reminds me of an old story, forget which umpire and player it was supposed to be back in the olden days. "Ball one." "Ball two." "Strike one." "You've gotta be kidding me . . . it was exactly where the first two were." "Are yous sure?" "Yes, I'm sure, exactly the same." "Well then, Ok . . . strike three, yer out!"

I think some missed the completely tongue-in-cheek nature of my post -- I thought the icon made it clear . . . I posted the blog only b/c I thought it was hysterically funny that someone though that play was any evidence to support expanded replay . . .

I think the goal of the rule change was to eliminate the third-to-first move. In figuring out how to achieve that goal, I think they decided what made most sense was simply to treat first and third the same -- no fakes -- and not make the rule more complicated. It's simple, and all the permutations of what it looks like have been worked out -- lefties and righties are just opposites on first and third.

about these umpires who keep blowing calls? http://mlb.si.com/2013/05/22/mike-trout-cycle-missed-call-umpire/?sct=hp_wr_a4&eref=sihp

It's a judgment call. Most likely a double. If, in the jugment of th official scorer, the reason it hit him in the stomach is that his misplay (muff) on the ball made it happen, it's possible that it could be an error. but much more likely to be properly ruled a double.

As a daddy observer, where it is brutal is one-man youth games -- oblivious obstruction is almost routine by some of the lower skilled players, but difficult (and sometimes realistically impossible) for the lone ump to see with multiple runners.

Of course he did . . .

I thought all LL permitted the board to do on ejections was increase the suspension to more than one game? Is my memory wrong?

What is the evil of donuts? (Other than the fat contetnt, of course. )

At the risk of sounding snide, is the moral of the story for batters that if the catcher moves in front of you on a steal of home, take a swing at him? (I have trouble concluding the catcher didn't gain an advantage by getting the ball before it crossed the plate -- he went after it that way because he thought it would give him an advantage to get to the ball sooner and be in a better position to make the tag when he got the ball. But being a lurking, non-umpire, I'm not going to opine on whether that should mean the CI/Balk call should be made. Seems to me that anytime we talk about book call versus common sense, we ineherently open a can of worms and have a problem that cannot have a crisp answer.)

Often, but not always. In my limited career as a daddy-coach, on the occasions I asked, which were uncommon, it was so I could talk to my catcher about targets. I never found any upside in arguing balls and strikes, or any other judgment call for that matter. (OK, I confess, I yelled once -- startled, mostly, when F5 blatantly (albeit perhaps obliviously) obstructed my runner who was trying to make the turn at third, and I blurted "C'mon, that's obstruction!" from the dugout more loudly than I would have liked. U turned and took a step towards the dugout when play ended, and I simply said, "Yeah, I know, there was a play going on at first and you've got no chance to see that play at third with one ump, we're all good." And U was fine. [And no, I did not start teaching my F5 to deliberately obstruct knowing the call would get missed . . . .])

You had the right idea in the OP. You don't know what's a sign and what isn't. This rule is ONLY in place for the quick pitch sitch. Deal with the quick pitch, and forget about where F1 was when he might/might not have taken a sign. If coach complains, tell him he ain't gonna like it if you stop play everytime you think his F1 might be taking some sign when he's off the rubber. Coach to F1: "Throw a strike", Umpire:"Time, coach, don't be giving F1 signs when he's off the rubber, F1 was not on the rubber". Any one of those words MIGHT have been a sign. As many have said, Just forget about this rule. Deal with any quick pitch sitch. And to be persnickety, the rule actually says F1 must take signs from the rubber (which is for exactly the reasons ricka and others have stated); it doesn not say he cannot also take signs elsewhere. (This rule always gets me bitter, as a U pulled from thin air at a crucial point in a playoff game for my son a rule that if the pitcher takes a sign from his coach before pitching it is automatically a ball?!? Changed strike 3 to a ball, that became a walk . . . *sigh*. When in doubt, don't make it up!!) Were protests allowed? I would think there would have been some sort of procedure for a playoff game. No protests.

The league doesn't have ground rules for the field? If it is DBT, then once the ground rules make it DBT, it should be governed by the rule set you're playing under.

You had the right idea in the OP. You don't know what's a sign and what isn't. This rule is ONLY in place for the quick pitch sitch. Deal with the quick pitch, and forget about where F1 was when he might/might not have taken a sign. If coach complains, tell him he ain't gonna like it if you stop play everytime you think his F1 might be taking some sign when he's off the rubber. Coach to F1: "Throw a strike", Umpire:"Time, coach, don't be giving F1 signs when he's off the rubber, F1 was not on the rubber". Any one of those words MIGHT have been a sign. As many have said, Just forget about this rule. Deal with any quick pitch sitch. And to be persnickety, the rule actually says F1 must take signs from the rubber (which is for exactly the reasons ricka and others have stated); it doesn not say he cannot also take signs elsewhere. (This rule always gets me bitter, as a U pulled from thin air at a crucial point in a playoff game for my son a rule that if the pitcher takes a sign from his coach before pitching it is automatically a ball?!? Changed strike 3 to a ball, that became a walk . . . *sigh*. When in doubt, don't make it up!!)

I this what bothered you? C'mon. This is far more thoughtful and aware than most of what gets onto that interweb thing that Gore invented.

It's all about what they are paying attention to. While he should be aware of the IFF situation, which means he should be aware of that call being made, it is apparent his focuse was entirely on his runners. Ever see the bouncing ball/ gorrilla video? His runner was the bouncing balls and your IFF call was the gorilla.

"Plus, with better competition comes better umpires, which means ejections for the bean ball." Really??? Was that needed? I am truly insulted. Not that you will care. @mjr_2013 It has not been my experience that the umpires doing games for the clubs around here are better than those that do LL or PONY . . . limited sample set, but if anyting, in my experience, they have been worse . . .

Err. No it isn't. With only a runner on 1st, the IFF wasn't in effect. (But I agree with you about the misintentioned non-use of IFF.)

This probably hurt him worse than anything you could of said or done to him. It's been my experience that this is the main reason a youth coach looses it during a game or in the course of a season. They put pressure on themselves to coach the all-star team. "If you aint first, you're last" mentality, instead of teaching young kids how to play the best sport ever invented. I've coached A LOT of years, and can honestly say, that when I first began coaching, I felt the same way. Over the years tho, I've come to realize that its more important to teach the game than try and win 'em all. Some coaches will learn it later than others....be patient, some of us grow up. Which is a reason not to simply award the allstar team to the coach of the team that wins . . . kudos to the league for taking it seriously and imposing meanigful consequences.

Maybe the problem was the team's signal to get off second was "balk"