SoCal Lurker

I'm not so sure. But first, I recommend against announcing consequences. Just warn, "That's enough!" That allows us to keep our options open. ^^what he said^^

13U travel ball. Right handed batter. R2 stealing. Catcher starts to throw and stops -- batter didn't move. Coach yells at F2to just throw it and hit the batter in the head . . . .

yes indeed I called the BR out at first and the coach wanted to talk about it so I asked what do you have coach and he says safe bc the ball was in his bare hand and he touched the bag with his glove. I said yes you are correct an he says why is he out I said he beat the runner to the bag and it was a force Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk "Well, coach, you want me to give your team the out when your F3 touches the bag with his shoe , don't you?"

Morals are subjective. A lawyer's job is, within the bounds of legal ethics, be a "zealous advocate" for his client. For better or worse, we as a society have chosen an adversary model in which the lawyer's role, by design, is to be single-minded in its focuse on the intrests of his client. The design and scope of the role is different in the U.S. than in many countries -- but the ability of any person to be represented by counsel protecting him was one of the hallmarks of freedom that the founding father's built into the design of the country. That role can be easy to mock and make fun of, but those who need a lawyer to respond to the power of the government sure appreciate it. (Falsifying facts to a court is a serious ethical breach; spinning facts int he most favorable way for the client so that the finder of fact can decide who is right, however, is precisely the role of a lawyer.) Sure there are unethical lawyers, but while it easy to talk about lawyers that way, I don't think you'll find any more unethtical lawyers that you will plumbers, accountants, or (dare I say) umpires. But carry on with the simplistic bashing . . .

I remember that it's only F2 is allowed to have a courtesy runner with 2 out. Maybe it's only my local rule though. I've seen CR rules all over the place. F1 or F2 vs.only F2. Only with 2 outs vs. at any time. Optional vs. mandatory (mandatory I think when I've seen has always been the two out variety). These are the types of rules that really need to be seen in writng to know the exact enforcement. (And smart coaches consider the precise rules in making their batting order -- especially in a "mandaory" league, a smart coach never want slow-Joe batting right before F1 and F2 where he is likely to be a forced CR.

Guessing without looking: Baseball is a game...? But aren't the next words equally important? ...in which your kids stand to make millions and millions of dollars! Well, he would if you guys didn't keep ruining his life, week after week!

As I'm sure you know, that's a local league add-on rule. The applicable LL rule just requires that the runner slide or attempt to avoid contact. 7.08 - Any runner is out when - (a)(3) the runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag; Our local LL has the (stupid, IMO) "must slide" rule. 7.08 (a)(3) should do the job just fine without them needing to meddle with it. Uh, no, it was not. It was simply a gross misunderstanding of the actual rule. Local LL had no modification of 7.08. (And I didn't think that 7.08 was within the ambit of things that local LLs were permitted to modify?)

Sometimes ya just gotta love local LL boards . . .

Last night, Dodger runner was out at the plate (by a lot) when the catcher was set up well up the line on his knees. Mattingly came out, I presume arguing that the catcher should have been called for obstruction -- I thought that was non-revieweable? (Umps were 2 for 2 on reviewed calls for the game . . . .)

Hardly surprised by the fans given the number of youth umps I've heard say one plus one or something similar. Including one who confidently sat down between innnings with parents to explain the real rule.

After reading this forum for years, and the cheap shots at coaches (and Rick), as well as listening to his insights, I'd love to sit him and some of the snarkier umpires down for a rules test . . . my money would be on Rick, who is far from being the snarkiest regular poster on here . . .

?? So the guy on top of the play, designated to call the play, makes a safe call, and you (in violation of the rules of baseball) overrule from 60' away because "it was close enough"?!? If you're going to reverse on a call like that, don't let the volunteer on the field -- either let him umpire or don't let him on the field. Managing it this way makes his job impossible and pointless - and teaches coaches, players, and parents that umpires can overrule one another.

How about from an ump: it's an automatic ball if the pitcher receives a signal from a coach before throwing a pitch. (Cancel that strike out and change it to a ball . . . ) And another ump*: player is out for not sliding at the plate in LL, even if the ball is in the outfield (yup, saw a double play arise from that "rule" when both unchallenged runners failed to slide . . . ) *This "ump" may have been a dad drafted because no ump showed up.

I'm pretty certain the MLBPA and NAACP will join forces and sue the Crew Chief for $15 Million for "assaulting" him (did you see how he touched his neck without any sterile gloves or even in the presence of his lawyer????) Actually looks like he asked before he did . . . which seems wise . . .

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion. But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't. Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention. Nothing the offense did directly affected the defense. The play started with a two-ball count. No matter what happened, there couldn't have been a walk. the defense confused themselves by not paying attention to a black-and-white situation. The difference between this and, say, defensive verbal obstruction by imitating a base coach is that there is a variable at play in that situation--not so with regard to count or outs. Of course it "directely affected the defense." None of the stupidity and confsuion by the defense would have happened if they were not directly affected by the batter improperly going to first. This is not an issue of whether they were affected, but of whether they were unfairly affected. And the Game has decided that since everyone should know the count and number of outs, no one can be unfairly affected by behavior that tries to trick them in that regard. (And, indeed, an alert defense gets an easy out in this situation, so the "trick" is done only with risk.) The ethos of the Game, in this situation, say "shame on you for being fooled," rather than "shame on you for a chickensh!t tactic." But that is not the same thing as saying that ruse did not directly affect the defense -- if it hadn't directly affected them by fooling them into confusion, they would have got the easy out. Nope. The offense indirectly affected the defense. Everything the defense did was their own doing. This is silly, meaningless, and inaccurate linquistic quibbling. "Affect" means to "produce an effect upon," which is exactly what the ruse did. It produced exactly the effect the offense was trying to create. This isn't OK because it was somehow "indirect," it is OK because the defense is charged with knowing the situation and not getting tricked. Relying on the linguistic game is unhelpful because it does not provide any useful guidance in determining what is or is not permissible. (No different in terms of how "direct" the effect is than imitating the base coach -- no less "direct," as each is a calculated behavior to mislead the opponent. The difference is one we consider to be within the spirt of the game, and the other we don't.) Well, you're wrong. There is a difference (which I have already pointed out.) There is no way the offense can replicate a situation requiring defensive action in the OP. In your counterexample, they are replicating a situation, and creating a direct effect. In short, what happened in the OP is all in the defense's head; in your example, it's not. Indirect vs. direct effects play a role in determining the legality of an action. Remember, this is FED. Traditional elements don't apply--but if you use the guideline I have mentioned, you will find that you will be matching the intent of their rules. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." -- Alice in Wonderland I guess you can make "direct" and "affect" mean whatever you want to so that you can work backwards and explain this. Works for you, whatever . . .

There may be a differene between the rulebook answer and what is done in minors. What you described is sometimes jokingly referred to as a "little league home run." Stats aren't meaningful in a LL minors game, so teams do what they want. Errors are so prevalent, than many teams simply ignore them, and just gie the kid whereever he ended up . . so a pop up dropped by a pticher followed by an error at each base so he scores just gets written down as a home run -- wheras in real base ball, it woudln't be a hit at all. But the real answer is what is described: a hitter gets credit for the base he would have achieved in the absence fo defensive errors or plays on other runners. Here, the offical answer is that if he would have been safe at second with a good throw, it's a double; if he would have been out at first, it's a single. And if you just want to make the kids feel good, just write down where they end up and pretend there is no such thing as an error (which at that age can make keeping the book a lot easier . . . ).

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion. But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't. Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention. Nothing the offense did directly affected the defense. The play started with a two-ball count. No matter what happened, there couldn't have been a walk. the defense confused themselves by not paying attention to a black-and-white situation. The difference between this and, say, defensive verbal obstruction by imitating a base coach is that there is a variable at play in that situation--not so with regard to count or outs. Of course it "directely affected the defense." None of the stupidity and confsuion by the defense would have happened if they were not directly affected by the batter improperly going to first. This is not an issue of whether they were affected, but of whether they were unfairly affected. And the Game has decided that since everyone should know the count and number of outs, no one can be unfairly affected by behavior that tries to trick them in that regard. (And, indeed, an alert defense gets an easy out in this situation, so the "trick" is done only with risk.) The ethos of the Game, in this situation, say "shame on you for being fooled," rather than "shame on you for a chickensh!t tactic." But that is not the same thing as saying that ruse did not directly affect the defense -- if it hadn't directly affected them by fooling them into confusion, they would have got the easy out. Nope. The offense indirectly affected the defense. Everything the defense did was their own doing. This is silly, meaningless, and inaccurate linquistic quibbling. "Affect" means to "produce an effect upon," which is exactly what the ruse did. It produced exactly the effect the offense was trying to create. This isn't OK because it was somehow "indirect," it is OK because the defense is charged with knowing the situation and not getting tricked. Relying on the linguistic game is unhelpful because it does not provide any useful guidance in determining what is or is not permissible. (No different in terms of how "direct" the effect is than imitating the base coach -- no less "direct," as each is a calculated behavior to mislead the opponent. The difference is one we consider to be within the spirt of the game, and the other we don't.)

My son played a game a couple of weeks ago where the PU called the first pitch wihtut his mask, which he had left in the stands between games . . . never seen that before, and hard for me to imagine . . . (may have been the same U who mentioned to fans that he preferre doing the plate so he wouldn't have to move as much . . . .)

I forgot to clarify, that would have been the 3rd out. I also agree that kids that young should not be throwing a curve. Whether that is true now seems subject to debate. (I spent some time looking at this a year or two ago for my kid.) While there were some studies that suggested curves were bad for the arm, recent studies suggest that those studies failed to account for pitches thrown -- and it was the kids who were throwing a lot who were also the ones throwing curves. These more recent studies suggest that that it is overuse, not throwing curves that is an issue. There was also a study that looked at arm stress and suggeted that a properly thrown curve ball put less stress on the arm than a fastball. American Pediatrics Assocation, last time I looked, recognized the ambiguity in the data, and recommended puberty (which they descibed as when shaving begins) as the startnig point for curves. Based on the data I could find, I let my kid start learning (but not throw very much) a curve at 12 with a pitching coach that I really trusted to teach him proper mechanics. I foucssed more on preventing overuse and ensuring appropriate rest for the arm (both during season and a significant off season with absolutely no pitching). (But anyone looking out for their kid should not rely on my memory, but should go out and look at the data, includng the APA recommendation.)

that would be the ONLY thing I can think of .... strike zone - same plate size - same your mechanics - same Agreed......and to be honest, the higher you go the less you will ever see any lefty catchers....... Out of the 4 I have seen so far this year I think only one of them would still be playing catcher in HS. As a lefty myself I love seeing lefty catchers and I root for the day one makes it to the MLB level. One caught part of a game in the 80s . . . http://members.tripod.com/bb_catchers/catchers/catchleft.htm

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion. But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't. Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention. Nothing the offense did directly affected the defense. The play started with a two-ball count. No matter what happened, there couldn't have been a walk. the defense confused themselves by not paying attention to a black-and-white situation. The difference between this and, say, defensive verbal obstruction by imitating a base coach is that there is a variable at play in that situation--not so with regard to count or outs. Of course it "directely affected the defense." None of the stupidity and confsuion by the defense would have happened if they were not directly affected by the batter improperly going to first. This is not an issue of whether they were affected, but of whether they were unfairly affected. And the Game has decided that since everyone should know the count and number of outs, no one can be unfairly affected by behavior that tries to trick them in that regard. (And, indeed, an alert defense gets an easy out in this situation, so the "trick" is done only with risk.) The ethos of the Game, in this situation, say "shame on you for being fooled," rather than "shame on you for a chickensh!t tactic." But that is not the same thing as saying that ruse did not directly affect the defense -- if it hadn't directly affected them by fooling them into confusion, they would have got the easy out.

Well, all kinds of $%@#$ happens when umpires have inadequate training or dedication to understanding the game . . . I watched a BU call a runner safe at first and the PU overrule him in a PONY Regional tournament. WTF?!? (Protest to on site tournament director that umpire can't overrule another was denied on the ground that judgement calls can't be protested.)

The more likley it is to repeat, the more risk you take by not letting him know. (And ya know what, he might have gone home and looked it up, too.) Best case is to not be wrong in the first place. But I think you get real credibility by letting him know you not only care enough to check, but you have enough confidence to let him know that you made a mistake. (Note: if the mgr is a screaming $%$%#$, I wouldn't go there, but that's a different discussion.)

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion. But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't. Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention.

As a baseball dad, I find that whether umpires actually put the ball in play consistently in teh first inning is a pretty good indicator of overall performance for the whole game. Not perfect, but pretty good . . .