Jump to content

Matt

Established Member
  • Posts

    4,312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    94

Posts posted by Matt

  1. 4 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

    Maybe I'm just lucky, but there have been a number of times where a pitcher TRIED to throw a pitch when I wasn't ready, or fully in my spot, or trying to get my mask back on - but none have ever gotten to the point where they THREW it.  Why?  Because I simply STOP THEM from doing it.

    I know that sounds dickish, they way I'm writing that.  It's what it is, since it seems fairly obvious.  But what I mean is, most of us that umpire have this thing called a voice, and usually, one or more arms.  So if I see the young man (and let's be honest - it's generally the younger and/or less experienced players that do this) starting to make his motions behind the plate, I'm putting my hands up and hollering something to get him to stop.  I guess "No pitch!" is the favoured way, but I've been known to just say "Hang on!" or "Dude!" in that sitch.

    I'd love to know how it got to such a point where not only did ANY of the pitcher/catcher/batter combo not realize the ump wasn't there to begin with, but the pitcher went all the way through his set or windup AND delivery and didn't screech to a halt on his own.

    (But to specifically answer the question:  nothing would happen that would count in the game.  Pitcher might throw it, batter might hit it, but it means nothing.)

    I would like to know that, too. 

    However...

    ...if it happens, I don't agree (nor necessarily disagree) that it means nothing.

  2. 10 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

    And the home plate umpire IS NOT behind the plate?  Logic will tell me "no", the ball couldn't have been in play, but ...nowadays, ...who the hell knows! :crazy: 

    Why not? Rotation after a base hit, one umpire, there's plenty of times the ball is still in play without an umpire in the vicinity of home plate. I've worked many games were the ball was only put out of play by foul balls and/or hit batters, and I definitely was not planting roots at the plate.

  3. 18 hours ago, Razzer said:

    I guess I know who bought them as he contacted me today to referb them...lol

    Probably out of sorrow at the results of yesterday's football game. Had he decided to join me, he would have made enough money to pay for the upgrade.

    • Haha 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

    This rule existed since at least 2013, my bold:

    8-5-j. "The individual fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags the runner or the base after the runner has been forced to advance because the batter became a runner; Exception—No runner can be forced out if a runner who follows in the batting order is put out first. However, if a runner is put out during live action, it does not remove the force on any runners who might subsequently be declared out for a running infraction."

    The dangers of having multiple (old) email threads on related topics...

    So, there were multiple questions being asked in those emails, and there was a conflation of two plays. The bolded is correct.

    Now, the question is if I want to bring up some logic that was mentioned in those emails...well, I'll bring up one bit: The existence of the force out being defined at the time of the miss was not started by Wendelstedt; it was them concurring with Evans that it should be how it is treated, so it was not original in 2013.

  5. 1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

    Beer guy is properly applying 5.09(b and by the way the current interpretation in OBR is that the order of appeals DOES matter!!

    There has never been an order of appeals question in anything you've asked.

  6. 5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

    I don't know what the NCAA rules were back then but the current rules would make that advantageous fourth out a force out. Where NCAA differs from OBR is if it was 1 out and the batter missed 1B also appealing him first in relaxed action would make the appeal of missing R2 2B not a force any more.

    I'm not so sure. The email was from 2014. I don't think anything has changed. 

  7. I'm going off memory here, but I'm thinking of an email chain about ten years ago I initiated that had Jim Paronto and Jim Evans (I can't remember if Hopkins was involved.)

    I posited a bases-loaded situation with 2 out and a clean double with BR attempting to stretch it into a triple. R1 misses 2B. The play naturally plays out with BR being thrown out at 3B.

    The defense then appeals R1. Under the OBR interpretation, no runs score because it was a force at the time the base was missed, and it's a favorable fourth out. Under NCAA, the out on BR negates the force, so only R1's run is erased.

    That NCAA enforcement makes literally no F*#King sense to me (and my choice of words are intentional because of how strongly I feel.) The offense can choose to play for an extra base AND save all but one of the runs even though they were the violators. The BR can negate a force situation at a base they've already passed. Miss a forced base? Everyone might as well keep running, because there's no risk in doing so. 

    • Like 1
  8. 3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

    It is, indeed, an odd interpretation, and my humble opinion is Wendelstadt has simply outsmarted himself...overthinking it and overcomplicating it.

    Because, now, an umpire needs to determine if the base was missed just before or just after the batter/runner (or another forced runner following the forced runner that missed the base) was put out .   It certainly would be much simpler for everyone (and supported by the letter of rule) if it didn't matter...if the batter is out there are no forced runners anymore.  Same with forced runners and preceding forced runners.

    Having said that, that would then make order of appeals important.

     

    Sure, I guess there could be a way to game it, by cutting across the field and "missing" the base earlier, but that would also take a lot of clairvoyance to know the forced runner/batter behind you will be put out first, not to mention a lot of silliness, and general incompetence by the defense.

    I think this is simpler. I just need to know what the status of that runner was when the infraction occurred, tuck it into my brain, and officiate the rest of the play. 

    This is also probably just a matter of how minds work, too, but this approach makes so much more sense than having the force removed on something that occurred on a different runner after the infraction.

  9. 8 hours ago, Vegas_Ump said:

    Looking way too deep into this one!

    Once the BR is retired at 1B, the force on any and all other runners is off.  R1 was forced to run to second when the batter became a batter runner.  But once the BR is out, no other defined force plays are possible.

    Yes, R1's running violation is appealable for the third out.  But now any scores are timing plays.

    Mike

    Las Vegas

    Incorrect. In OBR, a force is determined at the time the base is missed and no play on any other runner has any bearing.

  10. 4 hours ago, noumpere said:

    That could be one way to interpret the rule.  It's not, I don't think, the current OBR interp.

    It is. It's in the RIM I got this year, as I said in the other thread. This has not changed. 

  11. 1 hour ago, Tborze said:

    But, once he engages and all other requirements are met, the ball becomes live whether you declare it or not. 
    I once called a whole game without technically putting the ball back in play.  Hmm maybe I should inform my association the game is invalid? 

    No, that does not make the ball live.

    And you should probably get better.

  12. 18 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

    OBR 5.09(b)(6) Revisited 

     

    Loaded bases, 1 out. Batter bunts and the 1st baseman makes a diving attempt and fields the ball cleanly (on one hop). By the time he touches 1st base, barely retiring the batter-runner, R1 has missed and passed 2nd base, while R2 has stopped between second and third, not sure if the ball was caught in flight. NOW if the ball is thrown to third,  R2 MOST CERTAINLY HAS TO BE TAGGED TO BE RETIRED ( no one would argue otherwise)!

    Yet, many here say that R1 would be considered forced out if he was called out on appeal for missing 2nd base! So, in essence, we now have the lead runner (R2) NO LONGER FORCED, yet the runner immediately following him (R1) is still considered in a FORCE SITUATION! (WOW)

    So let’s carry out this play to its conclusion. Say the 1st baseman’s throw to third to retire R2 is wild, allowing R2 to cross the plate as R1 advances to 3rd ( without ever  touching 2nd base). Now the defense appeals and R2 is called out for missing 2nd base for the third out.

    Now the popular thinking on this thread (other than SENOR AZUL)  is  that the appealed third out in this play is a  FORCE OUT , BECAUSE OF “WHEN” THE RUNNER MISSED 2nd BASE, hence nullifying the runs scored by R3 and R2. Once again, this line of thinking has the lead runner no longer “forced”,  and yet another runner (from an immediate following base) still considered in a force situation. Somewhat “faulty” thinking?

    However, if one simply applies OBR 5.09(b)(6) on this play, then the out on the BR at 1st base (considered a force) simply removes the force on R1, REGARDLESS of WHEN R1 actually misses 2nd base.

    Conversely , “ if a following runner is retired in a manner OTHER THAN ON A FORCE PLAY, “THEN THE MOMENT THE PRECEDING RUNNER MISSES THE NEXT BASE DOES MATTER ”,  WITH REGARD TO WHETHER AN EVENTUAL APPEAL AT THAT BASE RESULTS IN A FORCE OUT OR NOT.

    I have never attempted to claim that the MOMENT a forced base is missed is inconsequential. Rather, I am attempting to point out, as 5.09(b)(6) clearly does, that A FORCE OUT ON A FOLLOWING RUNNER RENDERS THAT MOMENT A MOOT POINT.

    Can one of the admins change this user's name to Don Quixote?

  13. 22 hours ago, The Short Umpire said:

    Yes, it was in person at a private auction. It was in really good shape. Some of the straps could use replacement on it but the leather and plates were great. It also came with the matching shin guards. 

    So, I happen to know who got it. I think it may have been able to go for less, but he's got...personality.

  14. 6 minutes ago, Recontra said:

    I respect your opinion, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I got a balk on a "live" ball, not a "dead" ball. I put the ball in play when I thought all the conditions existed. It's got nothing to do with ethics, punishment. I got a live ball, and you've got a dead ball. That's essentially the difference in the way we umpired the play.

    But, since I see where this thread is going (sounds like the same place the 2-3 previous threads went), I'm willing to just drop it and go on my misguided way 🙂🙂 No offense is intended, so I hope none is taken.

    It's not live. It never met the requirements for being live. And to answer your questions, if I realize that I had somehow made the ball live when it should not have been, I do call time and make it retroactive.

    • Like 4
  15. 1 hour ago, dumbdumb said:

    See if Tim Tschida still has his and make an offer. at least a picture on getty images showed him with one.

    I don't know if he still has it, but I may be able to find out depending on my schedule.

  16. 3 minutes ago, Guest CRC said:

    OBR (Pony)

    With a runner at second the defense changes pitchers.  The defense attempts a hidden ball trick.  The 2B has the ball.   I am not sure if the pitcher was standing on or astride the rubber or if the umpire actually pointed play.   The 2B shades to the bag acting as if he might take a pick-off throw.  He then tags the runner (who has now led off) and shows the ball the base ump.  The home plate umpire calls a balk.   

    The Defense's coach (who appeared not to have called the play - he was annoyed with his team) says that the ball was still dead as the umpire couldn't put it in play properly.   Play not live = no balk possible.  The umpire did not agree and the runner moved to 3rd. 

    I believe the defensive coach was correct.  If the umpire mistakenly puts the ball in play shouldn't he just kill it and start over?  Or can he allow the balk to stand since he put it in play?  Are there rules or interpretations that support one or the other action? 

    The defensive coach was correct. There are requirements to put the ball in play and it is in violation of that rule to put it in play without all of them. Without the ball in play, there are no balks nor plays on runners.

×
×
  • Create New...