Jump to content

Matt

Established Member
  • Posts

    4,322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

Everything posted by Matt

  1. So, I happen to know who got it. I think it may have been able to go for less, but he's got...personality.
  2. 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.
  3. For all those "umpires" claiming that there can be a balk without the ball being in play... Do they balk every pitcher who stops their motion when the umpire calls time? Do they balk the pitcher waiting for the ball to be put back in play when he steps off with the wrong foot?
  4. I don't know if he still has it, but I may be able to find out depending on my schedule.
  5. Yes, please. I'd like to compare the condition of mine to it.
  6. 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.
  7. He didn't deviate, and he was going towards the base (he started outside.)
  8. I'm pretty sure I've worked with that instructor, as that sounds exactly why I started doing it about ten years ago. I have not had an escalated ball/strike argument from the defense in that time.
  9. No, they aren't (hell, Azul wasn't even following what was being discussed and was talking about order of appeals, which is irrelevant to the OP.) And in what you posted here, the run does not count as the appeal of R1 was a force out, as the force was in effect when he missed the base. It does not matter if BR was put out before or after 1B; it only matters if they are put out before or after R1 misses 2B. A forced-base miss will always be a force-out appeal. And the RIM interpretation is from the one I got this year, so it's not some outdated concept.
  10. I'm going to say this to be blunt, a wake-up call, or whatever... Just like in this thread (supra) you've been missing the salient issue presented in several conversations. It's not a matter of not being persuasive, but you're off in right field while we're making a decision. The problem lies in that you have posted relevant information until recently and thus have the glaze of authenticity. I would suggest going back and responding to those threads where you've messed up instead of throwing a pity party.
  11. Given your description, your umpire was probably correct. Given their explanation, they were correct for the wrong reason.
  12. Yes. It is not a caught fly ball--for the purposes of baserunning, a foul tip is treated the same as any other strike (with one exception not relevant here.)
  13. I could care less, and my opinion would be the same if I was an umpire at a level where this would happen.
  14. Exactly. In the OP, both the second and third outs would nullify the run.
  15. is not consistent with That does not say that any move or step towards second is an attempt.
  16. You are incorrect. The RIM specifically says that the appeal out in the OP is a force out--when a missed base is a forced base, the force cannot be removed (unless the runner corrects the infraction.) Since both outs 2 and 3 would nullify the run, it doesn't matter the order.
  17. This is incorrect. There has to be an attempt to go to second, which is judgment. A step in itself may or may not be an attempt, and it is possible to step towards second or turn left and have it not be an attempt.
  18. Your point is incorrect for OBR. The RIM interpretation I cited says the moment matters.
  19. Might not be. However, plenty of MiLB games are worked with 2 umpires...just saying.
  20. Matt

    OBR ORDER OF APPEALS

    I'm in class and don't have my manual handy, but this is only correct for NCAA (and I think FED.) Wendelstedt says that a runner's status on appeal for a missed base is that at the moment the base was missed, so the second appeal is still a force out and no run scores.
  21. The rule isn't referring to intent in talking about advancing/retreating--it's defining it based on the runner's position. Think about this--if a runner does that under your interpretation, they can come off the bag in this manner and move to either 3rd or 1st. If the runner had never touched 2nd but merely stopped in the same place in this example, we would have no question that they could not advance to 3rd legally and that if a force at 2nd existed, it was still on, thus the only base they could have acquired is 1st. Allowing them to come off the bag in this manner and advance to 3rd creates an inconsistency in application. I also have a hunch that is why "both feet" is part of the definition--to minimize these instances. However, we can't ignore the rule when it includes such plain language that was obviously there for a reason.
  22. I would say all balls are dead when they become dead.
×
×
  • Create New...