Jump to content

Richvee

Established Member
  • Content Count

    4,763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    73

Everything posted by Richvee

  1. Richvee

    3 Batter Minimum

    Or maybe just leave the game alone? I think it wAs Verducci who did a study and determined this rule actually effected fewer games than one may imagine and the time savings is ridiculously small.
  2. So glad for Chris. He certainly put in the work. I’d love to know what happened in 2016 though.
  3. Richvee

    3 Batter Minimum

    https://baseballrulesacademy.com/the-three-batter-minimum-rule-and-the-injured-pitcher-loophole/ So if this is correct, if a pitcher comes in with 2 outs in the 7th, retired a batter, he doesn’t have to start the 8th inning. However, if he does start the 8th, he must pitch to 2 batters to satisfy the 3 batter minimum. Can somebody explain how this speeds up the game? another great part of this rule... if a starting pitcher comes out to start the 7 the inning, and the offense puts in a pinch hitter to start the inning, the starting pitcher may be replaced. However, if a relief pitcher didn’t pitch to 3 batters in the 7th , comes out yo start the 8th, and the offense pinch hits for the first batter, that relief pitcher must stay on the game. Sorry, but this rule is a crock of $h*%.
  4. I think it's about time Chris Segal gets one of these full time openings.
  5. It was a question in the on line clinic. I got it wrong. As evidenced by the length of this thread I wasn’t the only a little confused. The question the online clinic posed is, "what should the count be on the hitter after going to video review". I answered 2-2. They say the correct answer is 2-1. Unless it's written somewhere that they changed the interp here, they're saying this is a "do-over".
  6. The difference in FED is with r3 stealing and CI, there’s no balk, but any stealing or forced runner gets to advance. So the only time all runners don’t advance is r2/r3 , r3 stealing home and r2 doesn’t move. Hence, this FRD rule is AKA “ the dumb R2 rule”.
  7. Nothing visible to us on TV. However, both catchers were holding pitches way too long on ball calls. At different times neither looked happy with the calls. I can’t tell you if either bench was giving him crap, but that said, Vanderbilt from what I’ve seen over the past few years, can be pretty “chatty”. I watched the game, and it looked to me like the batter dotted the spot where he thought the pitch was, then dragged it back. I’m not passing judgment on a D1 umpire doing the plate on a big stage nationally televised game. Watching it live, I thought it was a worthy EJ. BTW, I thought his zone was spot on all night.
  8. I'm just a little dubious of a safety authorization on a baseball. I mean, I understand it on a helmet, chest protector, etc... But a baseball?
  9. Is there somewhere the NFHS said this rule change is for safety? From what I can see, this is not a safety compliance change, it's a consistency change.. Rationale: To maintain a consistent and uniform standard for high school competition. To ensure every baseball meets the same level of quality and playability If this was a safety issue, I'd assume the rational would be worded more along the lines of ":To ensure the safety of all participants".
  10. Richvee

    Tag-up questions

    Evidently none of your 25 year vets took the NCAA test this year, as that was a question this year. It was also on our NJ high school test this year.
  11. Thanks for the kind words Kev. The best part of this question is, it's #1 on the test. Twice I opened the test, read this, and closed it.
  12. My professional opinion is stay away from such an endeavor. You may learn to use the more dominant eye and suppress the sight of the "progressive eye" , but that will play games with your stereoscopic vision and hinder you depth perception. I would not recommend it.
  13. Keep in mind "transitions" are lenses that get dark in the sunlight, then lighten up indoors. "progressive" are lenses that let you focus at any distance from far to near. Two different animals often confusing for consumers. If you go to an optician and tell them you want transitions, you may not be getting the progressive you thought you ordered. You can get progressive transitions..but I degress... Bifocals have 2 focal points..One distance and one for reading. Bifocals create what is known as "image jump". When you look through the top at an object, and then move your eye to the reading area, the object will "jump" due to the change in the power of the lens. With progressives, this is eliminated. It's a smooth change of power from distance down to the reading , thus eliminating the image jump, and giving you clearer vision from distance right through to near vision. I have never worn a bifocal myself, but I would imagine it would be terribly difficult to track correctly with that segment line right below your line of sight. As far as doing the plate in progressive lenses...I don't have a problem. There's a corridor in a progressive lens. As your eye travels down the lens, you clear vision is nearer to you. The top has your distance Rx, the middle of the lens will let you see clear at 18-24", the bottom has the "full" reading power and allows you to see close up stuff. I have learned to angle my gig line in the slot, so with a RHB, my head, shoulders, torso are actually angled slightly towards F4, (or F6 with a LHB). When I'm looking straight ahead, I'm looking at home plate and F2's mitt. I then raise my eyes to see F1. I can then track all the way, with my head not moving and perfectly straight, looking through the center of my glasses when the ball reaches the zone. It took a lot of practice, and I still move my head a little too much at times. As @Kevin_K will attest to. If you can read a lineup card without the glasses, you may want to try distance glasses for plate work, as @LMSANS does. For me, that's not an option any more. I can't see close with distance glasses on, and I can't see close even if I lift up the glasses and look close with no Rx. (I can thank my astigmatism for that). It's a trial and error thing, but I'd give the progressives a shot behind the plate. Just try the angle...head straight directed at the zone, then raise the eyes to F1 and track with head still, eyes moving down the lens from top to middle as you track the incoming pitch.
  14. Again. That’s the same situation. It’s the dance. Same applies to pitchers taking a long time. As long as F1 hasn’t started his motion ,I will grant the batters request for time.
  15. Interesting. If I have a batter request time, as long as the pitcher hasn’t started his delivery, there’s a 99.9% chance I’m granting it. I don’t know if he has something in his eye, a gnat just flew in his ear, he has a cramp or itch, or if he’s just uncomfortable. Just like if the pitcher feels uncomfortable or something, he can step off. If it’s to break the pitcher’s rhythm?? If the pitcher is working at breakneck speed, the batter has a right to get set. To me that’s part of the game. Part of the dance. Most times players set the tempo of the dance. Sometimes pitchers are to quick, and I need to help control the tempo somewhat. In those cases I’ll grant time to let batters get set. What the coach said prior had no bearing.
  16. So basically, NFHS came out with an interp that directly contradicts a rather straight forward easy to understand part of rule 3-1-4b.
  17. Sorry, but FED seems to be double talking here. You can’t CR for a P or C/ DH, because when he bats, he is not a pitcher or catcher, but a DH. Essentially they’re telling us he 2 separate players. Now they say he’s virtually allowed in and out on defense as often as he wishes because he remained in the game all the while as the DH, so he never really left the game and coming in and out numerous times on defense doesn’t qualify as re- entry. So in this case, he is indeed ONE player. I don't think you can logically have it both ways. They seem to be MSU as they go. However, just like some other FED interps I’m not fond of, I’m there to apply the rules, not make them.
  18. I was pretty sure it was something like that.
  19. You use both? Which do you prefer?
  20. 2015 BRD PAGE 7 OFF INTERP 1-D4: FETCHIET: If no NCAA rule or interpretation exists to cover the situation, the umpire should adopt the OBR rule or interpretation. ( phone call to cc, 11/27/01
  21. One of the unnecessary rules differences, IMO.
  22. Great question. Off to work so no time to look through case plays, though I can't recall ever seeing one like this. I'd side with a force out. Just because I'm not a fan of TOI runner placement.
  23. 1&2 no run scores. 1. no runner can advance on interference unless forced. IOW had there been one out, r3 would go back to 3b even if he touched home before R1 interfered. 2. No run can score with 2 outs if the BR doesn’t reach. 3. I’m assuming R3 touches home, R2 3rd, R1 second, BR first, and then BR walks off the field? Then score the run.
×
×
  • Create New...