Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


afaber12 last won the day on November 25 2014

afaber12 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

151 Neutral

About afaber12

  • Birthday 04/22/1983

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Sydney, Australia

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

7,506 profile views
  1. I'm relatively new to doing junior games, so I'm still getting used to players doing the unexpected. Even simple things like runners overrunning bases, and fielders not knowing to tag runners that do it. So a play caught me by surprise the other day in a game I was supervising - in our local junior league the younger age groups tend to be umpired by junior umpires who play in higher age groups, and when they do, there needs to be an adult supervisor - and though there was no question about the play from anyone at the time, I'm wondering if perhaps a call should have been made that wasn't. Modified OBR (though the mods don't apply here), R1, less than 2 out. Fly ball caught by F8 coming in and towards RF. F8 throws to F3 to try and double off R1 who had stopped 1/3-1/2 way towards 2B. R1 gets back to 1B before F3 caught the ball while standing on the base. However R1 ran through the base by a couple of steps, and then returned to the base. F3 never even attempted to tag R1. My initial thought at the time was that R1 retouched 1B ahead of the throw and so was safe on the "appeal" for leaving early, but that since they'd reinstated the force by going past 1B they were out when the base was tagged. Then I thought that couldn't be the case because BR was already out on the caught fly ball, so there was no force. I'm fairly confident that the runner was correctly called safe. But it got me thinking: R1 and R2, less than 2 out. Fly ball to the outfield. Both runners leave their bases but hold partway to the next base waiting to see if the ball is caught or not. It is caught, and the runners return. Ball's thrown to 2B. R2 touches 2B before the fielder catches it while standing on the base, but the runner overruns the base. With only the tag of the base and not the runner, is R2 out? Could R2 be out, but only if he heads towards 1B, rather than directly on 3B-2B-extended?
  2. Short, maybe not sweet, but certainly simple. If you've just ejected someone and you have any doubts over whether you're right or not, you're probably on the side of the angels if the guy's coach is mad at him and not you. For anyone reading this and thinking, "Ok, so he said 'You're terrible', but it was pretty quiet. I'm not sure that I would eject there." I hope you'd at least respond with some type of warning, because doing nothing will encourage it to happen again, either in you're game or the next umpires' game. And though I agree that the volume of a potential ejectee's comments is worth considering, also keep in mind that the batter here was already drawing attention to himself with the slow walk/stare combo, followed by a bat gesture then the comment. Even if it was only the batter and the hero of the story that heard it and the catcher was somehow out of earshot, chances are everyone knows that something is going on, and it won't be just the geniuses who'll correctly work out the batter disagreed with the call. Whenever there's actions that go along with the comments, the volume of the comments stops being a factor in my eyes.
  3. afaber12

    Wide ball

    It depends on the judgement of the umpire at the non-striker's end. If the batsmen moved before the ball was released, then it is less likely to be called a wide as the bowler likely adjusted his line in response to the batsmen's movement. If the batsmen moved to reach the ball it will likely be called a wide. Regardless, the batsmen can still be stumped if the ball is a wide.
  4. I could imagine someone that throws a lot of 12-6 curves or sinkers, or at least a lot of low pitches, getting an advantage from an extra infielder; they'd tend to get more ground balls so shoring up the infield would be helpful without as much risk of fly balls finding gaps, though in some ways the outfielders are playing "the gaps". Obviously with a righty at the plate you put the extra fielder on the right side if he throws fast for the level of play, and lefty at the plate you have a slow thrower. Could also be a loopy, slow pitcher which could also induce plenty of ground balls and popups and not so much other stuff. I know there could be uses for it - if the big boys can put on shifts then it seems unlikely to be completely pointless - but you're right that it would seem a little unusual that if having the extra guy on the right side of the infield is the way to go for either a right-handed or left-handed hitter, that it would also be right for a hitter on the other side of the plate without some fairly specific scouting.
  5. It'd be one of the least common reasons to eject someone, but its also got to be one of the easiest to write up in the report. Also nice that, though the pitcher was clearly unhappy and expressed his unhappiness with the situation, it didn't seem to be directed at the umpires. Always look for the silver lining.
  6. ​... which is unless the thrown ball's trajectory is altered by an intentional act by the runner, interference should not be called. Just like with running lane interference: if the batter-runner interferes with the throw while outside of the running lane then he's out, but only when both things occur. If he'd been running in the lane and the throw hits him in the back he's fine. If he's outside of the lane but he doesn't hinder the play - or there's no play being made on him - he's fine. In the OP if the runner makes an intentional attempt to hinder the ball's ability to reach the intended target of the throw but fails, that's nothing. If the runner hinders the ball unintentionally while otherwise behaving as a runner should, that's nothing. It's only if the runner makes an intentional act to hinder the ball and actually hinders that he should be called out for interfering.
  7. ​While I could agree that runner's can't intentionally attempt to interfere with a thrown ball, there is no penalty if the attempt is unsuccessful. The rule in the context of this play requires that the runner interferes with the thrown ball intentionally. I suppose you could argue that the runner's wave of his hand in the vicinity of the ball impacted on the aerodynamics of the ball's trajectory through the air, but to me that would be like arguing that a pitcher didn't come to a complete stop - or after stopping he started and stopped again - before pitching because he was still breathing and his heart still pumping. Unless the ball's path is impacted, I don't think you can call interference here.
  8. ​I've never had anyone offer any differing advice on that situation. In an apparently obvious situation like the OP its probably not a big issue, but it'd be a good idea to be careful about how you word the response to the coach's question. "I can't call the runner out until you appeal properly" would be less than ideal. "If you believe the runner [missed the base/left early], then you should make a proper appeal" doesn't give any info away regarding how you - or your partner as the case may be - would rule, without you just standing there like a statue waiting for the pigeon to arrive.
  9. The line he drew was the vertical line in the letter "E". Had he been allowed to continue, he would have completed the whole message "E-J-E-C-T M-E".
  10. Thankfully I've only had to call UI on myself once, but technically it wasn't me that was hit. Working solo from behind the mound - yes, I know - standing shallower and straighter than you would in a normal C position with a rightie pitching. Come-backer up the middle that I almost got out of the way of, except the ball bag on my right hip had enough inertia because of the spare baseball in there to stay where it was and got hit. Went close one other time in a 2-man with R1 & R2, liner at my head in C. Hit the deck and turned to pick up the ball about 3 milliseconds after the ball went in F6's glove. PU helped me out and called the catch - I was fairly certain it was caught but glad PU took the call - I called R2 out when F6 stepped on the bag to finish the inning with the double play. Wound up having to explain to a couple of people that we'd called two different outs rather than the same out twice.
  11. Per OBR 7.09e (I'm sure there's similar wording in other rulesets):​ ​If he does something in addition to running the bases, then there's the potential for the umpires to call interference, resulting in the runner that was being played on - and who's play was hindered or impeded by the runner already out - being called out. From your description, you didn't say if your second baseman actually tried to tag either runner. To call interference in this type of situation there has to be some type of play attempted on a "live" runner. If the fielder just stands there looking from one runner to the other with a confused look on his face, that does not count as an attempted play, so I would say no interference. If the other runner could have been tagged out before getting back to the base, so seemingly had a choice between a lead runner and a trailing runner, why didn't he go after the lead runner?
  12. ​There are times when waiting to make a call are appropriate: fielder taking a tumble to attempt a catch, tag play at a base with a sliding runner, puff of dust and fielder on the ground, any time when the status of the ball is uncertain. You're ready to make a call, you're just waiting on that last bit of information to confirm or counter that call. Interference isn't one of those calls. If anything, the more uncertain the status of the ball is - was it caught or not in this case - the more likely there was interference. Also I don't think from the description you can say that this "smelled of a triple play". Ignoring the technicalities of the dark arts that spring from the quasi-mythical Rule 10 that suggest even as it played out it wouldn't be a triple play, it seems just as likely that the hindrance caused F6 to fall, resulting in R1 & R2 being unsure (or at least less sure) whether the ball was caught. If that's the case, maybe both have enough time to get back to their respective bases ahead of the overthrows that were also mentioned. Sure there might have been a triple play without the interference, but the ball could have also been thrown out of play resulting in 1 out, 1 run scored and a runner on third. Call the interference, call the double play if the ruleset and judgement allows. Don't wait and see.
  13. The OP's description seems to suggest the contact between F6 and R2 occurred either concurrently or at least in close proximity to the ball being caught, but this isn't always the case; sometimes the hindrance occurs when the ball's at the top of a very high arc, high enough that the fielder can recover and catch the ball. Interference on a fielder doesn't require that the play is prevented from occurring, only that the fielder was hindered in attempting to complete it. That the F6 fell to the ground suggests that he was hindered in making the play, as without the contact maybe he stays on his feet and is in a better position to attempt to double/triple off the other runners. The OP mentions that there were overthrows in trying to do that - though they made the plays eventually, perhaps the first would have been simpler without the contact, which in turn may have made the second easier. On BI and CI there's specific provisions that if they are met result in ignoring the interference. Those forms of interference are delayed dead balls because there's the possibility that they'll be ignored. There's no such provision for a runner interfering with a fielder: the ball is dead when the interference occurs. If you judge that the fielder wasn't hindered - which I suppose is theoretically possible but seems pretty darn unlikely - then don't call interference. If you judge that the fielder was hindered, call interference, don't wait to see and judge how hindered they were.
  14. ​I'm assuming the first incident has a typo and that it was the VT batting not the HT - usually ACs aren't silly enough to complain about outs they got that they think they shouldn't have. At that one it needs to be acknowledged somehow: what you said is fine, but using "judgement calls" instead does cover you for everything rather than getting into a childish argument on "you warned me about safe and out, not balls and strikes, or fair and foul". (On that, you shouldn't have to but at some point a base coach will complain you only warned about chirping from the dugout, not from the coaches boxes.) You said he yelled the trap v catch comment: depending on volume, distance, who else likely heard, any gestures that went along with it, maybe a chat with the manager to settle his assistant down might have been worthwhile, but that's HTBT. Given the previous warning, the screaming from the dugout at the second incident needs something. If its worth going in the report, it was probably worth at least a "Knock it off/That's enough!" at the time. You've already warned him so an ejection here isn't ridiculous, but again it depends. If I hadn't spoken to the manager on the first incident, I'm definitely speaking to him on this one. If you're not going to do it right then and there, the next change of inning, pitching change, or other break will do. At this point the assistant is on the thinnest ice possible. Once the assistant's ejected I'm not responding to him. At most I'm telling the manager to get him gone. As long as the manager comes out calmly I'm prepared to explain there were multiple warnings and then get on with the game, but otherwise he's on a short leash too. When he starts counting bad calls, he's either got a thread left to his leash if he's calm, or he's following his assistant. I'm of the opinion that you don't change the amount of rope you give depending on how confident you are in the call. Whatever you did and didn't see is what you've got to decide, and working solo there's no one else to check with because everyone else has a dog in the fight.
  15. ​Hey, its not the chest protector's fault that its wearer, who correctly called nothing on the throw because that's something that shouldn't need a "That's nothing", for being talked into a "balk" of all calls. Especially when you consider that any catcher's box that may have been previously marked appears to long be history, and if that was part of an intentional walk it was the most unintentional intentional walk I've ever seen. Although if you're going to use an outside protector, worth considering having a cheat sheet for any tricky rules you struggle with, such as which player and in what circumstances may not throw to an unoccupied base.
  • Create New...