Jump to content

tldavis19

Members
  • Posts

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tldavis19

  1. @Dragon29 there wasn't obstruction, the runner had plenty of plate to access without getting near where the catcher was trying to field the ball.
  2. The offensive coach didn't want his player ejected because he didn't start it. He may not of started the fight, but he 100% participated and earned his ejection.
  3. @Jocko 11/12 year old
  4. That's probably the best reference for the situation. I was just hoping there was something that specifically mentioned fighting so I could have something to reference.
  5. Top 3rd no outs runners on second and third. Batter hits a grounder that the 2nd baseman misses. runner from third is safely home and the runner from second hesitates and comes home. The catcher is standing on home plate when the throw comes in high over the catcher's mitt. The runner comes in standing up and contacts the catcher. I didn't think it was malicious, just contact. I call it nothing and the catcher falls to the ground having been in the air trying to catch the ball when the contact was made. The catcher gets up and begins trying to tackle the offensive player (which I have to admit I chuckle at now because the catcher was maybe 5'0" on a good day and the runner was in the 5'8"-5'10" range and twice his size). The catcher ends up wrapped around the offensive players ankles trying to bring him down and it was on. The taller kid ends up on top of the smaller kid pushing his face into the ground. At that point the coach for the offensive team finally arrived from the dugout and pulled them apart at which point I ejected both players.
  6. @bam Yes they do lol @cyclonehokiece and 15 yards right? sorry, couldn't resist. I have searched .pdf's and can't find the exact rule to back myself up on ejecting both players other than they were both participants in the fight.
  7. tldavis19

    Quick question

    I had a fight in a rec Cal Ripken game last night. I ejected both participants in the fight and one of the coaches asked for a rule cite as to why I ejected both players. I know in FED you eject both participants and anyone who leaves their position/dugout except for a coach trying to break it up. I'm not sure what the exact ruling is as far as participants go in Cal Ripken. Also, is it an out for the rest of the game when that player's spot comes up in the lineup regardless of whether or not the team has 9 or more players?
  8. Verbalize to whom (and how loud)? If your partners back is to the ball he needs to know either way -- just a conversational "that's a catch, Tom" on the routine fly. So my partner knows to stay with the play and not to pull up. I may not be explaining myself well, but it always seems to work well and there's never any confusion between me and my partner.
  9. He's gotta lean into it for me or be really crowding the plate. The pitcher has no business inside the batter's box and the batter will get first if he's where he's supposed to be and not moving into the pitch. I view "permitting the pitch to hit him" as he's hanging over the plate trying to get the ball to hit him and gets plunked on the elbow. He's staying in the box for that. It's all in our judgement, so call what you see. I probably would've given first on this.
  10. Trust yourself and your zone. Honestly however bad you may feel or not locked in, your zone is still your zone. What you're calling strikes, they need to swing at. Now don't get ridiculous obviously, but don't fret over borderline stuff. Just use your judgement and make the call. Don't let people confuse you or make you doubt yourself. Self doubt is your biggest enemy when working in the field. Having said that, I ascribe to the "eyes at the top of my zone" mentality. I lock in where I want the top of my zone to be and if I have to look up at the pitch, it's a ball. Plain and simple. If it's at my eye level, It's a strike. Use your eyes. Find ways to make things easier on yourself. Don't make it harder than it needs to be by over thinking what you're doing. Trust in yourself you must. A great Umpire you will become, if believe you do.
  11. I make sure I pregame verbal signals as well as non-verbal. I want my partner to know exactly what to listen for should we need a verbal signal such as "I've got third" or "I've got a catch/no catch." Also how to handle if a coach comes out for an explanation or asking us to get help in addition to what will happen should we dump a coach. If it is cloudy we will also pregame weather precautions and discuss if it is supposed to rain what we look for before we suspend the game. My list looks like this: 1. Fair/foul responsibilities 2. foul off the batter 3. Catch/no catch responsibilities 4. check swing 5. Signals (verbal/nonverbal) 6. D3K signal 7. IFF signal 8. Asking for help 9. Should we have to dump a coach 10. rotations 11. Tag responsibilities 12. Run downs 13. What we know about the teams as far as pitching and tendencies 14. weather conditions (if these apply) 15. Prayer When you say, "I've got a catch/no catch." What do you mean? Do you mean you are taking responsibility for the fly ball? Or are you saying the ball has been caught or not caught? the ball has been caught/not caught. Situational awareness should tell him and me who has responsibility. I'm just making sure he knows what to listen for when I do or don't have the fielder catching the ball. If I'm BU and don't hear "that's a catch", I've got the ball down, but that's what pre-game is for. I'm the other way around. If you don't hear anything, I've got a catch. Trouble balls that are caught I will verbalize. I always verbalize non catches. Like you said, that's what pregame is for lol
  12. Verbal Interference - FED 2.21.1.A Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes, obstructs, impedes or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.... You could dump the coach under 3.3.1.g.4. It might be a stretch. Anytime a pitcher makes a move on the mound people scream "Balk!", so it may be tough to say he did it to intentionally confuse. Ok, ..assuming the above here ..... If you DIDN'T dump the coach based on 3.3.1.g.4 being a stretch as conbo61 says ..... the only other thing you could do would be to warn him or restrict him, but ...because you have INT, you'd have to put R1 back to first, yes? (no, I don't have a book on me ) I'm 99.9% sure, just checking If you have INT you have to get an out. I think the references are 3-3-1o and 5-1-2d Who do you get the out on?
  13. I was wondering where the x-ray vision came from lol. If Carlson did actually see this, I would love to know how. The catcher appears to totally block his view from this call.
  14. I make sure I pregame verbal signals as well as non-verbal. I want my partner to know exactly what to listen for should we need a verbal signal such as "I've got third" or "I've got a catch/no catch." Also how to handle if a coach comes out for an explanation or asking us to get help in addition to what will happen should we dump a coach. If it is cloudy we will also pregame weather precautions and discuss if it is supposed to rain what we look for before we suspend the game. My list looks like this: 1. Fair/foul responsibilities 2. foul off the batter 3. Catch/no catch responsibilities 4. check swing 5. Signals (verbal/nonverbal) 6. D3K signal 7. IFF signal 8. Asking for help 9. Should we have to dump a coach 10. rotations 11. Tag responsibilities 12. Run downs 13. What we know about the teams as far as pitching and tendencies 14. weather conditions (if these apply) 15. Prayer When you say, "I've got a catch/no catch." What do you mean? Do you mean you are taking responsibility for the fly ball? Or are you saying the ball has been caught or not caught? the ball has been caught/not caught. Situational awareness should tell him and me who has responsibility. I'm just making sure he knows what to listen for when I do or don't have the fielder catching the ball.
  15. http://m.mlb.com/video/v31970597/?query=cubs New plate collision rule in action. I like the spirit of the rule, but right here I think it might have been misapplied. The plate wasn't blocked until the catcher had already received the ball. This wasn't reviewed, but upon review I do believe the runner would have been safe anyway as you can see the ball come out of the glove and into the bare hand before the runner contacts the glove. The bare hand never touches the runner with the ball. The PU was totally blocked from this hence why I say he would've been safe on review anyway.
  16. Is it just me or does it seem that these plays are far more numerous so far this year than normal? or are we hearing about them because of replay?
  17. you must admit this is different than what's been seen before It is but I think it has been made more than clear they need to have secure possession in the throwing hand for it to be an out. totally agree! that being said though ..... THIS SCENARIO could cause issues w/ the new interpretation because it doesn't take into account what happened in this play. F9 had this for 5 or 6 steps, clearly AND securely Yes for a few steps then ran into the wall, therefore making his interaction with the wall part of the catch process then dropped it on the transfer. He ran for a few steps, but never completed the process of the catch. If he ran for a few steps and just dropped it, it still would be not a catch. The steps don't matter, it's the act of getting the ball to the throwing hand and making a clean exchange.
  18. These figures a little on the high side. Of course different areas do things differently. I was able to get up and running with good equipment under $500 including my state dues. Look for sales and things of that nature and you can get away with good stuff without breaking the bank. Also, some sites offer starter packages that include everything you may need including the smaller things for an overall discounted price. Searching will be your biggest ally.
  19. That is actually interesting. Does this not apply to catchers? or would it have been overturned had it been reviewed? Strange.
  20. when you say "attempts a squeeze" do you mean a bunt? A bunt can never be an infield fly according to 2-19-1. As far as the call, umpires call IFF as a courtesy to remind fielders and runners of the situation. @Matt is correct in that it is the players and coach's responsibility to know the situation and how to act accordingly. Since this was NOT infield fly, you had an out at home on the tag of R3, an out at third on R2 (force) and an out at second on R1 (also a force). 3 down, time for the next half inning. Explain this to the coaches and learn from it.
  21. I think just merging the topics is enough. No need for a sticky, once the newness of this ruling wears off there won't much left to discuss.
  22. I don't think it's so much that they hate outs as it is they hate lazy players. You pay a guy millions per year, he should be able to get the ball from one hand to another. I'm a die hard Rays fan and I knew as soon as Zobrist dropped it the safe call would be upheld. Players are going to have to pay more attention to what they're doing and not take some much for granted. Earn your millions.
  23. There has to be a rule change or something we don't know about regarding transfers from the glove to the hand. We're 3/3 on transfer replays going against the fielder. No way it's just a freak coincidence.
×
×
  • Create New...