Jump to content

maven

Established Member
  • Posts

    8,699
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    306

maven last won the day on September 21

maven had the most liked content!

3 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

12,364 profile views

maven's Achievements

5.2k

Reputation

98

Community Answers

  1. Interference by a retired/scored runner. The ball is dead, the run counts (had he been ruled safe), and the runner who would have been played on is out. No. Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. Play the bounce. Same rulings, all codes.
  2. In the stretch, the hands must be apart. When set, the hands must be together. When F1 checked 1B, he didn't move his hands. So it wasn't a move to come set.
  3. Some associations use Arbiter or other online services and get paid through them. If Arbiter pays an official more than $600/year, they're required to submit a 1099. And, although still not a W-2, it's a form reporting income to the IRS and so functionally similar.
  4. Welcome! I wish I could be more positive, but you're mistaken. Checking the runner (moving from "A" to "B" and back) is not a motion to come set, and nobody would ever mistake it for one. It's still part of "A," and F1 is entitled to come set after checking the runner. Unless he brings his hands together, this is nothing.
  5. maven

    Ruling

    Call it according to tournament rules. Ground rules can't trump black-letter rules, no matter how many people agree to them.
  6. Yep. Crap video in OP. F1 obviously stepped off before the feint to 3B. Legal.
  7. It appeared that F1 stepped toward 3B without throwing there, and that he was still engaged when he stepped. It might have been allowed (that is, ruled not a violation of 6.02(a)(2)) due to its being for an appeal, not a pickoff. I don't know MLB guidance on that issue.
  8. I never said to enforce like OBR. For FED, the ball is dead at the end of playing action. I said that initially, at the beginning of my post. Seems pretty clear there. So, no, I'm not calling time when R1 is apparently retired at 3B. That's not the FED mechanic for OBS. The defense is entitled in that code to make a play on the BR. Yes, the passing rule includes the word 'unobstructed', and the penalty is an out. It does not follow that the BR passing an obstructed R1 should be allowed to score. It follows only that he's not out for passing. And even that might be debatable, as the OBS in the OP happened at 2B and the passing at 3B. So the OBS did not cause the passing. I'm not calling the BR out for passing, and I'm not calling R1 out for abandonment. Both of those potential infractions were the result of R1 being provisionally called out at 3B, which I'm nullifying for the OBS. So I'd nullify them as a result as well. We will still need to place the BR during the award for the OBS on R1, and I see no baseball provision, practice, or consideration of fair play that supports advancing him beyond R1. Runners run the bases in order, which is why there's a passing rule. I'm putting R1 at 3B to nullify the act of OBS, and the BR at 2B. In addressing these situations where there's a violation followed by weirdness, I recommend thinking hard about the penalty and not going overboard in favor of either the offending team or the offended team. The defense thought they had an out, and the offense thought they had a run. My ruling takes both of those away, and gives the offense 2 runners in scoring position. That penalty is defensible in terms of nullifying the OBS; for me, awarding 2 runs to the offense is going overboard and applying a too-stiff penalty for the OBS at 2B.
  9. If we specify FED rules, there's no debate about when the ball's dead. It's dead at the end of playing action. The interesting question is what to do with the BR. Ignoring him and his subsequent action, the award is easy: protect R1 into 3B. As play unfolded, it sounds as if R1 left the field after being retired, and BR continued to advance as the defense threw the ball around. We do not "adjust" R1's award because the BR scored on the overthrow: that's not required to nullify the OBS. And we do not let BR's advance to HP stand, as if he somehow magically jumped over R1 without being called out for passing. We get R1 out of the dugout and put him on 3B, and send the BR back to 2B. Even though the defense might have had a legitimate chance to retire him at 2B without the OBS, I'm giving the offense the benefit of the doubt here. I guess somebody might contend that the defense threw the ball away, which would have allowed both runners to score. I would not be that somebody, because that's irrelevant to our task of nullifying the OBS. No, coach, you don't have an option to decline the penalty. It's not football.
  10. maven

    obstruction

    ...and that's why we don't want to phrase it this way. OBS does not supersede a missed base. If the missed base is caused by the OBS, then part of nullifying the OBS will be awarding a touch and thus denying any subsequent appeal of the miss. Thinking of it this way ties the missed base to the OBS in the right way.
  11. That you enjoy asking rhetorical questions?
  12. Sure you do. Someone got in your head about it is all. He offered. He missed. Bunt v. check swing is a distinction without a difference.
  13. Is it the same call? The question answers itself.
  14. Well there's the fallacy right there.
×
×
  • Create New...