Jump to content

maven

Established Member
  • Content Count

    8,017
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    259

maven last won the day on June 28

maven had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,648 Excellent

4 Followers

About maven

  • Rank
    Rules Interpreter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Neck o' the Woods, OH

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
    SUA

Recent Profile Visitors

11,211 profile views
  1. By rule, once he's properly engaged F1 may legally do only 3 things: pitch to the batter, step and throw/feint to a base, or disengage. And it's illegal to feint to 1B (and, in some codes, 3B). F1 legally disengages by stepping directly backward and off the rubber with his pivot foot prior to starting the motion to pitch or feinting. Once disengaged, the pitching restrictions (such as those just mentioned) no longer apply. If your umpire ruled that F1 may never feint to 1B, that would be incorrect. That restriction applies only when F1 is legally engaged with the rubber. It's also possible that he garbled his explanation. We often see a pitcher disengage improperly, so that it ends up being a jump turn (for instance, if he starts his feint and jumps back at the same time). A jump turn is a move from the rubber, so the restrictions are in effect. Thus, it's a balk to feint to 1B after a jump turn. Possibly, that's what he was trying to explain, and didn't succeed.
  2. Nothing dictates a strike mechanic. So you can do the Leslie Nielsen thing if you want. But: remember that the point of all mechanics is communication. If you're using a mechanic that nobody recognizes as a strike signal, then you're thwarting the purpose of having a signal at all.
  3. In general, it's impossible to assess judgment calls without quality and relevant video.
  4. It's an instructional league. If you're furious, you might consider the purposes of the "games." I always told my kids that youth ball has 2 goals: to learn something and have fun. And much of what we learn concerns sportsmanship: both in ourselves and in others.
  5. A pitch that hits a batter entitles the batter to 1B. Whether the pitch has touched the ground is irrelevant. The exception occurs when the batter is intentionally hit (or "permits" the pitch to hit him, "fails to attempt" to move, or whatever verbiage your rules have). In that case, the ball is dead, the pitch is a ball, and the batter remains at the plate. The umpire judges intent. At instructional levels everyone on the field makes mistakes rather more often than at higher levels.
  6. I don't think your scenario is possible. If F9 gets the ball before R1 gets to 2B, he'll throw it to 3B and keep the runner at 2B. Throwing it away would allow R1 an extra base. On a hit that would or might score R1, F9 can't get the ball before R1 is at 2B. To answer your question: no, intent is irrelevant to the award.
  7. There's no such thing as an automatic home run. In some cases, it's possible to have a 4-base award for an infraction by the defense, but umpires wouldn't refer to that as an "automatic" anything, not least because it will involve umpire judgment. This instance is a 2-base award. The only question is, where was the runner when the ball left the fielder's hand? Apparently, the umpire ruled that 2B was the BR's last legally touched base at the time of the throw. So the 2-base award from there scored him.
  8. maven

    Obstruction?

    Although that's true as far as it goes, the penalty for OBS of this type is to award bases in order to nullify the act of OBS. This provision constrains what the umpire may properly "decide" (the award is non-arbitrary). So, at the risk of boring Coach, I'll expand a bit for others in the "Ask the Umpire" forum. We determine the award at the end of playing action, taking all events subsequent to the OBS into account. So, for the OP, if the throw ends up rolling around short RF and the collision prevented the BR from taking 2B, then we should award 2B. If the throw bounces off the fence back to F3 such that, without the OBS, the runner could not have safely reached 2B, then we should award 1B. Any benefit of the doubt goes to the runner. Further, if we would have awarded 2B, but the BR tries for 3B and is thrown out by a mile, that out will stand. If it's a close play at 3B, of course, that's some evidence that we should nullify the OBS by awarding 3B. And, had there been other runners not affected by the OBS, any outs made on them would stand (an award to them is not needed to nullify the OBS). A more accurate statement of the umpire's "decision" here would be: "the umpire gets to decide what award would nullify the OBS."
  9. A collision between runner and fielder on a batted ball is always something, never nothing. This is OBS. The defense must not hinder a runner unless the contact is with the protected fielder (the one fielding the batted ball). Because F6 was protected, but F3 hindered the runner, it's OBS. The rule set could have made a difference if the defense had retired the BR. As it was, same outcome: R1, R2, same number of outs. OBR: This is "type 1" OBS, because the play was on R1, the obstructed runner. The ball is dead immediately, so there's no play at 2B. Both R1 and the BR are awarded their advance base (R1 because of the OBS, and the BR because the ball became dead before he reached base). FED: The ball remains live until the end of playing action. R1 is awarded 2B on the OBS. The defense failed to retire the BR; if they had done so, that out would have stood, because the hindrance of R1 did not affect the BR.
  10. There goes Jax, stating the obvious again...
  11. I think it's for runners who leave early at levels where stealing is disallowed. This should be in the "Rules" or, better, "LL" forum.
  12. maven

    Ruling on this play

    Matt is perfectly competent to speak for himself, but I read him as challenging the statement that "the infield fly must be in proximity of the infield." That's false, and not any part of the rule (unless true by definition, as it would be if 'proximity' meant 'near enough to be an IFF'—but then it can't substantially support the poster's point). As for the OP, I've already posted. On a normal field with HS varsity batters or below using legal equipment, keeping the laws of physics constant, and under normal conditions (weather etc.), it's not possible for an infielder (as defined by rule) to settle under a fly ball at the warning track with ordinary effort. But iff it happened, it would be IFF.
  13. Thank the dog someone created an account and used all 3 posts to set us straight about Iowa. The pandemic was getting a bit dull.
  14. Was this a supervisor or an instructor who said this? I can see a supervisor sticking his nose in this, especially if he's 100 years old and somebody in the 60's once told him this was a good idea. No qualified instructor would advocate this mechanic. Some principles that has not appeared in this thread so far (must be balanced against others, of course): If game assignments hang on it, do what your supervisor says. This can be important if the supervisor is, say, a state interpreter.
  15. maven

    Runners Leave Early

    Biscuit is correct, except it's a "time play," not timing. And the apparent fourth out is merely apparent: by rule, the defense may execute an appeal on another runner (for a missed base or retouch appeal) after the third out. If granted, that appeal becomes the third out of the inning (the other is nullified and not recorded by the scorer). To be considered, the post-third out appeal must be advantageous, which typically involves nullifying a run. In this instance, appealing R3's failure to retouch is advantageous because, when granted, his run will be nullified.
×
×
  • Create New...