Jump to content

maven

Established Member
  • Content Count

    8,427
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    289

Everything posted by maven

  1. The play on the BR at 1B is not, cannot be, a force play, in any sense related to the actual definition of 'force play'—"essential" or otherwise. Sorry guys, but this one is over my "allowable terminological sloppiness" line. It's not far from "an appeal is essentially a force play."
  2. I can cancel the out on the obstructed runner, but not the out made by R1 prior to the OBS. You're welcome to offer corrections—I make my share of mistakes—but at least try to keep up before piping up.
  3. Oh, dang, this is the "Ask the Umpire" forum, where I'm not allowed to say, "Yes, that's a rule...in Calvinball." Runners who are out cannot score. I confess, I had some trouble following the description of the action.
  4. I agree with the OBS call: F1 is guilty of OBS. R2 is entitled to attempt to reach HP without hindrance from a player without the ball. It doesn't matter at all that F2 had the ball and was in position to make a play. I don't understand why the BR got an award of 3B if he had advance only to 2B. Perhaps the umpire saw that part of the play differently, or perhaps he mistakenly thought that all runners are entitled to an award on type 1 OBS. The former is a judgment call not subject to protest; the latter is a protestable rules error.
  5. You mean tagging a base, not lack of requiring a tag. An appeal play requires a tag: either the runner or the base (missed or left early) may be tagged to appeal a baserunning infraction. But a tag IS required.
  6. Why would you return R2 to 3B? Did someone kill it? If he crossed the plate, he can't go back, and his run counts. If he went back to 3B by himself, that's his choice. Play on.
  7. No player ever, under any circumstances, may intentionally crash an opponent. That's virtually the definition of MC. That said, sometimes train wrecks happen. As you suggest, the difference comes down to time: if the kid running has time to adjust, then he should. When he doesn't have time, oh well, get the ice. And, when we dump a kid for MC, expect his coach to ask: "What's he supposed to do, stop or go around?" Well...yes, exactly. My own hypothesis is that coaches tell their kids to go through fielders because umpires don't call OBS enough. It's getting to be that way in pro
  8. There's no INT because the BR did not hinder anyone. There's no OBS because F3 had the ball. There's no out because no tag was applied to the base or runner. The running lane is irrelevant because there was no hindrance with F3 taking the throw, and it sounds as if the contact was within a few feet of the base. So, a big fat no-call. All I'd be watching for at that point is MC, especially if the BR deviated into F3.
  9. That scenario is clearer. I meant F5 throwing to F2, not R3. This is batter INT. The batter must vacate the area needed by the defense to make a play. Your reasoning is partly based on extending the standard for runner INT to the batter: for runners, INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. But the batter is not a runner, and he doesn't get the protection a runner does (because the runner actually has a job out there). The batter has to vacate the area. As for the timing element: it's certainly possible for the batter being in the path of F2 to be so late that it had no impac
  10. The article misses the setup for these ejections, and why so many from KC were so steamed by an obvious balk call. Hernandez ruled that José Ramirez was hit by pitch to put two on for CLE, and the call stood on replay. The next batter doubled in Cleveland's first two runs of the game. Jump to 5:48.
  11. Why did R3 have the ball? The general rule is that the batter must avoid hindering the defense on a play at the plate, provided he has time. Since there's no pitch in this scenario, he should have time to get out of the way. Accidentally going the wrong way does not alleviate the batter of his responsibility to avoid hindrance. Hindrance here would be batter INT: with 2 outs, the batter is out, and otherwise R3 is out and other runners return.
  12. You each had an angle on the touch. With nothing else to watch, you both saw it. So far, so good. One umpire is primary and one is secondary. Your partner apparently was sure enough the BR missed 3B to rule on the appeal. It might still be worth getting together, depending on how sure you were that he touched.
  13. A walk is the right to advance to the next base without liability to be put out by the defense. It is not the right to miss a base, and the liability to be put out reinstates when he misses it. The window for an appeal opens instantly, and alert F2's—almost always the smartest player on the team, at least above HS JV—will take advantage. If R3 can't be bothered to touch HP during his advance, why would you penalize the defense for noticing it?
  14. maven

    RHP Balk?

    These statements cannot both be correct: one is for disengagement, and the other applies to a step/throw from the rubber. By interpretation, the jump turn/jab step are treated as a move from the rubber. True, the pivot foot typically comes off the rubber. But disengagement requires (1) only the pivot foot moving in a step, which (2) must be directly backward and entirely off the rubber. The jump turn/jab step do not satisfy either of these requirements, so they are treated as a legal move from the rubber. That's why we care that the jump turn/jab step also satisfy the constraints of
  15. maven

    Balk or not??

    No rule specifies how F1 must disengage, other than that he must disengage "properly." That means stepping directly backward and landing the pivot foot behind (not on) the rubber. If the step satisfies those conditions, then it's legal—including, as far as you've described it, the motion in the OP.
  16. It's a bad call, but any game is improved by dumping Harper.
  17. Abuse isn't the main concern. Safety is. And it might in fact be safe. FED requires that new technology be proven safe before they allow it. That's an approach the FDA and EPA might consider adopting.
  18. maven

    Obstruction

    Terrific, now you're canonizing him.
  19. That's where I would go next. And be sure to tell them that the conference approved it: the state association will need to communicate with all of them, plus the assigner/commissioner about their ruling (presumably in the negative). The conference never considered whether it was illegal by rule—nobody knows the rules, and the probability is approaching zero that this thought even entered any of their heads—they were deliberating about whether it was fair, and whether all the schools (or, possibly, individual coaches or AD's) wanted to invest in these for their team.
  20. I would allow it only for F2 to broadcast back to the dugout, and only to remark on how good my zone is. Kidding. No, not legal for FED.
  21. maven

    What's the ruling?

    I agree that the issue is how to handle retired runner getting hit by a throw when there's no play. I was aware of the greater onus on a retired runner to stay out of the way of the defense making a play on another runner, but that's not what this is. There was no play: R2 was holding at 3B, and advanced only AFTER the ball hit his teammate. I'm inclined to put this on the defense: F3 has nothing better to pay attention to than getting the ball to F1 and avoiding the retired runner. As for splitting the difference: a third option is to kill it, put R2 back on 3B, and get ready for th
  22. maven

    What's the ruling?

    That's not what it says: the rule makes a point about what is NOT interference; nothing follows logically about what IS interference. What's abnormal about a retired runner returning to the dugout?
×
×
  • Create New...