Jump to content

maven

Established Member
  • Content Count

    7,758
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    241

Everything posted by maven

  1. maven

    What's the call

    This is no mere "second ball" scenario, as the umpire lost track of the game and HE threw the other ball in. The cited rules all address the "accidental" second ball from a bull pen or neighboring field. Apples and oranges. My point earlier was that it's a mistake (and poor officiating) to expect the rules to magically solve all the crap that can happen when we screw up. Nobody can write a rule book like that (well, absent an escape clause: "The umpire has authority to rule on anything not addressed in these rules"). The general prescription is the one I provided earlier: do what seems fair to both teams, apologize (once), and get the ball back in play as quickly as possible.
  2. maven

    What's the call

    Better training and awareness? Oh wait: you're probably asking about the game situation, not umpires who screw up. Seriously: there's no rule that covers umpiring screwups. People post these things and then waste a lot of time declaiming about how they'd handle it. Yawn. Make everyone a little unhappy, apologize all around, and get the ball back in play as quickly as possible.
  3. maven

    Appeal play

    A proper retouch appeal involves tagging the runner or the original base left too early. In this case, that's 1B. Same rule in FED (8-2-6 PENALTY) and OBR (5.09(c)(1)). Tagging 2B is not an appeal. And there's no such thing as an "implicit" or "implied" appeal: it's either proper or improper. For a missed base appeal, it's possible to appeal any of the missed bases, if more than one. That's not true for retouch appeals, even though R1 in this play had to "retouch" both 2B and 1B.
  4. The batter is out "immediately." The delay caused by determining fair/foul is only whether the fly ball is an IFF or not: it is, as it were, epistemic and not metaphysical. That is, instantly off the bat, a ball's path is determined by the laws of physics: it is or is not an IFF instantly (that's the "metaphysics"). But we do not know whether it is an IFF that fast, and in some cases (fair/foul TBD, for instance), we have to wait until it comes all the way down. That's a delay in our ruling, but not in the status of the IFF: if it's an IFF at the end, it was an IFF all along. And the batter was out "immediately." But I'm not sure that difference bears on your question: the delay in the call is sufficient NOT to rule such a player a "retired runner" and subject him to the higher standard of INT. It's not reasonable to expect the runner to behave differently without knowing his status as retired. In the video, I'm not sure I have INT of any description. The BR (retired or not) does what she's supposed to do and avoids the protected fielder. I don't see any hindrance obvious enough to be ruled INT.
  5. Yeah, PU has to stay home. Angle over distance.
  6. The "does not interfere with a fielder or throw" clause is NOT interpreted to rule out a crap throw. It's interpreted to rule out NO throw, or a throw that's way too late to retire the runner, or the like. Also, I really like your suggestion that a "sanity check" involves reviewing the rulebook.
  7. No claims about NCAA. It's not a "provision" of OBR, because it's not in the rule. 'Quality throw' is part of the interpretation of "interferes with the fielder taking the throw," as a crap throw that the fielder would not have caught anyway cannot in principle be interfered with. This is a judgment call, and Clever Ned got himself tossed arguing a judgment call. And although the FED language is comparable—the interference is, uniquely, with the fielder taking not making the throw—the interpretation, as you say Jeff, is different. We want a play like Wong's ruled RLI even if it's not a quality throw. Gil points out this fact in one of his graphics in that video. The FED interp basically expands the rule to include hindrance of the fielder making the throw, assuming that the fielder does not want to drill the runner in the back. So there's a safety rationale to the interp that pro ball does not prioritize.
  8. The timing is irrelevant. The game is over when the winning run scores. Nothing else happens.
  9. maven

    Intentional walk rule

    There's a reason baseball doesn't use a clock... If we have to use a clock, I'd treat it as football does: if a team illegally attempts to conserve or consume time, we can disallow it by rule. We can't issue 4 walks in 5 seconds, because the offense must have the opportunity to substitute for any given batter. We can't walk a batter until he makes his plate appearance.
  10. I agree that's what happened, and that principle seems to be the basis of ruling the BR out. But I've been looking without success for a rule that requires this prior to the game ending. FED 9-1-1 EX. Note 2 and OBR 5.08(b) apply with bases loaded and a run forced to score, and they require only advancing to the next base, not the awarded base (though in those situations, the next base WAS the awarded base). The runners in the OP all advanced to the next base prior to the passing, so they satisfied the letter of the rule. Is there some other guidance?
  11. maven

    Illegal Glove

    My guess is that the tolerances for most HP's are not within 0.2°, and they don't care to make it much more precise. As Kyle's post suggests, we're talking about .03 inches or less. This is much more interesting than discussing illegal gloves. You're all welcome for (my contributions to) the hijack.
  12. maven

    Illegal Glove

    Rounded to the nearest degree, it is 90°.
  13. maven

    appeal

    I'm grokking that R1 went into 2B standing up as F6 was stabbing his foot toward the base. Perhaps there was a little contact as R1 arrived. F6's foot arrived first. Unless the local rules include the infamous "must slide" rule, no rule in any national code requires a runner to slide. This is nothing. And when the defense screws up an easy double play like this, I'm not bailing them out with a bogus call: R1 would have to do something pretty substantial and obvious (two-arm shove, for instance) to draw an INT call here.
  14. Signaling for a time play with bases loaded and nobody out is a bit silly. Why do we signal time play? It's not a call. It's nothing but a reminder to ourselves. We need a reminder not when something is possible, but when it's likely. A bases loaded time play would be a triple play. I think I've only ever officiated one of those (and it wasn't a time play, and was really dumb): they're not likely. Even with runners in scoring position and 2 outs, a time play is not likely (how many do you see in a season?). But it's far more likely, I'll wager, than other scenarios where a time play is merely possible. For me, this kind of signal says more about the umpire than the situation.
  15. maven

    Batting

    ... and any number of times during a single time at bat.
  16. maven

    timing play

    Counting to FOUR, you say? Was it, like, 1-2-3-4, real fast, or more like one-one-thousand, etc.? This has nothing to do with the ruling, of course, I'm just curious what people do in their spare time.
  17. No. That's false. It's common for F1 to step off before throwing over, but not required. That's irrelevant: deception is not in itself illegal. A balk is a prohibited act that (sometimes) deceives a runner. Yes. The fact that he didn't come out might have prompted you to reconsider your opinion.
  18. This is incorrect. PU has fly balls to RF ONLY when F9 moves toward the line. Think of fly ball mechanics this way: we start with the basic principle of having the closest umpire make the call. Using that, BU positioned in the middle should have ALL fly balls to the outfield. BUT: a ball hit near a foul line will need to be ruled fair/foul, and BU has a bad angle to make that call. So, we make an exception: for fly balls that draw the outfielder to the line, we'll have PU make both fair/foul and catch/no catch. Those two pieces explain the "V" concept: fly balls that do not draw the fielder to the foul line ("in the V") belong to BU, those that do belong to PU. I think some PU's operate by thinking that they should be making all the calls on the field, and they "allow" the BU to make a few calls on the bases as their "assistant" or some such. That's not how the 2-umpire system was conceived.
  19. maven

    Fake tag

    FED Definitions: 2-22-2: A fake tag is an act by a defensive player without the ball that ­simulates a tag. A fake tag is considered obstruction. 2-24-4: A tag out is the put out of a runner, including the batter-runner, who is not in contact with his base when touched with a live ball, or with the glove or hand when the live ball is held securely therein by a fielder. The ball is not ­considered as having been securely held if it is juggled or dropped after the touching, unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the hand of the ­fielder (8-4-2h2). Physical contact with the runner is required for a tag, not a fake tag.
  20. It would be unusual, though not impossible, for PU to have a better look at this than BU. He's at least 125 feet farther away and with a worse angle (straight line). So as PU, I would be quite reluctant even to offer information to a competent partner on this call. I agree with applying the NCAA guidance to lower levels on balls hit to the outfield: for this play, if I were PU and somehow knew with certainty that it was a catch (contrary to the previous paragraph), I'd recommend that the BU put R2 back and call out the BR. Still his call, even if we fix it.
  21. I have no idea what you're talking about. You might as well be speaking Michif.
  22. Your problem is that both teams violated 7.03(a)(2). Forfeit in favor of whom?
×
×
  • Create New...