Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by maven

  1. maven

    Pitch Framing

    Amused, sure, but were you duped? Answer the question, man!
  2. maven

    Pitch Framing

    Framing and pulling are different. Framing is positioning the glove to highlight the "strike-ishness" of the pitch. Catch the breaking pitch closer to the plate, set up on the outside corner instead of diving across the plate to catch that pitch on the black. These are not deceptive, so umpires aren't "duped" by them. Indeed, proper catching technique requires framing. Pulling a pitch is moving the glove back into the zone after receiving a pitch not in it. I warn catchers that pulling pitches tells everyone that they think the pitch was a ball, and that I plan to defer to their judgment on those pitches. If they hold it still, there's a better chance that they'll get the pitch on the black. Have I been duped? Probably, but not often I hope, and compared to the pros I'm not that good.
  3. maven

    $500 Fine!

    "$500 Fine!" is not a point. NFL'er tweeting over this is ludicrous, IMO. Get a life. If you don't want to follow league rules, play in a different league. Fox News got a couple more clicks. They lost their credibility card when Shep left. YMMV
  4. maven

    $500 Fine!

    IOW: what's your point? Plus: post a link.
  5. maven

    catcher position

    Hard to catch the pitch there. Why?
  6. CI is hindrance of the batter's opportunity to swing. We can have that without a swing, and frankly, we don't want to be coaching batters to hit F2's who move up for the pitch.
  7. As you point out, the "catcher's balk" (a misnomer) does not apply here. If anything, this is CI/CO. But if you're working a code that warns for (first?) balks, then I would recommend warning for this too.
  8. People get all tied up over this rule, which is actually fairly simple. A runner who's hit by a fair batted ball is hindering the defense's ability to make a play. That's INT, and results in a dead ball and an out. There are exceptions to this, but the expectation is: ball hits runner, runner is out. This imposes a burden on runners to avoid a fair batted ball. The exceptions relate to the burden: when should a runner NOT be expected to avoid a batted ball? Well, the first is a deflection: ball deflects off F1, runner hit. He can't be expected to react that fast. No INT. The other (main) one is: ball goes past (OBR has "through or by") an infielder, runner hit right behind the fielder. Again, unreasonable to expect the runner to avoid that ball. No INT. This second kind of exception is where the rule difference appears. OBR's exception is quite narrow: "through or by." Any other part of the infield, we're calling INT. FED's is broader: "passes an infielder," interpreted using string theory. And that will generally alleviate the runner's burden when the infield is playing in. So the "default" ruling is: runner out. Don't work too hard to get him out of that.
  9. Rich, you're misapplying the so-called "string theory," which wasn't coined to cover the shift. Look at the actual rule (8-4-2k): any runner is out when he... "is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play" plus some irrelevant exceptions. So, as with OBR, the default is: OUT (a version of INT). Did the ball hit an infielder first? No, so still OUT. Did it pass an infielder? No (due to the shift), so still OUT. And that's it. "String theory" was coined to interpret what "passes any infielder" means. It doesn't offer an independent standard for (this kind of) INT.
  10. maven

    tag up

    A retouch appeal can be made by tagging the offending runner or the base he is required to retouch. Yes, it's a time play, which means R3 almost always scores.
  11. maven

    HS hurdling rule

    I cited it in order to dispute the claims that (1) we cannot (ever) "unscore" a run, and (2) we cannot specifically do so for MC. But it seems that "unscoring" is indeed unique to FPSR:
  12. maven

    Legal Play or Balk

    As noumpere says, it is legal to step and throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play on a runner. If that's the question, then that's the answer. But allow me to probe "a proper inside move and throw to second base." If F1 has not reached the balance point when he turns and throws to 2B, then the move is legal. If he has, then it's a balk (starting a pitch and failing to deliver, 6.02(a)(1)).
  13. 2019-2020 OHSAA Handbook for Officials, p. 24 That is all. I'd wager that it's so thin because the lawyers told them that they can't have any more than that, though we've always been told (state and local meetings) that posting on social media is inappropriate and can lead to penalties under the general ethics clause (unethical behavior will be penalized etc. etc.).
  14. I agree. Calling attention to how "few" umpires there are is what we might call "pre-confrontational." It puts the idea that we will miss something into a coach's mind, in order to pre-argue that we can't do any better. I had a partner who would (with 2 umpires) announce, "we're going to miss some calls, but we're working hard!" This sort of announcement is an example of what psychologists call 'priming.' Here's another example: research shows that by asking college students who are about to take a test how many of the 10 commandments they can name, they become many times less likely to cheat on the test (regardless of how many they can name). The mere question primes them to be more ethical. So we teach: don't prime coaches to become confrontational. If an issue comes up, deal with it in the moment.
  15. I don't generally post in the NCAA forum, but these provisions are in all codes, so... These two rules cannot be assembled a single rule because they concern different acts. One concerns a pitch, the other a pick. The first is a restriction on how F1 delivers a PITCH: the constraint is "without interruption or alteration," which prohibits stopping and starting (among other things) during a PITCH. The second is a restriction on how F1 PICKS: the constraint prohibits motion that F1 habitually uses to pitch (if any) that then leads to a pick. Moreover, such habitual motion is an EXAMPLE of prohibited motion (signaled by "such as"). The constraint concerns how F1 may PICK. Note that no rule requires F1 to have a habitual motion. If a reliever, for instance, throws 25 pitches in a game, every delivery can be different (though that might be challenging!). If NCAA wishes to prohibit this kind of windup by interpretation, they can just say that it counts as illegal "alteration" under their delivery constraints. Done.
  16. maven

    HS hurdling rule

    I had thought that the only FED provision that "unscores" a run is FPSR (see 8.2.4W, below). But now I might have to change my mind, which makes me queasy as it disputes grayhawk's answer.... The case plays on jumping/diving over a fielder all involve 2B, so they don't rule on a scored/retired runner. The only penalty in the rule is to declare the offender out. 8-4-2b(2) for jumping, hurdling, and leaping over a fielder not lying on the ground; 8-4-2c for all diving. With INT, there's always another runner involved, and it's possible to penalize INT by a scored/retired runner by calling that guy out. But with diving, that's not always the case (think: R3 only, wild pitch, R3 scores and dives over F2). The rationale for unscoring a run for FPSR is surely related to the fact that FPSR is a safety provision and merits a stiffer penalty. I'd apply the same logic to diving over F2 and unscore the run. Here's the FPSR case play:
  17. That's not an argument, merely a true statement. The argument has a suppressed premise, to the effect that it's illegal to (attempt to) deceive the defense. That premise is false in general, though some instances of deception (such as balks) are prohibited by rule. No such rule applies here.
  18. You're right to ask: FED is not the same at all, especially post Wendelstedt's emphasis on the "clear hindrance" standard. 8-4-1a makes intent to interfere the basis for ruling the BR out after a third strike not caught. The action in Gil's video should be ruled nothing (signal "safe," verbalize "That's nothing!") in a FED game. 8.4.1I is similar to the play in the video, with the BR accidentally kicking the ball as F2 tries to field it: the ruling is that, without intent to interfere, play on. To rule the BR out for (this kind of) INT in a play like this, we'd be looking for him to deliberately kick the ball or push F2. Even just bumping F2 unintentionally should be ruled nothing, absent intent to hinder, even if "clear hindrance" were to result from the incidental contact.
  19. maven

    Tag Up

    I understand the situation, and was not requesting clarification. I was offering a way for the OP to think through the play to reach the answer him- or herself.
  20. maven

    Tag Up

    Answer already given, but: is the batter still out? Isn't that what required a tag up in the first place? Nothing about the baserunning responsibilities changes when the throw goes out.
  21. The laces can be extended arbitrarily without compromising the function of the glove. Allowing their touch to count as a tag confers an unfair advantage on the fielder. The same cannot be said of the wrist closure, if any (my glove does not have Velcro™). This difference provides a non-arbitrary basis for the ruling.
  22. It would help, if you actually read the rule, which explains in explicit detail what parts of the body constitute a tag. Here, I'll help: it's on page 154 of the 2019 MLB rule book.
  • Create New...