Jump to content

maven

Established Member
  • Posts

    9,076
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    331

Everything posted by maven

  1. I'm not dying on this hill--it's just a thought... However, when you look at the wording of 2-21-3, why not? Well, you (Matt) are correct that the scope of 2-21-3 is quite broad, but I (along with JM, it seems) would not regard ruling SPEC/INT in this case a logical extension of the verbal INT/OBS rule for players. At least not in the sense of being required. In any case, even if it might be permitted, superior enforcement options here would be (as already stated above): Ignore if it has no impact Call time to prevent any impact if needed ("He didn't balk, coach, I had already killed it!")
  2. Ah, I see what you're asking now. Yes, if the removal of F1 from the game is required by rule (8.06b), then he may not move to another position. The same principle applies in FED.
  3. JM Ah, so the bat is part of the hands!?!
  4. Every ball in play has one of three statuses: it's a pitched ball, a batted ball, or a thrown ball. Clearly, this ball was not batted (so no "catch and carry"). Since it was not a pitch, it is not a pitched ball. That means it's a thrown ball. Next question: who threw it? Once the fielder possess it, it's not the pitcher. Hence, it's the fielder. Treat it as if the fielder threw the ball out of play, similar to a fielder kicking such a ball OOP. Two bases from TOT.
  5. The swap is legal. Consider: Jones is pitching. In the 3rd, the manager comes out and swaps Smith for Jones (Smith now pitching). In the same inning, the manager comes out again, the pitcher (Smith) is removed, and is done pitching for the day. Jones, or someone else, may pitch. For FED, it is false in general that a pitcher, having moved to another position, may not return to pitch. That's is so only when his removal is forced (coach's 4th+ visit, etc.).
  6. maven

    Batter Runner Int?

    Though you might be correct about what the actual call was, this can't be BI, since you have a BR not a batter. Edited: fixed by Dix! Kemp interfered twice: once by failing to move, and again when a fair batted ball hit him.
  7. Runners can make that call really easy by sliding 2 feet wide of the base.
  8. Two questions: 1. Was there a tag? 2. U3's positioning at the start of the play?
  9. True enough, and that's precisely the sense in which FPSR is an extension of INT: had there been actual hindrance, you could simply call garden variety INT and would not need to extend the concept.
  10. I think of it as an extension of INT for the sake of safety, so yes. :)
  11. Thanks, JM, those are helpful for making my point that FPSR is an extension of the INT rules.
  12. That's not the purpose of the FPSR, but rather a restatement of (your interpretation of) it. The purpose of the FPSR is to extend the INT rule in order to offer fielders on force plays additional protection. For me, that purpose informs my interpretation of the rule.
  13. If he had a light bulb, it would be on. He's a pitcher. Just sayin'
  14. John, what's the purpose of the FPSR? Followup quesiton: Is that purpose thwarted in your play?
  15. Neglecting to verbalize is not bad, since it's sometimes correct (think: safe at 1B by a full second). But verbalizing in your situations would have been better.
  16. That's not really the issue. JM regards any contact in an FPSR situation as illegal: given contact, no further judgment is required. My bar is slightly higher: for me, contact must affect the play (as we require for INT generally) to be illegal. In practice, we would call 99.999% of plays identically, so the dispute is quite minor.
  17. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I use my judgment. If you're asking for criteria, I don't suppose I can offer anything hard and fast. In many cases, an attempt to avoid involves picking up the direction the play is going and moving in some other direction. Such an attempt can fail when the direction of play changes suddenly.
  18. Here's the error: he's required by rule to ATTEMPT to avoid contact. In my minds eye I'm picturing an attempt that fails but does not rise to the level of INT, since ex hypothesi it has no affect on the play. So I disagree that all contact is illegal contact.
  19. More precisely: assuming the runner does NOT slide, contact is neither necessary nor sufficient for a FPSR violation. Not necessary: if the non-sliding runner alters the pattern of play because of where he runs but makes no contact with the fielder, he has violated FPSR (coaches LOVE that one). Not sufficient: if the non-sliding runner does NOT alter the pattern of play, does not hinder or interfere with the throw, and makes incidental contact with the fielder after the play, he has NOT violated FPSR. And, for the record, the fact that contact is not sufficient for a FPSR violation makes Q3 in the poll FALSE, since the statement entails that contact IS sufficient for a FPSR violation. PS JM, if you can't discern my identity from all that, then I'm disappointed that you've forgotten me.
  20. maven

    Obstruction

    Right, so the correct conclusion is that it matters which base R3 touches first when he completes his award. (a) If he retouches 3B and then touches HP, legal, no appeal should be upheld (either at 3B or HP). (b) If he touches HP first, then retouches 3B, then returns to HP, a retouch appeal at 3B should be upheld. Interesting case.
  21. I too put F for #3. Contact that does not alter the play (for instance, occurs after the ball is gone) is no violation. Otherwise, true.
  22. maven

    Batter Runner Int?

    Sounds like tangle/untangle. Play on...
  23. The MLBUM ruling doesn't change anything. Even if you rule that a live ball became lodged, it would still be treated like any other foul ball.
×
×
  • Create New...