Jump to content


Established Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by maven

  1. For the love of the dog, get the damn out any way you can.
  2. The umpire might have had a different judgment about the BR being in the running lane. If the BR is out of the lane for most of it, then moves back in to reach 1B, and only at that point hinders the fielder taking the throw, it's still RLI. He doesn't get credit for being in the lane at the moment of impact if he's out for most of the play, esp. at the time the ball is thrown.
  3. maven

    Wacky play

    No. All awards are either TOP or TOT (except some INT, which is TOI). The term 'Throw' in 'Time of Throw' includes all modalities of propelling a baseball.
  4. "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."
  5. maven

    Wacky play

    Yes, one base for catch & carry is TOP. No, 2 bases is from TOT, or time of throw, not the time the ball enters DBT. For FED, there's a useful table of base awards after rule 8-2.
  6. maven

    Appeal goes wrong

    I didn't have that throw as part of the appeal.
  7. I'm awarding HP in play 1, and 3B in play 2, regardless of code. As I'm envisioning it, these would be the "expected calls" for both plays. The base award is made in order to nullify the act of OBS: as described, the runner likely reaches the next base without the OBS, so award that. Benefit of the doubt goes to the offended team (the offense here). The only difference the code makes is whether the ball is dead immediately—in codes with two types of OBS, such as OBR, it's type 1; in FED, all OBS is delayed dead.
  8. maven

    Appeal goes wrong

    Some umpires might wonder what the mechanic is for "a request for a second appeal on the same runner at the same base shall not be allowed by the umpire." I recommend NOT to rule on the appeal: we're not ruling that the runner touched the base, and merely signaling safe will be interpreted that way. To do that would not be disallowing the appeal, but denying it. If the miss was obvious, then we look like chumps. Rather, my approach is to kill it, shake my head no, and point at the pitcher to indicate the fielder should throw it back (I'll verbalize "you can't appeal," but not very loudly). This mechanic looks like "disallowing," even from a distance. The defensive coach will likely come out (and I've called time, so, fine), and I'll explain it to him. (Can't quite do it in 5 words: "can't appeal again after the error.")
  9. That sounds like a folk etymology to me. More likely due to shirt color: black became common/dominant only in the last 20 years or so, previously umpires generally wore blue.
  10. Depends on who says it. From him, it's an EJ: From her, I'll allow it:
  11. Once again demonstrating the need to know the rules, not judging "what they should be doing." That non-rule-book phrase might cause more incorrect rulings (no-calls) than any other.
  12. maven

    Dropped strike 3

    The only thing different about a bunt with 2 strikes is that a bunt foul is strike 3. All other rules apply.
  13. Mechanics screwups are not generally addressed in the rules, though FED happens to address this particular one. OBR (pro rules) does not. OBR provides the rules for all professional leagues, including NL and AL. In general, the guidance is to determine whether the erroneous call affected play. If the fielders and runners went on as if the erroneous call were never made, then play on. If it affects play either way, kill it, make it foul, and reset. You didn't ask, but the FED (HS) rule is different: if the umpire erroneously calls "foul" and the batted ball touches the ground, then it's a foul ball and dead no matter what else happens. Such a mistakenly ruled batted ball can, if in flight (does not touch the ground), be caught for an out.
  14. The crew evidently judged that the ball was hit sufficiently hard that it would have gotten through anyway. So, no hindrance = no INT. In amateur ball at any level, I'd have INT. There's some doubt in my mind whether F6 could have gotten there, and the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense here.
  15. A lot of umpires in my association could use this camp: https://www.fatcamp.org
  16. So: I'm not allowed to watch the video?
  17. That sounds like hindrance sufficient to warrant INT. And, if F1 had an opportunity to make the play on the BR without the hindrance, it might be warranted to call the INT even if the ball eventually goes foul. Not to call it rewards the offense for their infraction. I recognize that INT would not be the expected call, and could ruin the game. And if F1 slowed, read the BR, then continued, but let the ball roll foul—what I'm seeing in my mind's eye—a foul ball might be the right call. It's certainly the easier call.
  18. All pitchers at all levels should try to avoid a collision, as should runners. To the OP: the burden is on the runner to avoid hindering a fielder who is fielding a batted ball. In general, if F1 has to slow down to avoid the runner, that's hindrance and should be ruled INT. Contact is not required for this call: the operative concept is hindrance. But, not having seen the play, I'd bet that the umpire ruled that F1 pulled up to let a spinner go foul, and the runner's position did not hinder that fielding choice. Thus, no INT.
  19. maven

    Tagging the beard

    Your grasp of the metaphysics of personhood is impressive.
  20. A scored/retired runner must vacate the plate area to avoid hindering the defense. If he fails to do so and, in the umpire's judgment, interferes, the offending runner would be out, and other runners (if any) would return to their last bases legally touched. In this play, if the umpire rules INT, R1's run counts, the BR is out, and the inning resumes unless there were 2 outs. Regarding the umpire's judgment call concerning INT: this is difficult to assess without video given only a brief description (or even a lengthy description). But from that description, it certainly sounds as if F2's play on the BR is hindered by the presence of the scored/retired runner, so I'm leaning toward an INT call on this play. Hard to be sure tho.
  21. The penalty for OBS is a base award. An award is the right to run the bases legally without liability to be put out by the defense. So, yes, runners must touch their awarded bases. (There's an exception that's not relevant to this play.) However, the video doesn't show sufficient evidence to conclude that R2 did not touch HP. First, his right foot might have touched during the initial slide. But more importantly, the camera cuts away, and we don't see him stand up. In general, the PU will stay with that action until the runner moves away from the plate area (though the situation here got messy fast).
  22. maven

    Run / Bat

    "Thank you."
  23. maven

    Balk or not

    You're confusing 2 different provisions. With R2, there's a question of whether F1 is allowed to throw to 3B at all, which is unoccupied. He IS allowed to throw there for the purpose of making a play. So if R2 is advancing or threatening to advance, a throw to 3B is legal. The other provision is whether F1 is allowed to feint a throw to 3B. And here, the answer is no: if he steps to 3B, he must throw there. The other provision makes such a throw legal; it does not legitimize a feint to 3B. As described, this is a balk, apart from any judgment call concerning whether R2 is advancing "enough" to invoke the exception clause allowing F1 to throw to an unoccupied base.
  24. In most youth ball, the head coach will also be at 3B. The umpire should explicitly call time before discussing a safe/out call, but if he doesn't it's implicit. Put the runner back and resume play ASAP.
  25. The catchers that I've asked were all fine with it, except 1. I always ask first. But hey, let's make a deal. I'll learn to stop adjusting to catchers by touch, and you learn how use the word 'their'.
  • Create New...