-
Posts
9,558 -
Joined
-
Days Won
372
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
Reviews
Everything posted by maven
-
Yes, order of occurrence. BTW, I don't usually verbalize (much less point) "ball's on the ground." I generally don't need to do that: my safe call in such plays is so slow, usually by the time I signal safe, everyone already knows about the ball.
-
I've found there's still value in calling that OBS. It communicates to F2 (and his coach) that his positioning was a violation, though one whose penalty lapses once the runner scores. And, better than a "word to F2" after, it demonstrates that you had the call in real time. FED makes it easy to call this and yet leave the ball live, but with the throw getting away from F2 we could probably do that for OBR as well. Just don't want the defense to gain an advantage from their OBS (namely, if it's type 1 and we have to kill it, other runners couldn't advance on the wild throw).
-
I'm with Jimurray. No balk in HS varsity and below. Especially in youth ball, where F1's twitch and wiggle all over the mound, this is way to picky. Football officials would call this kind of violation "too technical." If the explanation of the call has to start with, "technically..." then we shouldn't be calling it. Balks should almost always call themselves. This one doesn't.
-
Oh they're great all right. So great, that some of us will call time before the hokey-pokey gets going and ask Coach what he wants to do. When he says "Appeal," we make sure it's the right runner at the right base, ("which runner? what did he do?"), and then rule on it. Can be a game saver. Always a time saver.
-
Velho posted the relevant part of the FED balk rule. It prohibits F1 from: Making an appeal is an attempt to put out a (for now, scored) runner. Thus, F1's action is legal.
-
It depends on whether the "new" ball was also live (and also the code). Provided that the appeal was proper, the call was correct. It's a time play, so any runs scored before the third out was called (the appeal of R3) will count.
-
All sarcasm aside, this is the wrong question. No umpire code, manual, or school offers a comprehensive guide for how to handle games after mistakes. The general answer to that is: do the best you can in the spirit of fairness. The better question to ask is: are the mistakes here preventable? Both members of the crew neglected responsibilities. BU must have a look at the check swing before turning to 3B for the play there. Indeed, failing to do so can be lethal, when the B hits one on the screws right at the (now) back of BU's head. And PU must have a ruling on the pitch. When F2 stands up, we can move farther into the slot to get an angle on the pitch—not a great angle, to be sure, but better than the one that runs through F2's body. Know that R2 might attempt a steal, and that the play will be at 3B. Be ready with your adjustment step and lean into the slot. Guys (not necessarily the OP) get anchored behind the plate, such that even earthquakes can't dislodge them, and it doesn't serve the game. We can get help on the check swing from (a properly functioning) BU, but nobody can help us call the pitch. I don't subscribe to "punitive" umpiring, according to which if F2 moves to obscure my look at the pitch, it's automatically a (penalty) ball.
-
You're confusing 'substitution' with 'switching positions'. If the starting F1 is replaced by a sub, then as a starter he may re-enter the game once (to pitch or in another position). But that's not what happened: they just moved the 9 fielders around. That's legal (provided F1 has pitched to the minimum and is otherwise legal). No conference charged to change pitchers, whether or not doing so involves a substitution. In your case, there was no substitution. And it sounds as if coach didn't really need a conference—just request time and tell your players to switch positions. It's not a substitution of any kind: as you point out, the team has only 9, so there are no subs available. I suspect that you're not appreciating the "subtleties" of HS pitching, and keep thinking of the pro rule, where if F1 leaves the mound he's done pitching for the game. The scenario you describe is rare (I've never seen it), but legal for FED as far as you've described.
-
Correct call. The pitching restrictions permit F1 to step and throw to a base (provided it's occupied). When F1 throws to 1B without F3 there, he has satisfied those restrictions. Play on.
-
FED does not have "follow-through INT" in the same sense that OBR does, which is to say, it's not a separate infraction with its own distinct penalty. FED treats contact from the swing that hinders F2's play on a runner as ordinary batter INT. Enforce accordingly. The question seems to concern the judgment of hindrance, which is difficult to assess without video. The batter is entitled to swing at the pitch while in the box without liability for INT. But the timing sounds off: if the B swings at the pitch, the swing should be done before F2 rises to throw. So that makes the description in the OP suspicious for INT.
-
I would guess that the field has a ground rule concerning a batted ball that disappears from view, regardless of duration. If not, I don't see a lodged ball in the video. No different from hitting a wall: the fielder wouldn't have played it as it hit the wall or fell to the ground, and I'd treat this the same way as I see it pop out immediately. Killing it here gives the defense an unfair advantage, IMO.
-
The umpire needs to judge whether or not the runner's momentum would have taken him off the base without the added impetus of contact from the fielder. If so, he's out; if not, he's safe. Benefit of the doubt to the runner. There is no infraction or penalty, unless the contact is sufficent for MC. IIRC this guidance is codified in pro ball, but not in FED. I would call it the same in all codes.
-
If F2 makes a play on R2 stealing, is the ball really "wedged, stuck, lost or unreachable?" This is PU's primary, and if it happens so fast he's unaware of it, it can't really be lodged. Finally, consider this: the lodged ball rule is there to protect the defense, who has been deprived of an opportunity to field a loose ball. Whey would we employ it to deprive the defense of an opportunity to play on a runner? As I envision the timing of this, I'd allow the play on R2 to stand.
-
1. Yes. With the BR, now R1, standing on 1B, he has corrected his baserunning error. That can happen during a dead ball (touches during a home run trot count). 2. It's not preventive officiating to use proper mechanics—just officiating. 3. Yes. When PU tries to grant time, maybe stare at 1B and say, "Not yet!" 4. Well, you shouldn't. PU made the ball dead improperly, so we don't give the defense the unfair advantage of a dead-ball appeal. 5. Nothing material.
-
I don't have my book, but my recollection is that throwing equipment is a "warn then eject" level offense under 3-3-1. Egregious violations can skip directly to ejection. It's HS baseball, and we still have an opportunity to teach sportsmanship. At 14, he doesn't get to be Bryce Harper. It's great when a coach addresses this behavior, but many don't have the cojones to stand up to parents. Same for some umpires. If I were evaluating a PU umpire who allowed this, it would be a substantial ding and a followup convo.
-
For emphasis? Oh, you probably weren't looking for the reason...
-
🤣 What's the definition of "in flight?" If the batted ball after bouncing off another fielder is caught, still an out? José Canseco play?
-
Sometimes we throw the term 'protected fielder' around without remembering, "protected from what?" Runners may dictate their own path to the base (think rounding the bases, etc.). Fielders must usually yield the right of way to runners, and if they fail to do so and hinder a runner, they're guilty of OBS. The exception occurs when a fielder is fielding a batted ball. Then he's protected from his obligation to clear the base path for the runner, because the fielder now has the right of way. I couldn't access the video from CCS linked above (seems to have been taken down?), but from the description we have F1 AND F3 in the BR's base path. One of them will be protected, the other won't. So whoever is not protected will be guilty of OBS (with or without a collision—we're watching for hindrance, and a collision is never necessary but usually sufficient evidence of hindrance). The only other consideration is INT with the protected fielder. Here, unless the BR does something intentionally or prior to the fielder gloving the batted ball, we're probably sticking with the OBS call—as I'm envisioning the play, the collision occurred because of the OBS and during a tag attempt.
-
Connecticut Contacts Here? BI/Strike 3 - Possible DP or Not
maven replied to johnnyg08's topic in High School
If the idea is to keep it simple, this is fine. If umpires need a bit more to wrap their heads around the problem, just announcing "period" can seem tyrannical. Another approach for stubborn umpires: if we call just 1 out here, then either we have a third strike with no strikeout (batter out for his INT), or we have INT with no penalty (batter out for his K). Neither is fair to the defense. -
Connecticut Contacts Here? BI/Strike 3 - Possible DP or Not
maven replied to johnnyg08's topic in High School
Sounds like an umpire who's been dying to apply a FED rules difference for his whole career, and finally had the chance. The other possibility is that he's been dying to call this to prompt FED to change their stupid case play. I've posted this a number of times at UE, but I will say it again. The definition of batter INT entails that F2 was hindered from playing on another runner. If we rule batter INT on strike 3, then by definition a "double play" was possible (batter out on strikes, runner out for the batter INT). So either it was batter INT with a K and we have 2 outs, or it was not batter INT because there was no hindrance. I have no idea what FED could be thinking in keeping a case play that allows conceptual space for ruling batter INT and NOT calling anyone out for it. No such conceptual space exists in the rules (true of all major codes). The only possible rationale for the stupid case play that I have been able to dream up over the years is that some misguided soul thought that consistency with FED's runner INT rule is required here. The runner INT rule allows the umpire to rule 2 out in cases where a double play was "possible," so it's conceivable that someone thought that the same standard should apply to batter INT. For reasons just given, it cannot. We don't, however, need a rule change. Just call batter INT in the appropriate way, and nobody (except possibly that guy in CT) will ever rule just one out here. -
As always, no hindrance = no INT. As always, benefit of any doubt to the defense. And as always, make 'em big—we need to be able to point to the hindrance if the OC asks what he did, and to explain how that hindered the play of F2 on the runner.
-
R2 is forced to advance for the standard reason: the batter became a runner. The BR's "right" to 1B is moot, and not part of the definition of a force play. Had the outfielder dropped the fly ball, could R2 have remained on 2B? Of course not: he's forced. The force is not off until the ball is caught, at which time runners become obligated to retouch. Runners have to hedge their bets and judge the likelihood of a catch when they determine how far to advance on the fly ball. Sometimes it's good to go back to very basic ideas and reconnect them in our minds. Thank you for the opportunity to think and talk through this connection.
-
Umpires should use the proper term: it's a 'time play'. Would you call the alternative a 'forcing play'? No, it's a force play.
-
While the ball is in the air, yes, he is forced. But once it's caught, the BR is out, and all force plays are off. Think of it this way: once the batter is out on the catch, R2 may legally return to 2B, right? So he's not forced to advance any longer. This is a retouch appeal play on R2. A retouch appeal can NEVER be a force play: if a retouch is required, that means the BR was retired on a caught fly ball, so all force plays are off. So, yes, this would be a time play, and if R3 scores before R2 is doubled off—that is, before R2 is tagged out—then the run scores.