ricka56

With respect to the quality of throw criteria, it seems that NCAA and OBR/MLB are the same (though the coding may not be). I can't remember not having a "discussion" with a coach when I've made this call (and sometimes when I have nothing). In OBR the phrase that keeps the umpire out of trouble is: "a throw that has a chance to retire the runner". Is there a concise phrase that an NCAA umpire can use to keep out of trouble ?

On 12/26/2019 at 7:52 AM, JSam21 said:

Remember with this rule, when on offense they aren't their defensive position, they are the DH. DH's aren't allowed to have CRs. 

That is one way to look at it, but not the only way. Another way to look at it is when a team is on offense, they have B1, B2...B9. With the F1 and F2 of record allowed to have a CR. If the Fed looked at it this way, they could have kept this speed up rule with the new DH rule.    

But from what I have read, that is not the way the Fed wants it...for now. I'm OK with that ... just want to know the current rule.  

Does anyone know whether this DH rule change impacts the courtesy runner speed-up rule ? Is a courtesy runner allowed for F1/DH or F2/DH ?

Has anyone seen the new DH rule written in the 2020 RB. 
If so, could you post the text of the DH rule change/addition.

Thanks in advance.

Just because a rule isn't always applied/not applied properly, doesn't mean that it needs to be changed/eliminated. The rule gives parameters to use, when judging interference...otherwise interference calls would be completely arbitrary. The rule is perfectly fine as is. 

Runners can run to 1B illegally without penalty all game long...but if you do, and something like that happens, you get what you get. Quit whining.

Ballzy call

8 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Is a run unscored if there is malicious contact/conduct after the plate is touched?

Wouldn't this be treated the same as that, however that is treated?

3-3-1n. initiate malicious contact on offense or defense;
In (n), ... if on offense, the player is ejected and declared out, unless he has already scored.

It is always hazardous to port one rule to cover an unrelated play. That said, I'd agree, but not admit that I used the MC exception.

10 hours ago, maven said:

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.

In the OP side note, it says that R3 did a much safer thing, diving over F2, rather than collide full speed with F2. You have to give R3 consideration for avoiding the contact/collision...doesn't merit a stiffer penalty. Of course, that consideration is moot if there is an actual rule to apply. But in this case, none seem to apply.

There is an old humorous umpire saying that has no real validity, but might be apt here.

If you need a strike, call a strike.

If you need an out, call an out.

If you need a run, balk it in. 

36 minutes ago, Guest Coach Bill said:

So can you send the runner without fear? Or if you send him, can they say - no we were only giving him third base? I guess that's my bigger question. I knew they shouldn't call it out, I was just wondering.

The runner can not be sent home without jeopardy of being tagged out at home. 

23 minutes ago, Guest Coach Bill said:

Let me clarify some more. That obstruction didn't stop him from taking third by any means. It stopped him from possibly going home. I might not have sent him out of risk/reward, but the obstruction only affected his ability to go home. Third was never in question. Would an umpire ever tell call the runner safe and return him to third if he was out trying to go home. I mean he still would have probably been 2/3 of the way home before the ball would have arrived. 

The umpire might think that the runner's progress was impeded by a step or two. If he is thrown out at HP by 5 steps or more, then the out stands. And there is no returning him to 3B in that scenario. 

Few coaches don't understand why their obstructed runner can be called out (or act like they don't). It will take all of the umpire(s) game  management skills to survive this call. Most likely, though, the game becomes a $#!+show henceforward. 

On 6/27/2019 at 3:53 PM, lawump said:

The DH rule now has three options:

(1) You can start the game with no DH.  If so, you cannot add a DH later. No DH, no worries

(2) You can use the DH option that we have had in FED for the last decade or more. DH terminates when DH plays defense or defensive player only bats in that spot. 

(3) You can have a player start the game as a Defensive Player / DH. DH terminates when DH is substituted

I'm trying to simplify this rule addition. Do I have the above correct:

If this is correct, then this shouldn't be much of a brain teaser

I can picture it. So few kids really get baseball. Unless they watch MLB games on TV, there is no way a part time coach can teach the game in two, one hour per week practices.

7 hours ago, umpstu said:

Matt feels asking to see the ball is a bad habit?  Not sure why?  

You are asking a player to do something other than what he would normally be doing and that's inviting trouble. If he turns his wrist to show you the ball and it falls out of his glove, then you have created a problem. Did he have secure possession of the ball (catch/no-catch) ? You'd may give the fielder the benefit of the doubt since it was your request to see the ball that initiated the drop, but it is a debate that you unnecessarily created.

I cite the words in my signature line when I say that any batter "unaware" to the degree that they could not avoid being struck by their own high pop-up deserves to be called out.  Fortunately, there is also rule support for not rewarding the dumb$#!+.

78 post on a "Ask the umpire" thread...make that 79. There had to be a train wreck in here somewhere...I had to look. 

I'm going with what I think would be easiest to sell, an out. Not out takes too much rules gymnastics (over-officating). 

Coach: You make that call when we're getting our asses handed to us like this ?

Umpire: Sorry about that coach ? 

Coach: What ? So you're sorry that you made that call ? 

Umpire: No no, skip, I'm empathizing. My therapist said that I should empathize more and be sarcastic less.

1. For a LHP to throw to 1B, he has to turn/cock his left shoulder to make that throw ... and his foot is within the mythical 45 degrees.  Some lefties are better than others at delaying their commitment to HP or 1B . But you can tell by his left shoulder if he's throwing to 1B.  I don't touch this move. 

2. When LHP intends to deliver a pitch at time-of-pitch (TOP), but then decides late to throw to 1B (often instigated by R1 breaking on first movement), F1 may balk. To be able to make that throw (without falling on his arse), his non-pivot foot clearly steps more toward HP than 1B. I hope to be all over those. 

That's all I can do with my limited umpire skills. And OHC can pound sand when LHP does (1).    

On 1/20/2019 at 11:06 AM, 253 masked man said:

You’re just like every other umpire I have ever met. An arrogant ass 

On 1/20/2019 at 11:16 AM, Jimurray said:

I don't know how you could discern that from my response but my wife says you are correct 

So, 235 got the it right....Good call

10 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Well, I'm no Dodgers fan so rub it in as much as you want!

Killjoy 

12 hours ago, grayhawk said:

When I saw it live, it looked to me like Bellinger touched the base prior to the ball reaching F3, and nothing on replay shows otherwise.  Would a true throw have retired Bellinger?  It's possible.  However, F3 was taking the throw inside and the throw tailed out, preventing F3 from being able to stretch to receive it.  There is some validity to giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense on this play, but I am okay with the no call.

I find it amusing that a left coast umpire had no RLI in real time and this right coast umpire had RLI in real time. Not throwing shade ...just noting amusement. Though I'd have been less amused had the 4-0 Dodgers score held up. 

...too soon ? 

The Red Sox came back and made this play a moot point for baseball fans. But if the 4-0 Dodgers score had held up, this play would have become as big as any controversial WS umpire call. Maybe it was Alex Cora's inexperience, but he should have insisted that the crew get together and piece that play back together (like in the old-old days before IR reviews). Joe Madden would have insisted on that. It is a one of the unintended consequences of relying on technology that would have been fun to watch play out.  

...though, I would have hated to see the villianization of the PU that would have accompanied it. 

That play wasn't eligible for replay review, but it was eligible for an on-field crew review. They might have been able to piece this play back together and save PU who was as busy as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest on that batted ball.

Quality of the throw was questionable...to the right of BR. But I thought the benefit of the doubt should have gone to the defense. 

The other thing that I didn't like was PU allowing DHC to shop for a call with his partner. If the call was safe/obstruction, I can't see a reason to confer with his partner.

That said, it is an uncommon play/call. If he went out to take a second to collect his thought, confirm what he had, then that wouldn't be the worst thing to happen. And the conference and subsequent discussion with DHC didn't take too long.  

Today, F2 doesn't like my ball call on a decision pitch and demonstrates his disapproval by shaking both hands (like he's about to throw a tantrum). Before I can say a word, his coach is on him, "Adam, don't do that". Then I tell Adam we can get that strike when he comes up to bat. Late in the game, I notice that Adam is leading off the inning.  And I ask him, "so, should I use your  KZ or mine" and look at him and wait for a response. "Yours" he says. "Well, we'll see", my reply. I planned on sticking with my KZ, but couldn't resist shaking him up a bit. He ends up walking on 5 pitches, with no decision pitches...lucky bastid.

19 hours ago, Matt said:

Leave it to Prager to re-normalize white supremacy.

I'll leave the Prager U political controversy aside, but I'd like to hear your well-founded rebuttal to this video. 

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Condescend much?

No, condescend accordingly.