Jump to content

Senor Azul

Established Member
  • Content Count

    1,654
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by Senor Azul

  1. Here’s what the 2016 BRD (section 237, p. 158) says about crowd control— FED: The umpire may eject a spectator(s). (5-2-1c) 2019 NFHS rule 5 SECTION 2 SUSPENSION OF PLAY ART. 1 . . . “Time” shall be called by the umpire and play is suspended when: c. a player, bench personnel or spectator is ordered from the grounds, or a player is ordered to secure protective equipment; Note: BRD recommends: Direct the home game administrator or someone from the host team to take care of any disruptive fans. NCAA: The onus for crowd control rests on the home team athletic di
  2. Senor Azul

    Appeal plays

    When does the appeal opportunity end? The answer to the question actually appears in the rule book (OBR rule 5.09c) and a timeout is not one of the ways the defense loses its right to appeal. In fact, a common way an appeal is made is after a timeout the pitcher steps on the rubber and the umpire makes the ball live and then the pitcher steps off the rubber and throws to a base to make an appeal. An appeal must be made before a pitch, play or attempted play, or before the pitcher and all infielders leave the infield (and the catcher has cleared the dirt circle) when a half-inning or the g
  3. I found a treatise titled History of Umpiring by Larry Gerlach on the website stevetheump.com. It says that the AL first used gray slacks in 1968-- …The American League's adoption of gray slacks in 1968 and maroon blazers in 1971 was part of an effort to project a distinctive "sporty" image, as was the case later when umpires in both leagues began wearing numerals on their sleeves and baseball caps with letters designating league affiliation… And as nearly everything else there seems to be an evolution. Here are a couple excerpts from the wikipedia entry for Umpire (baseball)— I
  4. At first I, too, thought the plate umpire committed a major mistake in calling the play the way he did. But after checking the rule book it seems he may not have been so wrong after all. Here’s what I think is the relevant rule-- 2019-2020 NCAA rule 8 When Runners Are Out SECTION 5. A runner is out when: c. Any runner after reaching a base safely who leaves the base path heading for his dugout or his defensive position, believing that there is no further play, if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out
  5. Well, it just so happens I have the 2014 PBUC—which I believe is the last edition under that name. The next year it became the Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual. And you are partially right. The 2014 PBUC (section 6.15, p. 64) does refer to an interpretation about a batter-runner who lingers at the plate after an uncaught third strike. By the way, that section is titled ABANDONING BASE PATHS. Here is what it says about the batter-runner who lingers— “Under the Casebook Comment to Official Baseball Rule 6.09(b), a batter who strikes out on third strike not caught is treated differe
  6. Mr. Jimurray, you may be right about the reason for the rule change but I don’t think so. Here’s why. The 2006 OBR rule book lists more than 20 changes for the 2006 season. One of those changes reads— Added experimental pace-of-game rule for National Association play (Rule 6.02(d)). Of the 20+ new rules listed that is the only one that says anything about the pace of play. Rule 6.02(d) was added to the Official Baseball Rules. This experimental rule was in effect for all National Association leagues in 2005. There were no changes in any aspect or wording of the experimental rule from
  7. Apparently, when a batter-runner is considered to have abandoned his right to run after an uncaught strike three had not been much of an issue in the majors until 1976 when they first discussed it in the rule book. At first it was just a Note/Comment for OBR rule 6.09(b). It was moved to the rule book proper as a subparagraph to 6.09(b) in 1978. The current rule declaring a batter-runner out when he leaves the dirt circle is now designated 5.05(a)(2) and has only been in the book since 2006. 5.05 When the Batter Becomes a Runner (a) The batter becomes a runner when: (2) The thi
  8. Each of the umpire manuals has some kind of definition of the term catch and each one makes an effort to explain the concepts of voluntary release and act of throwing. But they’re all slightly different—let’s start with the MLBUM and the MiLBUM manuals-- From the 2015 MLBUM (paragraph 65, p. 80) and the same text can be found in the 2018 MiLBUM (p. 135): The umpire should find that a legal catch has occurred pursuant to Definitions of Terms, “Catch,” or valid force out or tag has occurred pursuant to Definitions of Terms, “Tag,” if the fielder had complete control over the ball in hi
  9. The Definitions of Terms in the OBR is no longer rule 2—in the 2019 edition the definitions start on page 144 following rule 9. It’s more of an appendix now even though it is not listed as an appendix in the table of contents. The change in placement for the definitions was made in the 2015 edition from rule 2 to the back of the book. Both FED and NCAA still put their definitions in rule 2 of their respective books. And it was indeed Mr. LRZ who first recommended in this thread that the definitions is a good starting point.
  10. but I've not seen anything barring a batter or runner from visually interfering with a fielder. Under high school rules if the runner’s action prevents a play involving the screened fielder it is illegal— 2019 NFHS Case Book Play 8.4.2 Situation F: In the opinion of the umpire, R1, when leading off first base, moves up to the front of the baseline, thus effectively screening F3 from the ball on F1’s attempted pickoff. Ruling: R1 shall be called out for interference. Comment: If this is not ruled to be interference, the runner gains an advantage not intended by the rule. This maneu
  11. Of course a batter cannot do that. He would be interfering with the catcher’s fielding of the pitch. And the bit of text that Mr. Jimurray mentioned is found in 2019 OBR rule 6.03(a)(3)— (a) A batter is out for illegal action when: (3) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. The 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 97) says this about batter interference— It is batter interference if the batter hinders the catcher…by abnormal or extraordinary movement inside
  12. Well, Mr. noumpere, I have to compliment you on your consistency. This is the third time you have posted your support of the so-called circle play. You were also equally consistent in that you have only presented your opinion and no evidence to support it. And, of course, I disagree with your stated opinion in all three cases. Here are your previous posts-- From 10/29/20 While OBS is a possible ruling, it's not likely in the usual "circle play" where F6 is just moving from (near) second back to (near) his normal position and happens to pass in front of R2 while doing so, even if F1
  13. As you are wont to say, Mr. maven, “c’mon, man!” What case play are you citing? I already cited the only two I could find in the 2019 FED case book. A proper citation allows us, the readers, to be able to find the case play and read it. You just left us hanging. And what do you mean when you say the mystery case play tells us the pitcher cannot return? To pitching in that particular inning or in the game? Perhaps you are thinking of the case play that I already posted and you just didn’t read it?
  14. Here’s something else for you to consider, Mr. DCM. The “asshattery” by the shortstop is probably a coach-called play that is designed to block the runner’s view of the pitcher and the ball. All they need to get is a split-second advantage and it increases the likelihood of a successful pickoff—it is also illegal. Both OBR and NCAA codes have rules against this kind of asshattery. I originally posted the following in July 2019— From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.17, p. 98): Play 12: With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runn
  15. Here’s how the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual explains OBR rule 5.10(d) Comment— Under the Casebook Comment to Official Baseball Rule 5.10(d), a pitcher may change to a defensive position other than pitcher only once an inning. In other words, a pitcher may change to another defensive position and then return to the mound during the same inning, but after so doing he may not leave the mound again in that inning (unless, of course, he is removed from the game). If such pitcher returns to the mound during the same inning, he is allowed the usual eight (or as many or few complying
  16. 2019 NFHS rule 3-1 ART. 2 . . . If a pitcher is replaced while his team is on defense, the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute for that batter, until such batter is put out or reaches first base, or until a third out has been made. To ensure that the requirements of this article be fulfilled, the umpire will deny any coach-defensive player conference that will violate the rule. If a pitcher is incapacitated or guilty of flagrant unsportsmanlike conduct, this rule is ignored. A player may be removed as pitcher and returned as pitcher only once per inning,
  17. From the 2013 Wendelstedt manual (p. 147): If an immediate play is being made on the obstructed runner…the umpire shall call time, then call and signal obstruction. From the OP-- “R2 entangles with F6, then F1 steps off and makes throw to F5 putting out R2.” The runner is trying to steal and the pitcher reacts to the movement of the runner and tries to get him out. That is an immediate play being made on an obstructed runner. From the 2013 Wendelstedt manual (p. 147): If a fielder is not in possession of the ball, nor in the act of fielding the ball, it is obstruction when…con
  18. The OP asked for an OBR ruling—so… why isn’t this play considered to be Type 1 obstruction? why isn’t the play killed immediately and the runner awarded third base? why is this considered to be the same ruling as FED where obstruction is always a delayed-dead ball? why does the F6 get to impede the progress of R2 when he does not have possession of the ball nor is he in the act of fielding?
  19. FED addresses the issue of detached equipment in rules 8-3-3a-c (the base awards), 8-3-4, and 8-3-5a. It also has case plays dealing with this issue— 8.3.3C for usage of detached equipment on a thrown ball 8.3.3F for usage of detached equipment on a batted ball 8.3.3L for usage of detached equipment on a pitched ball However, the FED does not go into detail about the actual mechanics the umpire should use on this kind of play. In fact, the only place I could find where the mechanics are discussed is in the 2013 Wendelstedt manual—I originally posted the following in August
  20. Mr. Recontra, the OBR definition of the term Interference used to say that interference caused an immediate dead ball—a definition that actually conflicted with a couple of other rules. So the rules committee amended the definition in 2013 with a simple deletion to fix the conflict. Here’s how the change read in the 2013 rule book-- Summary of Rule Changes for 2013 • Amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE) by deleting the last sentence, “On any interference the ball is dead” in order to account for cases where interference does not result in an immediate dead ball (e.g., batter’s interferen
  21. From the 2018 MiLBUM (section 6.8, p. 86): rule 6.01(a)(10) "If runner interference is called on a fly ball and it is not an infield fly situation, the ball remains alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If fair, the runner who interfered is declared out and the batter is awarded first base even if the ball is caught (unless determined that the interference was intentional for the purpose of breaking up a double play). If foul, even if caught, the runner is out, the batter returns to bat (unless determined that the interference was intentional for the purpose of br
  22. No, Mr. Double Up, it is not a balk in any code—pitchers do not have to disengage to feint to second base. See the current NCAA rule 9-3c-2. For OBR see rule 6.02(a)(2) and 6.02(a)(3) Comment. The FED actually has a case play--and here is what it says in the BRD for FED— From the 2016 BRD (section 398, p. 266): While in contact with the pitcher’s plate in the set position, the pitcher may feint toward second. 2019 NFHS Case Book Play 6.2.4 Situation F: With R2 and R1, F1, who is a left-handed pitcher, is in the set position. He stretches and comes to a complete stop with the ball i
  23. The last three sentences of the ruling in case play 6.1.5 Situation very clearly state that it is not a balk for a pitcher to feint to third and then throw to first without disengaging the rubber. Had F1 stayed on the pitching plate during his feint to third and his throw to first, all runners would be awarded one base. R3 would get home and R1 would get second. This would not be a balk as F1 made a legal feint and a legal pickoff attempt with no prior motion to pitch. The final two sentences of the ruling for 6.2.4 Situation C very clearly state a pitcher can remain on the rubber an
  24. Messrs. LMSANS, Thunderheads, HokieUmp, et al., I don’t understand your objection to the BU conferencing with his partner to discuss whether a feint constitutes a play or not. The BU’s understanding of this concept does affect his award of bases (either TOP or TOT) in this play. What’s wrong with clearing that up? Is there some rule or case play or guidelines that tell us not to conference about this kind of question? As far as I know the FED states in only one place that a feint is not a play (for the purpose of making base awards)—in case play 8.3.5H. So isn’t it possible and rea
  25. Mr. Thunderheads, I am hoping you can provide some solid feedback to me as well. Please explain the following— “He'll have to disengage to throw to first (physically impossible)…” I ask because earlier in this so-called zombie thread I posted two FED case plays (6.2.4C and 6.1.5) that say it is permissible for a high school pitcher to fake to third and turn and throw to first without disengaging the rubber. Now I grant you that was more than 2 ½ years ago and I do not have the 2020 rules and case books. So have there been any changes to the FED rules regarding the 3-1 move? Or am I
×
×
  • Create New...