Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
  1. mikecw_1968

    Base pops up.

    I'm with rick on this one. While the defense did nothing wrong, neither did the runner. Call obstruction on the "base" and put him where you think he'd be had the obstruction not occurred.
  2. Yeah, I figured. Welp, the one good thing about messing up is that you usually don't mess up the same way again. Crap.
  3. I had this weird play and after thinking about it for the next 4 innings, I may have got it wrong. R1, no outs. Ball hit to the 2nd baseman. When he fields the ball, he's about a step in front of the basepath of R1. R1 pulls up/stops before he gets to the fielder. I don't know why, I guess he thought he was going to run into him or be tagged if he caught it. The 2nd baseman boots the ball and it deflects behind him about 6-7 feet. The runner tries to go behind the 2nd baseman who is now trying to retrieve the ball. He's within about two steps from the ball when he blocks the path of R1. No contact was made, but R1's progress was slowed down. He retrieves the ball and throws to 2nd for the force out. I call him out. This all happened very fast. My reasoning at the time was that since R1 stopped on his own before the fielder booted the ball, and there was really no reason for him to stop (he could have gone waaay around the fielder to avoid him making a play), I had nothing on the play and called him out on the force. I talked to my partner and he said he saw the same thing and didn't see anything that would warrant a reversal and call obstruction. As umpires will do on weird plays, I thought about it for the rest of the game. I think I could have/should have called obstruction because the fielder did hinder/impede the runner without the ball. But the runner had already pulled up/stopped before the fielder booted the ball....but he booted it and then hindered R1, he shouldn't get to hinder and get the out. Obviously, the coach wasn't happy but it didn't affect the outcome. If I described this properly, what do you think? Did I miss this one?
  4. The rule says: 5.02 (4.03) Fielding Positions When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory. (a) The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher’s box until the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand. PENALTY: Balk. I had a game this weekend where the catcher would setup waaaay outside. The catcher's box lines were not drawn but he had one foot in the box, the rest of his body was pretty much in the other batter's box. It says he may "leave his position at any time to catch a pitch...". Does this mean he should be directly behind the plate when the pitcher comes set and then can move out as far as he wants? There were runners on base but I didn't call anything. Nobody was saying anything about it and I wasn't going to pick a booger that didn't need to be picked. Just wanted to get some thoughts on this.
  5. Seeing R2 break for 3rd is not anticipating he's going to 3rd, he is going to 3rd....until he stops.
  6. After all the discussion, it seems like most people go with a balk. I am in the minority. At the very least, I agree with ricka56 in that there is a conflict with 8.05(b) and (d). If we're unsure, can we use the 8.05 Comment that says: "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent†of the pitcher should govern." I don't think the pitcher "intends" to decieve the runner if R2 breaks for 3rd and he steps to 3rd but doesn't throw because he is making, or thinks he needs to, make a play.
  7. Here's what I'm getting. If R2 breaks for 3rd, the pitcher steps to make the throw to 3rd but stops because R2 stopped and retreated, that's a balk. But if R2 breaks for 3rd, stops, and the pitcher doesn't complete the throw to 3rd because he tries to get R2 out by a) running at R2 or b) throwing to 2nd, it's not a balk because he's making a "play". That is, of course, if we consider the act of running at R2 or throwing to 2nd after not completing the throw to 3rd, a "play". In this situation, it seems like we need a definition of a play to reconcile 8.05b and 8.05d.
  8. I did a search for this specific play but I couldn't find one. Runner on 2nd. If that runner takes off for 3rd, the pitcher can throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play. However, if R2 breaks for 3rd...the pitcher, while on the rubber, steps to 3rd to make a play...R2 stops and goes back to 2nd...the pitcher doesn't throw to 3rd because R2 went back. Is this considered a fake throw to 3rd and hence a balk? My gut and common sense tells me that it is not a balk because R2 caused the pitcher to not throw to 3rd by going back to 2nd.
  • Create New...