Dragon29

My point exactly.

F3's doing something odd; R1 is doing something odd. Trout's right - could blow up, but I'm not sure I say anything based strictly on the description in the OP. Gee - I hope the coaches are watching . . . Maybe they can fix it between innings.

I actually had this a few seasons ago. LL Majors - After coming set, F1 dropped the ball; I called 'Ball.' From the offensive dugout I heard, "Do it again." Next pitch, same thing. I called 'Ball' and then 'Time.' I went & spoke w/the manager - a guy I'd known for years and who had been UIC for a different local LL - and asked him what he was doing. He was very up front about it and told me he was trying to save pitches for his F1. I said, "Cut it out." He said, "Why? There's no rule against it." I said, "Yes, there is." He shook his head and said, "OK." The rest of the AB went fine; F1 threw two pitches outside the zone and the batter was walked. For what it's worth, I didn't really have 8.02( B) in my head when I told him to cut it out. It just seemed 'wrong' at the time. I have since learned to not umpire 'by my gut' but I am glad I stopped him.

That's the plan - I guess. I tried to find the exact wording of the proposal, but was unable to do so. If anyone can find it, please post it here. Inquiring minds . . . .

That doesnt work imo because you are waiting to see where the ball is thrown before moving and thats too late imo (at least if Im reading you correctly). You need to step up as the play starts then move as it develops then adjust as you read the throw. Yes, I do wait until the throw is made, but have not had a hard time getting in good position to see the end of the play. It may help that I'm 6'5" and when I make the 2-step move towards 3B, I cover quite a bit of distance as well. As I said, YMMV.

This is exactly how I've been taught. The initial step forward gets your angle started for the possible play at third. It also doesn't carry you too far toward third so you can still drop step and get in position if the catcher throws to second. We're taught something similar - the difference being that we are instructed to take our first step with the foot that's on the side of the ball. In other words, from 'C' if the throw goes to 2B, your first step is back w/your left foot - this allows you to follow the ball and open up (3 steps) to 2B as the play is being made; if the throw goes to 3B, your first step is forward with the right - again, this allows you to follow the ball and open up (2 steps) to 3B. It's worked for me - YMMV.

Yeah - sounds good, but all you got rules-wise to back you up is 4.16 (6) and that's really reaching! Like - to the moon reaching. I'm not putting my reputation on the line simply because I think a manager's trying to get one or two more pitches out of the opposing F1. If LL doesn't want them to be able to do this, they should change the rule. Strike!

Fixed your post.

OK - Retraction. I like 24sdad's solution better than the one I posted.

From an AP article in May of this year: The Playing Rules Committee has approved a proposal to make it a balk, too, with MLB executives and umpires in agreement. The players' union vetoed the plan for this season to discuss it further. MLB is allowed to implement the change after a one-year wait — no telling whether that would happen if players strongly object. Under the new wording, a pitcher could not fake to third unless he first stepped off the rubber. If he stayed on the rubber ... it would be a balk. The article goes on, mostly talking about why they would want to make this rules change when the move almost(!?!) never works anyway. Here's my favorite line from that article: Seriously, with no previous controversy surrounding this age-old play, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the playing rules committee came around with this idea while wearing shirts that said "Here comes Selig! Look busy!"

Not a perfect solution but, if your partner does decide to oveturn his initial 'Out' call based upon your additional information, I would think you would return all runners to their TOP bases and put the BR back in the box w/the previous count. I know there are no 'do-overs' in baseball, but in this case (where the problem was caused by an umpire's lack of rules knowledge) I think this is probably the way to go. Oh - and your partner's gonna need a cold one to wash down that sh!t sandwich the DM just handed him.

Kind of a snap judgment w/o seeing how close R3 & F5 may have been. I don't know that I subscribe strictly to Rich's 5'/20' comparison, but that's certainly the right idea. Curious how you came to that conclusion - ?

Concur w/the other. This doesn't sound like INT to me.

Came down kinda hard on him, didn't you? He didn't "go public" with it - he used no names. He went public w/the situation, not the specifics. Where better to do that than on an umpire web-site? I don't see anyone rolling under a bus here - just another blue asking for some opinions. Now, if he had used the guy's name, I would agree with you.

Ain't that the truth!!!

I did not know that - thanks. I was UIC from 2005 to 2009; before that I was just a parent volunteer. (they were desperate!) Guess by the time I read the entire rule book, that part was gone.

Yup - it's a visit. The managers in the LL I was UIC for a few years ago used to request 'Time', get it and then go stand on the foul side of either the 1BL/3BL and speak w/their pitchers, believing (I kid you not) that if they didn't cross the line, it couldn't be counted as a visit. Of course, almost all of the umpires were untrained parent volunteers (hell, I was one for a few years) and would not know enough to charge them a visit anyway. I put a stop to that right away - much to the chagrin of most of the upper level (well, Majors & Juniors) coaches who thought they were being clever. Oh - and back to the OP - I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm BU and there's a mound visit, I move away. The conference belongs to the PU, not me. I do not listen to their conversation at all - this is the DM's opportunity to come out to his F1 and say anything he wants that he thinks will improve F1's performance, including blaming every problem in the world on the umpires if he feels like it. It's none of my business unless they make it my business by doing/saying something loud &/or stupid. Just my $.02.

Gotta jump on the 'good idea' bandwagon. We've used the hand signal for 'ball on the ground' and pre-gamed signals to use for 'I have information', but this is so much simpler & clean. I love it!

Sorry, sorry. I retract everything I said. This clip is as real as it gets. Totally awesome play. Couldn't be better.

Hey! Baseball's hard!! Every once in a while, a guy's gotta just kick back and take a break.

Digitally enhanced. Bruce Lee couldn't have gotten that ball.

noumpere - you're right. This has been out there for years; I think it was for a Red Bull ad or something like that.

Also yesterday, Giants vs. Padres - Dana Demuth calls a catch for F7 making a diving play on a fly ball. Bruce Bochy comes out to argue that the ball was trapped (video replay shows clearly that it was) and the umpires get together and reverse the call. I thought Bud Black was gonna get tossed, but kudos to the umpires for getting together and fixing the call. (And, yes - I would still think it was a good thing to do even if it hadn't helped my team) Now, the announcer (John Miller) still described it as 'one umpire over-ruling another' but what can you do?

Warren, Yes - someone (I don't recall who) posted the history of the game that led to that particular rule. I don't recall the player or team, but essentially it was because there was a specific player that was known for standing next to his next base while time was out after a Foul was called, and as soon as the ball was put back in play, he would just touch that base, therefore legally acquiring it. Smart player!

Scrounge, I'm in CA, so don't need to stay up, but I can't sit through a (hated) Dodgers game . . . unless they're playing the Giants, of course. I'll take your word for it.