Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About buckyswider

  • Birthday 07/20/1963

Profile Information

  • Location

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

1,030 profile views

buckyswider's Achievements



  1. Thanks, I read that thread and did a little more surfing. I think I see where I screwed up. Shaking the cobwebs off, I recall I would always lean towards an "attempt" when a batter/runner made a turn of more than a foot or two to the left on a play where there's a potential advance- like an overthrown ball. The reasoning behind that is that I always thought that in this scenario, the b/r would in fact gain an unfair advantage should in fact they decide to try for second. Judgement call for sure, but I always leaned that way. Fast forward, I forgot my thought process vis-a-vis the rule in that situation, and only remembered the "advantage" part. I'm not excusing myself or trying to justify myself- I just value learning why I made a mistake or had a misconception so I don't repeat it in the future. But thanks for setting me straight here. I'm sure I'll be around these parts a lot as my return to the diamond continues!
  2. I didn't think intent was in play here...just the case that he's now 6 feet closer to his next destination was all that matters. Obviously I don't *know*, and would appreciate opinions from all!
  3. Interesting, thanks! That's something I hadn't even considered. So if the play hadn't been close, and B/R called safe, his movement towards second would've/should've immediately resulted in a "passing" violation, and again given R1 "protection" from being tagged while in contact with first. Yes, it is very interesting! What would the situation be if B/R, (after having hypothetically being ruled safe), instead of going toward second, had rebounded into foul ground or straight down the line? Would that still be considered passing??
  4. Hi all, I may be overthinking this, but I can't figure out what the umpires decided to call on this play. It's at about 2:20 of the highlight video down below. Situation is runner on 1st, one out. Infield pop up by the batter (Bohm) between the mound and first. The runner on first (Hoskins) stays parked on the bag. 1bman lets the ball fall to the ground untouched. Bohm, who had not been running hard, sprints to first as the 1Bman picks up the ball and throws to first to the 2bman who was covering. It's a bang bang play and the 1B ump calls the batter/runner out. Replay shows that B/R actually beats the throw. The batting team had already wasted their challenge, so no replay review is possible (probably wouldn't have been fruitful anyway, with the possible advantage of replacing the piano-carrying Hoskins with the fleeter Bohm on 1B). So I'm wondering: was the B/R called out simply as a result of a kicked call? (Not throwing shade here, it was bang-bang, with a lot of moving parts and extraneous players ). Or was there something else going on? Had the "proper" safe call happened on the B/R, the covering defender (2bman) did then tag R1 still standing on first, so an out would have happened either way. (Interestingly, as a result of a slight collision with the covering defender, B1 ended up about 5 feet on the infield side of the line, so if a safe call had been made, I can forsee a situation where R1 is called out on the tag, and then B1 is tagged out before returning to first. But I digress) By the way, if any of you heard the Phillies telecast, it was infuriating, as the PBP guy kept saying that "the lead runner has the right to the bag, which is why the batter was called out". Which of course is not the case here, and R1 is forced to advance. So am I overthinking this and B/R was just called out by what replay showed to be an incorrect (albeit very very close) call? Thanks!
  5. Thanks guys! Wasn't a particular call that made me think of it, so I was curious what it was in the different codes anyway. And yeah, now that you guys mention the 8.02(c) comment it rings a bell. I'm U(retired), so I don't read the rule book(s) religiously like I used to so my memory is failing. And I think this is the first time where I can say I like a FED rule better than OBR!! While it wasn't a "call", there was just a situation in an MLB game that made me curious, but I fabricated my play above as a "what if". In this scenario there was only a slight check swing, the U2 gave a half-hearted "safe" call then indicated that the batter had walked. Thanks again!
  6. Hi all, I think the answer to this is the point B1 is ruled "out", but I'm not sure... 3-2, 0 or 1 outs, R1. R1 runs on the pitch. B1 checks his swing, HP ump rules a ball. F2 throws to 2nd anyway and the runner is tagged before touching second. 2B ump calls R1 "out". F2 appeals to the 1B ump who rules it a swing. So what is the correct ruling on R1, who may or may not have slowed his pace upon seeing/hearing the pitch ruled ball 4??
  7. Thanks! I concede that there's nothing in the book that would make this anything other than what called; wondering if Barnery Dreary et. al would have opined on this in the past. IMH (and hopefully objective) O, the standard for INT for a coach should be much less in a play like this- akin to the "add to the difficulty of the fielder" as in 6.03(a)(4).
  8. http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=659802383&topic_id=8879974&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0' Hi all, don't know if that link will work...if so, the play isn't until 2:30. Anyhow, R2 rounding third too far as coach goes into the baseline to stop him (that's not the issue). Then the ball gets thrown to 3b, F5 with ball starts chasing the runner towards home, and coach jumps out of the way and F5 does a little maneuver to avoid the 3B coach. 3U immediately gives the safe sign. R3 (formerly R2) gets caught in a rundown and is eventually tagged out. However, in the interim, R1 has advanced to 3B and scores the walkoff run on the next single. So the question is whether 3B coach is guilty of INT. Broadcaster talk (BAHAHA) was that no contact occurred so no INT. I would make the case that 6.01a(4) should apply as the coach "added to the difficultly" of F5 making the play and should've been banged dead at the time. As far as my slanted view is concerned, this play SHOULD be INT. Question is, based on current rules and interpretations, should it have been? Here's another article with an animated gif of the thing going down.... http://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/1021333 ...aha, and here's a vine loop of the play. at What say you all?? Thanks!
  9. Ultimately? Yes. But this is a case of your head not thinking they could possibly be seeing what was happening, and defaulting to the 'accidental' diagnosis. But given the luxury of the replay from the different angle I think it's pretty certain that it was not accidental.
  10. tomato, tomahto, but I see a pretty big difference in a hard slide and this gut punch. I've never worked that level (or anything higher than NCAA Division 3 for that matter) so I can't say for certain how I'd feel it I had that experience, but my gut tells me that I'd eject at any level (assuming I was able to interpret what was happening real time). If a guy exaggerates his backswing to crack a catcher over the head to prevent him from making a throw, does that also fall under 'just trying to gain an advantage'?
  11. I think nothing happened. This happened in the 2nd, and the box shows Quintero getting 3ABs from the 7 hole. One of the sites mentioning this also says something about Quintero being involved in a bench-clearing brawl later in the game. No mentions of any ejection in the box, either.
  12. Weirdness in Pawtucket the other night (or the other team's park!) R2 attempted steal of third.  Pitch is a called strike.  Catcher almost punches the batter in the gut as he throws the ball directly into his midsection.  Seems pretty obvious (at least from this vantage point and repeated viewings) that it was intentional.  Do you toss him?   And/or, if this is K3, do you have INT??    98034083 Your browser does not support iframes.   (not sure if MiLB video works with the embed code; here's the link:  http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=98034083 )
  13. Thanks! Good conversation. I should really visit the forum regularly as I enjoy this type of rules picadilliea. And to be clear upfront, I'm not disagreeing- I do think this is definitely a no-call situation- but where does the precedent for the definition of the "hitting action" come from? And has MLB every issued any kind of approved ruling on this? It does have to be recent, because prior to reply in 2014 there is no possibility of this circumstance ever needing a ruling...
  • Create New...