Jump to content

Sut'n Blue

Established Member
  • Posts

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Sut'n Blue last won the day on January 8 2016

Sut'n Blue had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Location
    New England

More information about you

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

Recent Profile Visitors

4,000 profile views

Sut'n Blue's Achievements

74

Reputation

  1. When the pitcher quick pitches I suppose I should let him do so and then assess the penalty but I come up and try to stop him from pitching in hope of preventing the batter from getting nailed when he isn't looking. The problem is if I kill it the offense won't get the benefit of the penalty bcause I killed it. Example from last night: R2, F1 quick pitches while the batter is looking down and adjusting his grip, I come up and try to stop F1 from pitching but he pitches and hits totally oblivious batter (who ended up going to ER as they thought his wrist was broken). Since I came up and tried to stop the pitch I killed play and didn't assess the balk - which really isn't fair. Should I have assessed the balk anyway? How do you handle these situations?
  2. Looking for runners or cyclists to weigh in. Maybe age is catching up to me (I'm 56) but when I work the plate, even if it's just one game, I find my runs are a little more difficult the next day - especially when the road starts going up. It doesn't seem to effect my bike rides though. Anyone have similar issues? If so, I'd like to hear if you've found anything that helps.
  3. Not necessarily obstruction. It is the umpire’s judgment as to which fielder is protected. The fact that F5 ultimately fielded the ball doesn’t automatically mean he was the protected fielder - it could have been F6. With the scenario given it’s hard to say for certain but interference is a possibility (which would mean runner from second out and batter to first).
  4. Sut'n Blue

    5.09(b)(7)

    Thank you all. I’ve read the rule I don’t know how many times and for some reason it just looked different this time. I’ve always applied it as per the responses but wondered if I had been missing something - I guess the good news is I hadn’t.
  5. Sut'n Blue

    5.09(b)(7)

    What I was getting at is the “and” part. The language piqued my curiosity because it can be read to say: A runner is out when two things happen: 1) he is touched by the ball, etc. AND 2) no other infielder has a chance to make a play. In my hypothetical I was trying to give an example where the runner was hit but another infielder did have a chance to make a play so only one of the conditions was met.
  6. Sut'n Blue

    5.09(b)(7)

    Any runner is out when: “He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has gone through, or by an infielder and no other infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball....” Hypothetical: R2, infield playing along outfield grass. Batter hits ground ball that hits R2 on his way to third before going by F5. Ball bounces off R2 and straight toward F6 who fields and throws to first too late to get BR. R2 is safe at 3rd because F6 had a chance to make a play on the ball?
  7. Curious after the runner being passed in the Dodgers game that Gil highlighted. If there had been two outs, does the base runner still score?
  8. Sut'n Blue

    Stealing home

    To help the original poster You are probably describing catcher's interference "CI" (but it could also be backswing interference as noumpre indicates). In the case of CI the coach can 1) accept the penalty which means the batter gets first and runners advance if forced or 2) accept the play in which case F3 scores and the batter remains at bat. If the bases were full, the penalty would be batter gets first and F3 scores because he was forced.
  9. With two strikes I tell myself "possible rip, possible or not possible drop." When working solo, which I do too much of, I will often do the signals I would give a partner if I had one (though much more subtly then I would if I actually had a partner) as it helps me keep the situation current.
  10. He punched his ticket with "You could learn a thing or two". And I don't subscribe to the idea that he gets a little slack because only the two of you heard it. Only the two of you heard it.... until he gets back to the dugout and tells everyone what he said (and he probably brags about it after the game to anyone who will listen as well). Of course, I would have tossed the AC. The "keep them in the game" philosophy only encourages bad behavior. Those who want us to keep them in the game are probably also wondering why they never have enough officials. The more s**t they expect officials to put up with the fewer people will be willing to become and/or stay an official. Yes, we need to have a thick skin - it's in the job description - but that doesn't mean we should ever have to roll over and take anyone's crap. If you tossed the AC do you think the HC would have followed up with you like he did? Me thinketh not. Now you've got two jackhats who think they can get away with talking trash to an umpire - because they did.
  11. Yes, a typo - should read 6.01. My bad. Maven: I'm not sure I'm following you. In my example R3's advance to home, which occurred prior to the the BR's interference, is allowed but if R1 and R2 advance to their next base prior to BR's interference, they would have to go back pursuant to the language of the rule. I think that is inconsistent. It's even possible R1 and R2 made it to their next base before R3 made it to home but they would have to return while R3 would not. Here nobody advances as a result of the BR's illegal action as they had all advanced before the interference occurred. The MLBUM interpretation as cited by Jimurray makes the most sense to me (but then the MiLBUM quoted by Senor Azul differs and follows the language of the rule more closely thereby giving us different interpretations). At the end of the day the rule is the rule for whatever reason and I will of course apply it but the seeming inconsistency caught my eye and made me wonder.
  12. Rule 6.10(a)(11). Situation: Bases loaded, none or one out, a dribbler to F5 who picks up and fires home too late to get R3. F2 throws to first and BR is called out for running lane interference. Under the rule R3's run counts. I'm trying to figure out the logic behind this as the way I read the rule R3 gets to advance but the other runners have to go back to their base at time of pitch. This makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?
  13. Don't think this has been discussed but this video is pretty good. Many will find it a little on the basic side but its worth a look and free if you have Amazon Prime. The umpire's mechanics are worth watching in their own right. He's very good. (as you would expect from an umpire in a Jim Evans video). https://www.amazon.com/Baseballs-Diamond-Challenge-Learn-Puzzling/dp/B01I05MBPS/ref=sr_1_8?dchild=1&keywords=baseball+challenge&qid=1586879437&sr=8-8
  14. The back is solid (with a lot of holes for ventilation). There's a lip roughly a half inch by a half inch on the front edge of the shelves to keep thing from falling out. There is no bottom so the things in the bottom level will sit on the carpeted "floor" of the Jeep - I doubt these things will move much but if they do I will add something to stop them from moving around too much.
  15. Yup, drive a Wrangler JK with the back seat and subwoofer removed. The opening faces the inside of the tailgate. I still need to hang shirts and pants from the roll bar. It snuggles up against the tailgate and locks to the seat connectors via eye bolts and padlocks so its pretty safe even with the top off (I'm in a rural area so theft really isn't much of an issue).
×
×
  • Create New...