Jump to content

roothog66

Members
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by roothog66

  1. Sure. I was only addressing his situation where he'd have the catcher "touch" the runner as soon as he stepped over the plate. Yeah, I guess you could make a verbal appeal, but I'm assuming this would not go over well and that FED rules have some definition of abandonment, otherwise, there'd never be a reason for a catcher to try and tag out a runner that slides past the plate on a contested play, he'd simply have to just scream out an appeal to the HU immediatley after the slide.
  2. In the above scenario...tag him with what? The previously live ball is in the stands somewhere and any ball the catcher possesses isn't live until put in play by the HU.
  3. If second is occupied, you don't have to actually throw the ball. In fact, many times, with bases juiced, you want to wheel, feint to second and see if you can get R3 caught too far off.
  4. Yep. At lower levels it works great. I stole a lot of easy outs just like this over the years, even through high school ages. The worst case scenario is you end up with a runner at second and you can try it again without worrying about the balk. However, you need to do it either early to put it in their head and slow down the jump from first in that situation or keep it in your back pocket for a strategic moment in the game, because if it works once, they won't be leaving so quickly again.
  5. Also once saw Turk Wendell pull it off twice in one game.
  6. The problem, Dan, is the ellipsis in your quote of the Rules. There is an important context in the rule that you replaced with the ellipse: "In a non-force situation." The first half of your quote correctly identifies "in a force situations" but then you go on and omit from the second half of your quote the very important qualifying phrase "in a non-force situation."
  7. Haven't been on in a while, so I'm late to answer this, but, no, it is not like opposition to the other rules/laws/arguments you mention. Those all had statistics to back them up. I am unaware of any statistics involving the slug bunt - near-miss or otherwise. Are you? I can't even think of any near-misses I've witnessed, though there may be some I'm forgetting. Now, if you really want LL to take something up that's dangerous, move the mound back. One thing I have seen plenty of - both actual injuries and near-misses - is line drives back to the pitcher at 46 feet. THIS is actually a problem and the only real argument against it in LL circles is that changing the fields would be an economical burden.
  8. Not sure I get the logical connection here.
  9. I have spent over 30 years on youth baseball fields, including almost 20 years as a youth baseball baseball photographer where I spent 12 months a year standing on youth fields 10-12 hours a day often 5-6 days a week in all seasons. 10's of thousands of youth games at all levels. Never seen an injury from the slug bunt. Never. Any rules to outlaw it are simply solutions in search of a problem.
  10. I'll be honest. I've been in youth ball for 30 years and had never even heard of the USABL - had to look it up. Seems to be pretty local to NJ. I've dealt with hundreds of rec and local leagues throughout the west, midwest and south and seen only a few leagues outlaw it.
  11. roothog66

    Walk or HBP

    A ball would still be a dead ball if the umpire's ruling was that a batter did not attempt to avoid a pitch that hits him. Saw this call last weekend. 3-1 count. Pitch hits the batter and umpire says "batter didn't attempt to get out of the way! That's a ball...Oh. It's ball four - batter take your base." Not sure why a batter with 3 balls would NOT attempt to avoid taking one in the ribs, but...
  12. roothog66

    Balk

    OK. Got a serious question on "Play 2." Given the 6.02(a)(4) comment the ruling seems wrong. If a "runner bluffs going to third base" how can this not be construed as a situation where the runner "creates an impression of his intent to advance?" A bluff is - by definition - an act meant to create a false impression of an intent. It was my understanding that this comment's purpose was to address this exact situation and take away the array of different ways umpires used to rule on this - "runner was halfway," for example. Seems that if the deciding factor for making a play on a runner is that the "runner did not go" in fact, then the comment has no purpose whatsoever.
  13. roothog66

    Walk or HBP

    A HBP, though I've always thought that a three ball count HBP should be recorded as a BB.
  14. Been there as a coach. A few years ago at 16u, my team in the field - bases loaded, one out. Tie game in a semi-final game, bottom of the seventh. Dropped third, B/R and all base runners take off. I yell at my catcher to step on home plate. PU calls the out and we move on. I immediately realize my mistake. Unfortunately, so does the other coach, who comes out and points out that because first base was occupied, there was no force at home. Could have easily been a double play if I'd kept my mouth shut because I think my F2 understood the situation better than me. PU counts the run - game over. Now, I'm an experienced coach who knew better, but just lost focus for a second. The other thing that bothers me to this day was another argument I DID NOT make. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure R3 took a right turn into the dugout and never actually touched home. The PU had missed the situation as badly as me. Lesson learned.
  15. roothog66

    Is this BOO ?

    Had an interesting one with this last weekend in high school playoffs. I was announcing the game and neither team was mine. Third inning with two outs and a runner at second with a 3-1 count. On the pitch, called a ball, R2 attempts to steal third and is put away by the catcher. In the top of the 4th, the same batter returns to the plate and strikes out. I assume that, if the opposing team caught it, they were simply waiting to see if he gets on base before objecting.
  16. roothog66

    Baseball Umpire

    Hah! (whispers: *Rosebud*)
  17. Hah! I was doing just that as I scrolled down to your reply.
  18. I only question its utility. I don't think it aids umpires in making calls and I don't think it aids players, coaches, or fans in understanding the balk rules. If this were actually a rule and not a comment, it would be a "catch all" rule that would cover unexpected situations, but as a comment, it adds nothing to the rules.
  19. roothog66

    Balks

    I would say to avoid the premises completely. I would suggest that the correct response when someone wants to declare "it was a tie!", is not "the runner beat the throw," but rather "the throw did not beat the runner."
  20. While reading another thread, I was reminded of how much I hate the Comment 6.02(a) in the OBR: Rule 6.02(a ) Comment: 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 know the subject of "deliberately deceiving the base runner" has been discussed ad nauseam, but what I really want to know is the opinion of umpires here on whether this should even be in the book. To me it significantly confuses things rather than clear them up. The comment seems to suggest that an ump should enter into an analysis of a pitcher's intent when deciding whether to call a balk. Several time a year, I'll get into an argument where someone contends that some move by a pitcher is, or should be, a balk because "it is against the rules to deliberately deceive the runner." I'll then carefully explain to them that there is no rule against deception, there are only spelled out violations that are balks. After my well thought out explanation, they will invariably point me to this comment and my only rebuttal is, "That's not a rule! It's a comment!" So, my question is why the hell is it there? Do umpires find this comment helpful? It actually seems to suggest that an umpire who sees a technical violation of the balk rules should go further and decide, not only has the pitcher violated a rule, but has he done so intentionally. Alternatively, others would argue it gives umpires the cover to call something a balk that isn't a technical violation of the rules. So, in the opinion of those here, is it helpful to you or would it be better if this comment were eliminated from the rulebook?
  21. roothog66

    Legal or balk?

    I understand where you're coming from, but the phrasing is extremely clunky. For example, " no team gains an unfair advantage not intended by the rules" Are there unfair advantages that are intended by the rules? If not, then you're back to simply making a judgment of "unfair" regardless of the rules and that's extremely subjective. I understand the comments meaning to give guidance, but I prefer an umpire be able to actually explain what balk rule was violated rather than an explanation that it was "unfair." I don't see how it's any different than people clinging to the "deceptive" comment to claim something is a balk. I HATE that comment. It's caused more confusion over the years than any other phrase in the rule book.
  22. Of course the run counts. That's not a force out.
  23. roothog66

    Balk or not

    I think it is clear that a LHP may turn "without hesitation" toward second and, if the runner is stealing or giving the impression that he is, you have a legal play. However, actually doing this is extremely difficult on the fly. The only time it can work is if the pitcher has made a pre-determined decision that R1 is stealing and executes this move without any hesitation. IN other words, if he's guessed correctly that the runner is taking off on first movement, he's good - guess wrong and you've got a balk.
  24. roothog66

    Legal or balk?

    I agree this is a balk, but under the rules. I think when you start using the reasoning stated here, it's a slippery slope (lots of stuff in youth ball that's legal but you don't see "all the way the the Major Leagues" because of differences in player abilities, not because it's a violation of the rules) and I don't agree that "One of the roles of the umpire is to insure that no team gains an unfair advantage not intended by the rules" because now you're using guidelines that are completely arbitrary and undefined. Here, you have, I think, an actual rule violation and don't need to resort to subjective analysis to get a balk. It reminds me of all the coaches that want to use the comment about "deception" to argue for balks.
×
×
  • Create New...