Jump to content

beerguy55

Established Member
  • Content Count

    2,481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

beerguy55 last won the day on June 20

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

654 Good

More information about you

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

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Future technology can't correct what has already been filmed in the past...you can't add frames that aren't there, that were never filmed in the first place, nor can you add pixels or change the resolution of what was captured - you got what you got - the Zapruder film will never be better than what it is....that zoom and enhance stuff TV detectives pick up off city cameras doesn't exist. Any cleanup that ever gets done is virtual guesswork.
  2. beerguy55

    Fielders Balk

    More specifically, in OBR the rule states the fielder needs to be in fair territory when the ball is put into play - so it's on the ump to ensure all fielders are properly positioned before he puts the ball in play...there can't be a penalty if he incorrectly does so.
  3. beerguy55

    Balk or not?

    If you were to go down this dark path, then you'd have to ask yourself...how often does your pitcher, or any pitcher, just toss the ball to first base to "keep him close" as opposed to any legitimate attempt to "retire the runner"....you'd have to call this about ten times a game...but that is not the context, nor the spirit, of the rule.
  4. Just curious...how many general scenarios do you discuss? How long does a pregame conversation take, generally speaking? And how often do you run into partners that aren't interested?
  5. Even if that were true it wouldn't change the basic premise. Even if we were to never learn, know, or believe, that the Earth is 90 million miles from the Sun does not change the fact that it is. Facts are facts. A fact that was successfully measured 350 years ago without computers, or the benefit of space travel, using plain old fashioned scientific method. We may never know if there is life elsewhere in the universe. But if I believe there is and you believe there isn't...and I can make a reasonable argument to demonstrate a high degree of probability there is (not necessarily that they have visited us), and you can make a reasonable argument to demonstrate the likelihood we're alone, the fact is one of us is right, and one of us is wrong. There are people who are genuinely interpreting the data we have and developing reasonable accurate projections and/or conclusions There are people who are genuinely misinterpreting the data (ie. unintentionally) and developing reasonable conclusions that will be wrong because their foundation is wrong. In both cases, as more data comes in, those people will genuinely reassess and develop reasonable projections that may or may not be right. Whether right or wrong, their motive is not agenda driven - they are simply following the evidence to see where it leads. But make no mistake - they will be right or wrong...not both and not neither. We will get the majority of the information we need,within the reasonable margin of error attributed to human fallibility. But over time, the accuracy will increase and the margin of error will drop. And then there are people who are ignoring facts that don't fit their narrative. They do not all hold the same right to an "opinion" and they do not all warrant equal merit. The flat earthers do not get to say their belief is just as valid as the round earth "belief"...one is fact and one is fantasy. And you don't need to fly into space to know which is which - you simply need to watch a ship disappear over the horizon. Another fact that was learned long before the Roman senators killed their emperor.
  6. Unfortunately, that is not true. Some of us are right and some of us are wrong. We may not find out which for many months or years, but don't kid yourself. I'm either right or wrong. or maybe right in some areas, wrong in others...I'm not both, and I'm certainly not neither. EDIT: To clarify - there are facts buried in the data somewhere, some easier to dig up than others...any statements today pertaining to what eventual facts will come to light are either right or wrong.
  7. The reality is we don't always know...or, more accurately, it depends. It depends on how much virus is shed onto the object in the first place...ie. the infectious dose, which scientists are still trying to determine what that number actually is. And yes, if someone infected sneezes on a bat, it will certainly have a higher dose than if they just touched the bat (perhaps after sneezing on themselves). That, however, doesn't' mean that touching something doesn't spread enough viral matter to infect others. It may mean it's less likely. And certain objects will be less likely than others. We do know that this virus does, and has, spread through shared objects...and something as simple as using a common serving spoon, or sharing a salt shaker, can, and has, spread the virus to others - even to young, healthy individuals. This uptick in infections isn't ALL caused by people breathing and sneezing on each other. The bulk is likely spread by touching objects where the right amount of virus has been shed - whether it got there by a cough, or touch...be it TV remotes, counters or door handles. In your own home, you're just as likely, if not more, to get the virus from someone else in the house not by direct contact, but through the fridge handle, counter, faucets, kitchen table, etc. That's why we disinfect. Assuming you don't spend all your time together in the pantry. And be careful about the "healthy individual" thing...average age of hospitalizations is trending down across North America, and not because old people are dying but because of new cases...In Alberta the average age of those in the hospital and those in the ICU is 38...with a remarkable number under the age of 30. Of course, that may simply because young people think they're immortal and are not taking any precautions, and older people are minimizing the time they're out in public. That, however, doesn't change the fact that young, healthy people are showing up more prevalently in these latest stats....and not just positive tests, but hospital cases. Though I'm quite confident I will survive COVID without much issue, I really don't want to find out...nor do I really want to deal with the symptoms...and, more importantly, I don't want to be the one who passes it onto a loved one who doesn't have the immune system to handle it. So, yes, I don't mind treating shared objects as potentially deadly.
  8. You'd get along with my wife
  9. Well, if it hit the ground before reaching the plate, there's a relatively OK chance that it hit the ground before reaching the catcher.
  10. That depends...it sounds like the scorekeeper is the pitcher's parent, and you are almost certain the catcher's father, and worried that that error has just screwed up his chances for playing at Stanford. You're gonna have to see if you can start being scorekeeper, to join the long line of parent scorekeepers who actively pat their kids' stats.
  11. The "most" major softball code - the International Official Rules of Softball (you know, the OBR of softball) - also requires it: 8-1-f - EXCEPTION: If no attempt is made to avoid being hit, the umpire shall call a ball and not award a base. The NCAA rule is the exact same as the FED rule...if the pitch is in the box the batter has no requirement to try to avoid it, if it's not in the box, they do. NSA has no specific language about needing to try to avoid the pitch...neither does it have any specific language about moving into the pitch (unlike most/all of the others)...would you truly argue that NSA must then allow a batter to get hit on purpose??? Letter of rule vs spirit of rule. NCAA softball rulebook has this tidbit "Note: The benefit of any doubt must go to the batter and could include a batter freezing and unable to move due to the unusual movement or speed of the pitch." And, in coaching dozens of games under the International code, as well as hundreds more under Softball Canada which is a virtual copy of ORS, though it is not specifically written in either rule book, I have never seen an umpire deny a batter first base because they froze, or simply didn't have time to react. Because they have INTERPRETED the spirit of the rule the same way NCAA decided to print. Likewise, when we went to tourneys under ASA (which is now USA Softball) they made the same interpretation, in dozens of games we played in Montana and Idaho (though the umpires could be from anywhere - met one from California, another from Florida) - I NEVER saw an ump deny first base to a batter who froze on a HBP. OBR also requires a batter to attempt to avoid getting hit...and OBR also does not penalize a batter who freezes, or simply does not have time to try to avoid getting hit, though nothing in OBR says that. That's what case plays, and rulings, and common sense, are for. In all those scenarios, despite it not being specifically written in black and white, the batter is given the benefit of the doubt, and the burden on the batter is very low. Congratulations, you are the first umpire I've ever met that takes such a fundamentalist approach to this rule.
  12. With the exception of the recent NCAA baseball rule change there is really fundamentally very little difference in any of the rule sets, baseball or softball, so for the most part it doesn't matter. Don't exaggerate this. There is a fundamental approach that is true across all rule sets in the two bat sports for HBP...and a very minor difference in some cases around how a batter does, or does not, move into a pitch, which only matters if the batter literally doesn't move at all (and that may only matter in a couple of rule sets - NCAA baseball/softball and FED softball are the only ones I know of). If the batter moves, at all, and gets hits by a pitch, as far as I know, NCAA baseball aside, the ruling is universal. NCAA baseball calls it a strike no matter where the pitch is if the batter moves into it on purpose. Even those that literally say "must attempt to get out of the way" (USA, International/Olympic, Softball Canada) have provisions/interpretations/rulings that allow for a complete lack of movement which may be a result of fear, not knowing which way to go, or simply not having enough time to react....ie. not being able to move=an attempt - batter gets the base - same goes for flinching...or instinctively putting your hand out to protect yourself. If you are not allowing those batters to take first base you are ignoring the spirit of the rule...you would literally be the first umpire I ever ran across that managed the rule in that manner....I have coached in all those rule sets, and have never seen an umpire disallow the walk to first on a pitch where the batter "could" not make an attempt, as opposed to "would" not make an attempt...even though, if you followed the letter...they did not attempt to get out of the way. No rule set allows a batter to purposefully move into a pitch...even a pitch entirely in the box...which is what is described in the OP (it would be an umpire's discretion to whether it was an intent to get hit, or just a really bad attempt to get out of the way). And as my most recent coaching experience is softball (Softball Canada, NSA, ASA, USSSA) I was using those sets for my basis....FED is the one softball rule set I've never coached or even watched.
  13. I watched that movie again last week for the first time in 20 years. Anyway...you sanitize and disinfect things to not expose yourself to the viruses/bacteria living on said objects...be it influenza, coronovirus or ebola. I agree in principle - better to let your kids get dirty than keep them in a bubble...usually...and maybe things will simply swing back and forth depending on what is circling the globe at that time...if we're willing to react when the scenarios present themselves.
  14. To simplify it further...any pitch that hits the batter is always a dead ball. If it's in the strike zone it's a strike. If it's not, it's up to the ump to determine if the batter could have avoided it, or worse, if they're getting hit on purpose. Call a 'ball' or grant the base. Whether it's a grounder isn't really relevant...you can have a "rolling" pitch coming in just as fast as a good pitch, and can be just as difficult to avoid being hit. And if getting hit on purpose becomes really problematic, the umpire can start giving warnings and even ejections...though that would be extreme. As a coach, I'd be asking the league officials to observe a couple of the other coach's games - a coach that is teaching development level kids to do this isn't doing the kids, or the league, any favors - he's not teaching them good sportsmanship, and he's not teaching them hitting fundamentals. The bigger problem is, lots of times the parents are supporting this because they're winning...and the kids don't care because they all get cupcakes after the game. If the parents aren't stepping in and telling coach to smarten up, they're part of the problem (and, of course, they won't, because they're afraid they'll end up having to coach).
  15. Normal is always ending...it's whether we can accept it and adapt is the choice we need to make. Some of us get dragged along kicking and screaming, but status quo changes, and we move on. The rest get left in the wake. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger...sure...and it also kills others. But, if this is an acceptance of culling the herd, then so be it. Pragmatically speaking, The Black Death was followed by the Renaissance...a period of great wealth, intellectual advancement, and artistic expansion. I expect the other side of this pandemic to show significant gains and improvements. Otherwise...those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it...and a bunch of other cliches. EDIT: Having said that, most sane people don't expose themselves to ebola and smallpox to strengthen their immune system.
×
×
  • Create New...