Jump to content

beerguy55

Established Member
  • Content Count

    2,350
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

beerguy55 last won the day on February 19

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

604 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. Tell people this is baseball not football - in baseball it matters where the ball is, in football it matters where the feet are.
  2. beerguy55

    Foul ball or out ?

    No you didn't. And by rule and definition that is irrelevant. If he didn't hit the ball intentionally it can't be ruled a third strike foul bunt. OBR - ball. But if an ump says he "offered" it would be hard to argue - any twitch could conceivably be judged as an attempt...and it ultimately is a judgment call - it's rare, but I've run across one or two overzealous umps who would call a strike here. I believe there are some softball rule sets where this MAY be called a strike.
  3. The first part of the rule is REAAAALLLLLY easy....ANY pitch that hits a batter is a dead ball. The second is the judgment part - determining whether or not it was as strike, or if the batter allowed himself to be hit, or if he should be granted first base. Please set who right? Are you asking us to send a random memo to thirty million parents explaining the rule? With whom are you having these discussions? Are you running across umpires who are getting this wrong?
  4. beerguy55

    Foul ball or out ?

    I'm sorry, but that's a terrible take. A bunt, by rule and definition, MUST be intentional...if there is no intent there is no bunt...if there is no bunt, there's no third strike foul bunt. If you think he INTENTIONALLY hit the ball with the bat I'd love to talk to your drug dealer.
  5. that's why he called it a fallacy...
  6. beerguy55

    Foul ball or out ?

    no - though I've seen a few overzealous umps call it, and a few more idiot coaches argue for it. It needs to be a bunt attempt...pulling the bat back isn't an attempt any more. It's a plain old foul ball.
  7. Confused is a weird word in this context. Startled? Distracted? Screened? Could be INT (thanks @Thunderheads), could be not - depending on how close the runner got...and why. Like you said, if the runner's just running by and is a few feet away, it's likely nothing - it's a play the fielder should be able to make...and if he momentarily takes his eye off the ball to look at the runner, that's on him, not the runner....if it looks like the runner tried to pass by as close as possible and time his jump to screen/distract/startle the fielder...you may have something else.
  8. beerguy55

    5 Hole.....

    Yes, but not to second base...he's obstructing access to third base and home. That's why I specifically mentioned the two bases where you are allowed to overrun/overshoot....especially home...once you touch/pass home there's nowhere else you need to be.
  9. htbt - if the runner truly hindered F6's ability to field the ball, then yes.. Contact is not required...but..passing in front, even very closely, doesn't automatically mean it's hindrance...and F6's reaction to the runner doesn't automatically mean hindrance...it's a total judgment call to whether or not the runner impeded the fielder's ability to field the ball. A fielder getting startled by a runner who's ten feet away may not meet the threshold of hindrance...
  10. I suspect the umps had this right before they consulted and changed their mind. A big fat nothing due to no intent by the (batter) runner. Let's say that on ground ball to F4 that instead of B/R it was R1 who intentionally interfered with F4 making a throw to get R3 trying to score...wouldn't R1 be out and R3 returned? I'm just wondering if, even if you decided that B/R did commit intentional interference, is calling R3 out and putting BR on first the correct result? Or should it be BR out and R3 returned?
  11. I figured someone would go here. It is still one pitch -> one strike...the first strike is a penalty, and occurs even if there is no pitch at all. They are two separate events. As I said elsewhere, you can have three strikes on no pitches...it doesn't dispel anything I said on that point. Even if baseball decided to allow a batter to swing ten times at the same pitch there could only ever be one strike.
  12. Well, if you want to get really nuts, you could have an 81 strike perfect game with the pitcher just standing on the rubber with the ball...something tells me it wouldn't get that far.
  13. Depending on the level or caliber of the ball the umpire (should) have an awareness, and even duty, to dynamically manage the game, to the long-term benefit of the game (if the ump is experienced enough to do this - the paradox is at these levels the umps are often learning too) - especially at the developmental and recreational levels - umps are arbiters, but they're also part of the learning process for everybody - in many ways teachers, in many other ways managers...if you call the strike zone too strictly or literally, first, you get into pitch count issues...second, you end up encouraging kids to walk instead of hit. Again, I'm talking about development level ball - not club/HS. The second is the travesty I have seen come out of community ball too often...kids learn to walk, not hit, and by the time they run into real pitching...whether it's that year's playoffs, or the next year when they move up a level, they don't know how to handle it...and they soon leave the game. On the other side of the coin, the other kids don't learn how to field. Many coaches will be pricks, and if they see an avenue to win the game by walking in 16 runs, they will - don't swing until you get called strike...in some cases don't swing until you get two strikes...and the parents will cheer on and foster that mindset...and the kids will get their high fives and cupcakes and not know any better...don't reward that behavior with blind loyalty to a defined strike zone.
  14. Pitcher's got a rubber arm, got it from the funny farm We want a batter, not a broken ladder Hey Blue, you're missing a great game It was at one point gentle mindless fun... But at some point, gentle fun jibes turned into: Hey fatso, hey ugly, you suck and you're mother sucks great...and now nobody can have nice things.
  15. First - your last statement is classic logical fallacy - reductio ad absurdum - and only detracts from your position - by rule and definition there can only be one ball or strike per pitch, so no, using any logic or illogic you want you could NEVER get two strikes on one pitch. And, in your other absurd example, the batter would be, worse case scenario, called out for batting a ball while outside the box. There are no loopholes here. There is no slippery slope to worry about. Here's the problem with your statement bolded above...if you take an extreme example of a batter really fooled badly on an eephus pitch, where he swings and the ball is still 30 feet from the plate, the bat has not yet passed the ball, nor vice versa. I think there is a common (and maybe common sense) belief that he is not allowed to swing again, but I'm not sure if that has ever been put down in black and white, either by rule or precedent. The rule you state above is about as close as it gets, but I'm not sure it's close enough. But even if we dismiss the notion of whether he can swing again and agree that he can't...sure - he only gets one "attempt"; your secondary statement, in red, about the follow-through has no foundation. In all other cases it wouldn't matter how his bat got to meet the ball, as long as that pitch hasn't touched anything else, and is still a pitch when it happens - any other legal pitch that hits your bat, whether you intended it or not, no matter where your bat is located, is a batted ball. You don't have to swing to hit the ball. And if you did swing, whether the ball was hit on the swing or the follow through shouldn't matter. Technically speaking, the follow through is still part of the swing. To conclude that it is to be excluded from the "strike at" the ball is a leap that doesn't seem to fit all the other facts in play. Equate it to the NFL Tuck rule if you will. I can only conclude that, by definition (without supplemental interpretation or case play) it IS still a pitch that can be hit. In the OP, the pitch didn't pass the bat, batter and plate and then bounce backwards, untouched, to hit the bat....you're left with two choices: 1. Make the assumption the OP eventually described - that the ball must have hit the catcher and bounced back to the batter/bat - making this discussion irrelevant 2. Conclude the batter swung early enough to "miss" before the pitch arrived, and the ball bounced (almost) sideways and hit the bat on the follow through, without hitting anything else If #2, unless there's an interpretation somewhere, that sounds like a batted ball.
×
×
  • Create New...