beerguy55

This is not true. ABS and/or that real time box you see are both measuring where the ball crosses the plate - not where it "lands"....ie. the catcher's mitt?? The difference is ABS uses one specific point of the plate, so it's a 2D plane, whereas the actual rulebook defines the strike zone as a 3D area in space the shape of the plate. I suspect ABS will improve this over time.

This manager showed a restraint I would not have - I'd have gone nuclear, and likely been suspended...I'm not talking violence, but I would have violated every rule MLB has about what you can or can't say after a game to the media about the umpires...at the very least, forcing the league's hand to making a choice between doing SOMETHING about this clown they call an umpire OR publicly stating that the umpire was correct. There is no room for an umpire calling this "my field".

So, my question would be, who thinks it is, and why would they think that? On what planet is that anything that would cause the fielder to not be able to catch the ball? It's not like a foul ball can't be caught...though it does remind me of a recent facebook debate where a bunch of...people...think that the second an umpire says "foul" that the ball is immediately dead (the context being the ball was still in the air, the umpire made an obvious mistake to yell "foul ball", and then a fielder caught the ball).

A couple of things to unpack: In my opinion Schneider should know that rule. This is a trivia question almost every Little League kid is taught when he's 12 years old. Any club team that's been on a bus for any length of time plays these trivia games. Just like the "make three outs with the ball never touching a fielder or the ground" one. We got good at music and movie trivia, and baseball rules trivia. I'm disappointed so many players, or color commentators who used to players - I'm talking to you, Caleb Joseph (who is normally pretty damned good) - didn't have a clue here. I think problem one is, as I go through the verbal history of the event, Max Scherzer was literally the only person on either team who knew the rule. If Schneider had known the rule, then it comes down to whether or not he noticed that R3 also left early. As to the ump's actions and the timing of everything, PU waved off the run, which is such an odd mistake for a pro, but by then the defense was off the field (or within a few inches of it). I don't think he factors in here. He certainly didn't wave the team off the field. Ideally, I'd want that indication from Blue that the run is counting, and then MAYBE it gives a coach a chance to notice that R3 crossed the plate, and lets him do a little math in his head to figure out R3 must have left early. But realistically, Toronto's defense was off the field so fast that PU could easily have given the "run scores" mechanic and not been done before they were off the field. Also realistically, if PU does give the proper mechanic here, I'm betting that Schneider's reaction is "wtf?" and then going out to argue or get an explanation...NOT stopping his defense from leaving the field and appealing at third...because he didn't know the rule. Sure, I can see a coach who fully knows the rule still losing track of R3 here - R1 leaving early was so blatant it could easily draw focus away from R3. Except for not knowing which base Toronto appealed as I watched it live, I saw all this in real time - I can tell you if I'm the coach/manager I'm yelling at them to throw to three, and then I'm yelling at them if they went to one and are coming off the field...I probably even come out of the dugout waving my arms and doing everything I can but physically grabbing them to get someone to step on third base before leaving fair territory. btw - can a coach physically assist a defensive player??

I was screaming at the TV that night. Idiot announcers. The live broadcast wasn't clear in real time if the third out was appealed at first or third, so I asked my wife that during the commercial...and let her know, assuming the appeal was made at first, exactly what was going to happen after the commercials ended. Best part was, the next day she went to work and schooled a couple of colleagues on how the fourth out appeal works. Not only did the team leave the field on their own - it's clear that some of them also thought the fly ball was the third out, and are leaving the field even before the third out appeal.

As a Canadian, I'm required by law to quote Rush within every 90 days.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

In softball this is not an out - I believe in all rulesets - due to the smaller basepaths and the limitations in leadoff capabilities, the runner is more likely to be hit by a ball while still on base. (although, I do not think LL minors baseball has this exception)

Though supported by rule, I hate the idea of the pitch staying live with the potential for the offense (ie. the coach's team) benefiting...eg. a ball, HBP, wild pitch allowing R3 to score, fair batted ball where the entire defense has stopped playing, etc, etc, etc. We simply got lucky here that the batter stepped out and it hit the strike zone. I like trying to kill the play, if we can, before the batter has a chance to swing the bat. It's simply dangerous for the fielders. At this age, I prefer no pitch, strike for stepping out, warning (at minimum) for the coach...if there's history where you've experienced the coach doing this stunt in a previous game, dump him.

I'd like you to articulate how you believe said batter would score in said scenario, even if it wasn't a dead ball. The batter can be put out if said pitch was strike three.

I happened to be at this game, with seats along the first base line. In real time I saw Holliday's tag attempt as half-hearted at best and wondered if the ump would rule Clement safe. The "out of base path" ruling in 9th inning is moot as replays showed that Varland made the tag.

As shown by others, this is wrong - the forced runner does indeed lose the prior base as a safe haven unless and until a following runner is put out. If F5 had touched third base first (retiring R2), then R3 would be safe because he would be entitled to that base. This is true in all rule sets of baseball and softball. This is also true in reverse for appeal plays...for a runner who has failed to tag up, their only safe base is the one they need to re-touch. You can tag him out while standing on any other base (you may just need to make it clear that it's an appeal play)

wtf is a "free foot violation"?? I've never heard that term. Sounds like MSU. The vast vast majority of leagues/tourneys allow F3 to take the orange on this play, and requires B/R to take the white. F3 should not be moving into the runner, even to receive the throw. I think this should be OBS. The bags are assigned for a reason...if we just allow last minute movement into the other path what is the F*#King point? F3 establishes which bag to the take, and B/R takes the other. No takebacksies. The weird part is, I could see this called either way 20 years ago, when F3 had to take white and B/R had to take orange. F3 is OBS for standing on orange, forcing B/R into a choice between collision or taking the white. B/R is INT because they're not allowed to take white, so they'd be expected to avoid collision to foul territory...where F3 would then be called for OBS (or B/R just touches orange when F3 moves over to try to catch the throw).

Yes - the bad guys also use Google Drive.

According to the OP the OBS occurred DURING the rundown - ie it didn't cause the rundown. The wrinkle is, there are two out in this scenario, so there's no real benefit to trailing runners advancing as far as they can unless the runner scores, and you're preventing/hindering the runner in the rundown half of his options to achieve safety by advancing to third base...for no benefit. But I doubt many amateur players (or even pros) are thinking of this in real time. Now, it sounds like R1 advanced to third regardless of this consideration - likely just on autopilot. That is, R1 was on third base regardless of the act of OBS. R1 either advanced to third on the original hit/throw (just as R2 was advancing to home) OR R1 advanced to third, or finalized his advancement to third, due to the rundown...independent of the OBS that hindered R2. What we don't know is, which direction was R2 going when he was obstructed during the rundown. That matters to determining "what would have happened to R1" if no OBS had occurred. If he was going towards home, then R2 would have just scored, and R1 would be standing on third base. However, if he was going towards third, then R2 would have reached third base...and then R1 would have been in jeopardy for also being on third base. Speculation Ahead In my mind's eye, R1 is at (or very close to) third base during the rundown, and in R2's attempt to get back to third he is hindered, but gets back successfully anyway, resulting in R1/R2 standing on third base. For me, this puts the third out on R1 for being tagged after he tries to go back to second (doesn't really matter if he even left the base, as long as he was tagged), and scores R2 for his OBS award between third and home (even though he doesn't eventually actually touch home until after R1 made the third out).