Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


beerguy55 last won the day on October 1

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

546 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. beerguy55

    foul ball?

    It is just a strike, the batter is not out, and the ball is live (ie. stealing runners can continue, can be safe or out...and don't have to tag up)...provided it was caught....not caught, it's just a foul ball.
  2. Depends on the coach. Some coaches will send him to third, or even home, thinking that OBS gives him license to do anything he wants, only to learn the hard way that he's wrong. They typically only make that mistake once. More reasonable coaches will trust the process and just coach the runner on the merit of the play itself, and trust the umpires to handle the OBS appropriately. OR, on the other side, NOT trust the umpire to handle it appropriately, so won't take the risk of sending the runner to the next base....not being sure if the ump saw OBS or will judge it appropriately....or judge it the same way he would. Assuming the third base coach saw the OBS at all. In short, even if I see my batter and F3 end up on the ground in a tangled mess, and after he gets up again and as he's approaching second base the ball is coming in from F9, I'm not sending him to third simply because I believe that's where he should have ended up. If I'm going to have an argument with the umpire that my player should be on third, I'm going to make sure my worst case scenario is he's on second, rather than out. I'm only sending him to third if I think he can make it on the play itself, not on what I hope an umpire will rule.
  3. He's an idiot. And that may not be a strong enough word. The robo-ump is going to call the letter of the law...and there are going to be strikes called that fit the letter of rule that NOBODY wants called strikes This will lead to more strikeouts and less balls in play. Batting averages will drop. Offense will drop. Attendance will drop. Then, they'll change the strike zone...then the computer will find all the problems in the new rule and just create a whole set of new problems. I have a better solution - let teams challenge any ball/strike, and include it in their number of incorrect challenges allowed for the game....use robo-ump only for challenges. Or, take a page out of the NFL book - they only allow the challenge of the spot of the ball if it creates/removes a score or a first down. Let MLB players/coaches challenge a ball/strike if it creates/removes a walk or an out.
  4. And, *GASP*, it was a right handed batter who managed to get into the running lane...he must be like a Marvel mutant to be able to do that and not cause catastrophic damage.
  5. I just figured we were talking about slow pitch
  6. Well, considering the runners are stealing before he even drops his hands the last thing I'd be worrying about is if he is balking...from a development perspective there are better teachable moments for this pitcher, and from a competitive standpoint, if my team's runners are stealing at will he can get away with uncalled balks all day long if he wants. I see two pitches where he may not come to a complete stop. As the opposing coach I'm not worrying about it - it's close enough. As his coach, I'll bring it up next practice...for in between innings I'm more worried about the fact that he's not even looking at the runners.
  7. A lot of it is safety oriented for the most part. Catchers aren't wearing any of the traditional tools of ignorance. And MOST slow pitch leagues/tournaments are more casual, and invite a lot of neophyte players. Also, in a lot of co-ed slow pitch leagues, where you need at least three females on the teams, and most teams struggle to find quality female players, you typically put one behind the plate. No steals, no bunts allowed so they just pick up the ball and throw it back to the pitcher...and they just need to be able to catch the ball on a play at the plate. No overweight men, or over-competitive types, killing the 105 pound catcher. It's typically only the most competitive of leagues/tournaments that forego the commit/score lines and use the plate as they do in baseball/fast pitch.
  8. Just to be clear - you mean he tagged up in the first place, right? This is what Rich means by the run being "legally scored". I wasn't sure if maybe you meant he had tagged up by beating the throw back to third. Also - to add to the above - this only applies with home and the run scoring. If he were to leave second, reach third, and then run back to second believing he hadn't tagged up, he would have to stay at second.
  9. They don't - most slow pitch rule sets, and leagues, with the commit line don't allow tag plays at the plate - once the runner passes the commit line F2 must touch the plate while holding the ball before the runner crosses the score line, which is 1BX...but once the runner passes the commit line he can't stop or go back, whether tags are allowed or not. If he stops (or in some rule sets, retreats) he's out, no matter where the ball is. There are some rule sets that do allow (but not require) the tag...F2 simply needs to have the brains to touch the plate instead of chasing the runner sideways....it really only comes up if the throw is offline.
  10. The rule says "live ball situation"...I expect a dead ball home run would be the exception, meaning, the guy is out even though it's a dead ball. Probably mentions GRD too.
  11. However, as @Rich Ives points out, if you don't allow a crossover on U3K in first base foul territory you now risk the throw hitting the runner...another safety issue (let alone a practical matter of the defense being able to make a play). In a standard base format, F3 goes to the foul side of the base and takes the throw in foul territory while the runner, ideally, passes the base behind him. With a safety base, the only way you can accommodate this is to allow F3 to take the orange to ensure the throw doesn't cross the runner's path, and allow/force the runner to take the white. This is just one example of the dilemmas and problems the safety bag introduces under the guise of good intentions. You disallow the crossover, you have potential safety problems, let alone game play issues with the ball/runner crossing paths - in short you have something that F3 can do with a single base, but can't with a double base You allow the crossover you have potential safety problems in crossing up the runner who's conditioned to touch the orange....except NOW. Keep in mind, without the crossover, if F3 is touching the white, and steps into foul territory side ways to take the throw, it's not OBS - the runner has the right TO the bag, not through the bag. Someone's going to the hospital, but there's nothing illegal on the play. The rule doesn't prevent F3 from touching the orange, it only says he MUST touch the white. I agree with KISS...and KISS is getting rid of the orange bag. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
  12. I get the joke, but in the end he actually got to keep the home run...and then got ejected. Timeline: Home run to give KC lead in top of ninth with two out After review, George Brett called out for pine tar too high on the bat, home run revoked, game over, NY wins (big argument, but nobody tossed...game was "over") Protest filed Ruling overturned, home run reinstated, game to continue with two out in top of the ninth and KC with one run lead George Brett ejected for his outburst (after his home run was reinstated, and four days after his outburst) Game resumed and KC won My favorite part of this is in the three weeks between the protest and resumption of the game one Yankee was hurt and another was traded. Mattingly played the final out of the ninth inning at second base, making him one of a very small number of left-handed middle-infielders MLB has seen in the past century.
  13. No, I'm saying without any data my experiences are all I have to go on. And unless you're reading something I'm not saying, I'll state it clearly right now - my experience shows nothing to indicate that one is safer than the other. The inconsistency among rule sets that have the orange base, and the fact that players move back and forth between rule sets with and without the orange base, can cause confusion, and that confusion/inconsistency can increase the risk of collisions - but all things being equal, I have seen nothing to indicate that one system is inherently safer than the other. When it comes to collisions on plays at first base - People who play nothing but fast pitch with a safety bag are no safer than people who play nothing but baseball without a safety bag. However, our current situation is there are rule inconsistencies, and also the fact that most rule sets allow the crossover (which IMNSHO defeats ANY justification for safety). In this current state, the orange bag likely is more dangerous. And that won't change unless ALL rule sets used the orange bag AND no crossovers were allowed. And then, we likely end up in a state that is really no safer/different than having no safety bag at all. I'm giving more weight to my experience because, one, it's MY experience and I can attest to what I have observed as a coach, and experienced as a player, and apply the proper context to it when I'm a spectator...and I have 40 years of that experience - it's not like I watched a couple of games last weekend and saw a couple of collisions at first base. Yes, it's anecdotal. I've always said that. But it's my anecdote. And if I didn't have that on my resume I'd defer to someone who did. I would hope anyone would do the same, and I hope one would take my experience at face value. I'm certainly not going to defer to a hospital administration for an opinion. Yeah, I get it...injuries are bad. Collisions cause injuries. That's their expertise. Make less collisions. Fine. How to achieve that is not their expertise. Their recommendation should really read something like "Baseball needs to attempt to reduce the frequency of high speed collisions, especially at first base and home plate." THAT'S the problem. They see serious injuries (quantity and frequency unknown) from high speed collisions, especially at bases where the runner is allowed to run through the base. The real request is to reduce the number of collisions, or the impact of those collisions. What they offered was a potential solution, which isn't their place. Changing the status quo because you THINK it will be better is tantamount to changing for the sake of change....well, that system isn't perfect, so let's just try this one on for size. For any proposed change we should be asking four questions: What problem are you trying to solve? Is it a problem we really need to solve? Does this actually solve the problem? What new problems does this create? The safety bag fails two or three of those questions. Why it was introduced in the first place, I can only imagine. As I've always said...it LOOKS like a good idea, especially for kids...and maybe even for 60 foot bases. But I think we've run both systems long enough to see that the safety bag really hasn't changed anything overall.
  14. It's never been a rule - this was brought up by self-titled know-it-alls watching Major League claiming Cerrano should have been called out for carrying the bat around the bases on his home run - no...he should not. In fact, you can carry it around the bases on a live ball (if you really want to try to run the bases with a bat in your hand) - as long as it doesn't interfere with any play.
  15. Well, apparently in most workplaces it's a problem getting a boss to say "thank you" to an employee who simply did his job. One old timer manager said "I think him by giving him a pay check"...hard to argue with that. Believe me, I've met a number of people who don't think you should thank a bartender for getting you a drink....that is definitely a generational thing (and probably a bit of elitism).
  • Create New...