Jump to content

beerguy55

Established Member
  • Posts

    3,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

beerguy55 last won the day on August 10

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

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.

beerguy55's Achievements

927

Reputation

5

Community Answers

  1. Well, I suspect he's got some kind of nasal issue - broken nose/rhinoplasty/long-haul COVID symptoms/botched hair implants - or they are transitioning. It's none of our business either way, but we will speculate because we can. I at first thought he had an assistant doing some of the videos.
  2. As I understand it, dead ball appeals aside, I believe in FED they would still be allowed to appeal because it was the offense that initiated the action - is that right? Besides that, I'd like to see the circumstances around time being called...it may have been allowed a little too quickly, as it seems several players on the defense were calling for an appeal to third, very shortly after the throw from the outfield, but by then the play was dead. If the play is still live, it's moot. The interesting thing here is, even if they stuck with making the appeal, R3 likely scores, making it a tie game anyway. It's a low risk scenario for the offense. Arizona was outcoached by Houston. They tell their runner to go...F1/F5 should have been told "if this happens" step on third then go for the runner - this would, frankly, be the same thing if R3 had just simply returned to third - like on a pick off attempt...F5 may have been tempted to try to tag him out first, then touch the base. If anything, R3 should have left REALLY early...just go for the steal. Whitey Herzog did this back in the 80's as well.
  3. The only choice in BOOT/MYTAB is whether or not to appeal it...The defense's choice to take the results of the play arrives by choosing to not appeal at all - once appealed the remedy is the remedy - missed batter is out, runners return, next batter up.
  4. As stated by others - Keep the mask on. I coached this the last five years I actively worked with catchers. If NHL goalies can track 100+ mph slapshots and deflections, our kids can track a foul ball. Makes playing the position much simpler. Removes all the other potential drawbacks of removing the mask, with very little risk of not being able to track/find the ball.
  5. You would think so, but baseball scorekeeping sometimes has to evade logic - the batter is indeed credited with reaching first base on a fielder's choice...and, as shown above, is counted as "left on base".
  6. If the batter did indeed reach first safely, even after the third out, then any discussion is moot. The exception for the run scored is the batter making the third out (before reaching first)...nothing about whether or not he reaches first before the third out on another player. If the batter NEVER reached first base (or is still lying in a heap with a shattered leg in the batter's box) there is some debate, in possibly one rule set, that you could do the so-called advantageous fourth out appeal and get the out on the batter to negate the run. I believe is is a non-issue in OBR. The batter didn't "miss" first base so it's not appealable.
  7. beerguy55

    Ruling

    I'm curious - what is your role here where you're instructing both the TD and the UIC? Are you the guy the TD hired to supply the umps? In any tournament I have run this call is either coming to me or the UIC, and we're collaborating on both how to handle the ruling of that game, and then ensuring it doesn't happen again. The ruling should have come from there. It's nice to see you, as presumably responsible for the supplied umps, taking this action when necessary...I'm just surprised you needed to (or that you were the first call). As TD the UIC is accountable to me, and I'm accountable to...my wife. I assume nothing. I even started my post with some questions. Beyond that, I'm simply using common sense and deductive reasoning based on my experience in the game, as a participant and an observer, to come to the most likely scenarios and conclusions...knowing there are always exceptions. DC isn't asking for an IFF if his fielder caught the ball...nor if his team successfully pulled off a triple play. It's pretty easy to deduce why he wants IFF called here. Whatever happened in this pre-game agreement, regardless of how the conversation occurred, DC was certainly prepared to argue the tourney rules, and the incorrectness of that agreement, by the time the scenario came up in the game. If I were to speculate - at pre-game he wasn't the coach that told the umpire there was no IFF, and he wasn't sure himself so he didn't argue it. He went to the bench, looked up the rules,(maybe mentioned it to the Assistant, who got curious), found the IFF rule, and decided he'd deal with it only if it came up (and hey, maybe it will work in his favor until then)... if he actually vehemently argued pre-game that there was no IFF, I'd could see telling him 'tough luck' when he argued the opposite later in the game. Regardless of any of that, it doesn't sound to me like it was an "agreement"...it sounds to me like the ump asked the coaches about the rules (which I have run across many times - I get it, with all the variety between leagues and tournaments), and it sounds like at least one of the coaches misinformed, probably unintentionally, the umpire. That was not an agreement to play without the IFF, it was a misunderstanding of the rules based on bad information. As such, it should be treated like any misunderstanding/misapplication of the rules - via appropriate protest procedures. I guess it depends on what you define as "often"...it's certainly not as often as the next age bracket, and the one after that. Physiologically speaking, a lot of kids at this age haven't fully developed depth perception so those routine fly balls ain't so routine. And only time solves that. But, as you allude, that's beside the point. There will be exceptions, but at 8-10 years old, in my far-too-long experience, they typically haven't developed that level of strategic (devious?) thinking yet. They just want to catch the ball. It would also be extremely rare to see that approach coached at that age - you're still dealing with basic drills at this point. So, whether or not there's an IFF rule has very little bearing strategically, or tactically, on how the defense plays. With very rare exceptions at those younger ages the IFF rule is not protecting the offense, it's rewarding the defense. I'll take the once in ten blue moons accidental double play over commonly dropped/misplayed balls that are IFF auto-outs for an eight year old that is thrilled just to get his bat on the ball, simply due to a rule created because of a loophole exploited by adults. Even at 12-13 years old, even on club teams, it would be uncommon to find an infielder who is savvy enough to recognize the play, and skilled enough to pull it off (and have teammates aware and skilled enough to help him turn the DP/TP). I like seeing those tournaments and leagues that drop IFF for the younglings. It's not about when those fly balls are easily caught. It's about when they can be turned into cheap DP's. You don't need the rule until you reasonably and realistically need to start protecting the offense. Club ball that may be about 12...rec ball it could be even 14. IMHO.
  8. beerguy55

    Ruling

    Here's the rub. Did they really "agree"? Did DC passively nod his head because he wasn't sure, and didn't have enough to raise an argument? Or did DC game it, knowing all along the IFF was in effect? DC quite obviously went to his dugout and looked up the rules shortly after the "agreement" to see if it was right. He was prepared when the scenario came up. I'd go with the tourney rules. Pre-game agreements don't override tourney rules. This would be problematic if a few IFF's had already gone uncalled, but the past is the past. Also - there's no way thinking the IFF was not in effect changed the outcome of the play at all, so calling IFF after the fact wouldn't be "unfair" from that respect - at nine years old all the IFF does, most of the time, is gives the defense a free out (and that's all the DC is looking for here, because it's quite obvious his defender didn't catch it) - nobody at that age is thinking of letting the ball drop to get a double play...there shouldn't even be an IFF rule at that age.
  9. Depends on how you define "umpire". Impartial, probably paid, third party? Volunteer parent from the home team (or each team)? Self-governed by committee/vote...or biggest kid wins arguments? I've played many a game in the school yard, with scores, standings, and even seasonal stats, without a defined umpire. It's amazing how few times over 30 or 40 lunches and recesses you really come across a play close enough to warrant an impartial arbiter....the same was true for hockey, soccer and football. It's pretty remarkable what kids will do when there are no adults in the way.
  10. If R1 had ignored the out call, and advanced to home on the overthrow (properly touching all bases), would you let both runs stand, or still apply the same remedy? If you are the umpire that ruled OBS at second base AND you are the umpire making the call at third base...are you indicating "out" in real time, or some other mechanic?...knowing action hasn't ended yet...
  11. On the other side...it tells the defense when to appeal...ump is calling safe/nothing on his own unless it's a swing...then he's waiting for the appeal. At that point, why not just call the strike too?
  12. Thinking as a coach and player, I can't fathom a reason why it would matter to me, or why I would need to know that you know the difference between an offered bunt and a failure to check a swing. The purpose of the mechanic is communication - mostly to the players...all the players need to know is if the batter went...not how we went about doing it.
  13. I would say no, and I would also say the runner was not required to come out of the dugout to touch the bases. Can the umpire not award the touch if OBS occurred? At some point common sense has to prevail. Who is indicating OBS and then who called R2 out at third? Same umpire?? Is that the right process to call him out THEN call OBS (regardless of whether there's any other action going on)? The only reason R1 went to the dugout is the umpire told him he was out. His award should have been third, and then he'd advance to home on the errant throw...if the ump hadn't told him he was out. He shouldn't need to touch the bases so the appeal would be moot. And even if he did, no appeal should be allowed as the running infraction was a result of the umpire's call. In OBR this would be Type B, so also a delayed dead ball, right? So would OBR be any different?
  14. The are umpires I like and umpires I respect (and some fit both). Concentrate on being respected.
  15. Is there a provision for nonsensical time-wasting appeals? I could see, back in the day, someone like Billy Martin appealing "did he go" on every ball just to make some kind of point.
×
×
  • Create New...