Jump to content


Established Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. this is an interesting qualifier. Anyone know the thinking behind this? Has it ever arisen? The right field foul pole at Fenway Park is only 302 feet and the fence is only about six feet high...I think it's plausible for this situation to arise there, and maybe in a few other parks.
  2. I would argue it's not careless at all. A batter throwing his bat at a pitch (which I've done on more than a few hit and runs) is quite deliberate and marked. If said bat then hinders a fielder then sure, that's a problem and the batter will be out. But on its own, it's anything but careless. Far different story than the batter who tosses his bat with reckless abandon after getting a hit.
  3. Outside the pro and ncaa levels there are no rule provisions for video review (eg. a FED ump can't ask for a parent's cell phone video of a play to review his call). Besides that...beyond the whole element of time wasting, who would you propose pay for such a framework? The only value I would give to body cams (which could get destroyed by foul balls on plate umpires) would be to provide evidence for confrontations, ejections, etc - NOT for review challenges.
  4. beerguy55

    Ball Modifying

    Then things have changed since I was that age. Every pitcher I played with knew how to take advantage of imperfections on the ball, whether they were created, or just a result of game play. Now, this was at a time where you got two new balls for the game...not sure what the standard is today.
  5. When are they "in the game?" Once the ball has been made live? Do we need to wait for a pitch? I'm thinking for these scenarios where the illegal sub is: A fielder at beginning of an inning, there through pitcher warmups, still there as pitcher gets ready to throw first pitch (or even a mid-inning sub - for injury perhaps) A batter entering the box at any time (ball may or may not be live when he does so) A substitute base runner
  6. beerguy55

    Ball Modifying

    And even if the coach hasn't, you can guarantee some of the pitchers have figured it out. At the high school age, many pitchers are able to figure out how to use the scuff marks that appear on the ball naturally during the game to their advantage...of course they know how to use the branded logo on their team balls.
  7. beerguy55

    Ball Modifying

    Provided that the device is branding their logo, and physically altering the surface (ie. burning away the fabric), I would say this meets the standard of "deface" the rule book is trying to address, and does address in a few different places...the pitcher may not deface the ball (ie. scratch/scuff the surface)...you may not use any bats or equipment that may deface the ball. In your case it sounds like the ball is marked up, and if the surface has been altered, so you now have a doctored ball. It's going to move in some unpredictable fashion, if you know how to take advantage of it. I suspect that would be the same in any rule set. Just don't get stuck on the dictionary definition of "deface" - writing the team logo in Sharpie to identify the ball as belonging to the team is also "defacing" the ball, but doesn't meet the spirit of the rule, IMO.
  8. Whether or not it's the "according to Hoyle" definition of a pop-up, it's not really relevant. Even if it was short outfield...if it's deep enough for the runner on third to score (or to try to score), it could be deep enough for the runner on second to try to advance to third (especially if to right field...but even then, knowing the throw is going home R2 may be told to go to third)...even if R2 stays put (eg. fly ball to shallow left), if R3 is advancing then the fielder who made the catch is throwing the ball...at any age, but more especially at the younger ages, that throw can go anywhere, which could allow the runner on second to advance to home. If R2 does try to advance to third, the outfielder could also throw to third, and make a bad throw, allowing the runner to score. Outfielder hits cutoff and cutoff makes bad throw to third. And so on. Like I said before...many possibilities, and I've seen them all play out. Including the kid celebrating the first fly ball he's ever caught and everyone's giving him high fives while the runners are still running.
  9. Lots of possibilities...deep cF...diving catch, or f8 trips after catching the ball...speedy F2 scores. For younger kids, f8 dances around cheers and celebrates making the catch, high fives with F7 and F9, then realizes there's a play going on....or the most simple, after the catch F8 makes a bad throw to third allowing F2 to advance to home...I've seen it all.
  10. Fixed it for you I know this is a new world for a lot of us, but calling her "Gil" is known as deadnaming and is not appropriate. In fact, an album she released in June features the name "Gil Imber" on a tombstone. Lindsay's pronoun is she/her/hers.
  11. No. The coach should have protested this incorrect application of the rules. Softball or baseball this is the same. You can only overrun a runner by physically passing them (or have them pass you running backwards), not as a result of an appeal, and not for passing a base a preceding runner missed. The two humans have to actually physically be past each other....not theoretically. Overrunning the base runner is also something that is to be called as soon as it occurs.
  12. beerguy55

    tag plays

    No, from a scorekeeping perspective the "original" third out never happened and is undone if necessary...it is replaced by the "fourth" out which becomes the actual third out.
  13. beerguy55

    tag plays

    Yes...he's not a preceding runner...so, it's a time play...the runners from second and third score (which I did have happen with my team once - diving catch in the gap, R2/R3 tagged, R1 did not tag up and fell when stopping at second to go back to first, by the time F3 tagged first base R2 and R3 had crossed the plate)
  14. OK - so, I'm going to go out on a limb here and summarize. 1. If the play had been killed in any way (eg. ump calls "time"), it's no pitch...play can't restart if the ump doesn't make the ball live...so it's a big fat nothing 2. If the play remained live throughout there are two possibilities: Ump would be within his rights to call "no pitch" and undo anything that happened, basically saying he wasn't ready (catcher, batter and umpire must be ready for a pitch) - and this is what he should do If he were to let the home run stand, though very poor game management and completely unsupported technique, there may be little/no avenue to reverse the decision, though I'd like to see how a protest committee would handle it (sure I was ready...just wasn't behind the plate)
  15. He's not...you're not...I'm sure there's a best practice here you were all taught, but is there a "rule"? There are plenty of scenarios in amateur ball, especially one and two man crews, where the ball remains live and the ump isn't anywhere near the plate by the time action ends...so, sure, I can see times when the pitcher/batter are ready to go and the ump isn't ready. (that's still gotta be an umpire dawdling back to the plate, socializing with F5, or something like that) So, newbie ump, knows enough the play never "died"...or doesn't even know enough to know it matters...he decides "well, pitcher and batter were ready, who am I to undo the home run"...we know if the ball was dead that is an error in rule application, and could be reversed on protest...assuming the ball was always live, is there a rule to support a protest...or is this a, for the umpire, "don't do that"? Frankly, if I'm a solo ump and still around second base, on my way back to the plate, and the pitcher throws a pitch and the batter hits it I'm probably ejecting a coach. (not saying that it's right)
  16. If I ever decided to umpire for financial reasons it would be to fund an annual vacation...or Christmas presents. It's exactly why my boss wife works part time...just a bit more money in the piggy bank for some fun. Another $3-$5k play money would be all I ever hope for/achieve. After that, I suppose it's all about perspective, what kind of lifestyle you currently have, and what you hope to have. With the lifestyle I now have and come accustomed to, it would be impossible (or very depressing) for me to go back.
  17. I see what you're saying...I just thought it would be easier to know whether or not the batter is out. Rather than those bang-bang scenarios where the b/r got out at virtually the same time R1 passed/missed second base. Though, I suppose in a two man crew if the timing is this close you're only seeing the out at first, so you'll not see a missed base at second happen. And then this is where my position intuitively falls apart. Having the batter get out at a point past where the infraction occurred it does seem a little strange to remove the force. Not to mention the risk/reward problems that you mention. In fact, I'll go one further. What if the b/r scored in your scenario? After scoring, isn't he no longer a runner? If he's no longer a runner, there can be no more force, right?? Or, does the force remain? In your risk/reward statement at the end, there's either zero risk for the batter/runner after R1 misses second, or the defense could be better off letting him go all the way, then they'll get the force in the appeal...and that means the offense is better off having the batter abandon somewhere before home. No matter how that gets spun, it's not baseball. It's a mess. For what it's worth, I think my mind is changed...the OBR interp seems to make more sense....broadly speaking.
  18. It is, indeed, an odd interpretation, and my humble opinion is Wendelstadt has simply outsmarted himself...overthinking it and overcomplicating it. Because, now, an umpire needs to determine if the base was missed just before or just after the batter/runner (or another forced runner following the forced runner that missed the base) was put out . It certainly would be much simpler for everyone (and supported by the letter of rule) if it didn't matter...if the batter is out there are no forced runners anymore. Same with forced runners and preceding forced runners. Having said that, that would then make order of appeals important. Sure, I guess there could be a way to game it, by cutting across the field and "missing" the base earlier, but that would also take a lot of clairvoyance to know the forced runner/batter behind you will be put out first, not to mention a lot of silliness, and general incompetence by the defense.
  19. Because, by rule, there are three conditions to make the ball live, outlined a few times earlier in the thread, and one of those conditions is the umpire calls "play". Implicit in that final condition is that the umpire is ready, so, no, your statement is fundamentally false...the pitcher can have the ball and stand on the rubber all day long...the ball isn't live until the ump says it's live...when he's ready for it to be live. You might argue about whether or not the "according to Hoyle" mechanic is a verbal declaration, a point, a nod, dropping the hand, or some other explicit/implicit indication, but the underlying point remains - the first two conditions do not, on their own, make the ball live. My interpretation of "get better" is to follow the consistent standard that 99% of other umpires follow (or at the very least, those in your state/city/association). Where umpires get into trouble, and where coaches/players get frustrated, and perceive incompetence, is when behavior/approach/standards change between umpires.
  20. Doesn't matter what you thought. If there was R1/R3 but you thought it was R1/R2 does calling IFF make it so? The conditions were not met - doesn't matter if you were tricked, mistaken or just imagining things. You can't have a live ball, and the fact that you incorrectly made it live doesn't change that. You can't have an infield fly if all the conditions aren't met, you can't have a force play if all the conditions aren't met, and a hundred other things just like them...mistakenly calling something that can't by rule happen doesn't make it so. You correct your mistake, and, where possible, reset. There is no agree to disagree here. We're not debating the merit of supply side economics. We're discussing whether or not the sun is bigger than a breadbox. There is no debate. There is no opinion.
  21. Better yet, during a pitching change with runners on, are these umps calling balk through the 8 warmup pitches???
  22. Careful - if there is some sort of properly calibrated tool that can evaluate and compare the accuracy of both systems then you have a tool that could replace both systems. Sure, agree on the box...for up down...left right is a constant though...and the vast majority of the big misses by MLB umps are away, not high/low. The 3D statement is true, but rarely relevant. Keep in mind that 3-shape is not a 3d rectangle...it is the shape of the plate from front to back. A MLB pitcher curveball/slider at 80/90 mph very rarely has a sideways trajectory that is pronounced enough to miss the front of the plate but catch the back of it - there might be the occasional knuckle that veers sideways to do so...but these are so rare it's statistically meaningless. Show me a replay where this happens...I'll be shocked if you find even one...and even if you do I'll show you 10000 where the ball curves around the plate, never hitting any part of it. If it misses the front it is almost always missing the back. And if the ball clips the front of the plate and misses the back...doesn't matter...it caught the plate. Even a pitch that is coming from above the strike zone will very rarely be above the top at the front of the plate, but dip down in time to catch it at the back. It would usually have to be right in the middle where it has 17 inches of real estate, as opposed to nine on the sides. Who has suggested this? Sounds like a straw man to men...I've never heard this brought up. Having said that, if ESZ is brought in (I sure as hell hope not) you wouldn't really need an ump behind the plate, would you? (assuming the system never goes down) Or at least, not right behind F2. For HS and other amateur settings would two umps in the field better serve the game?? I agree framing is a valuable part of the game. As a former catcher I reveled in it, and I coached it to hundreds of young players. I enjoy the craft. But it's only valuable because umpires are human. You're argument is to not bring in ESZ to replace fallible umpires because it would eliminate framing, which only exists because umpires are fallible. What you call "good framing" or "buying a strike" I call trickery, fooling, deception. Likewise, when bad framing results in an actual strike being called a ball, that's incompetence...for both the F2 and the ump. As fun as it is, the fact is, what the catcher does after the ball has crossed the plate has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a ball or strike. At best, it's revisionism. At worst, it turns the game into a crapshoot...determined by whether or not a catcher is good at it...or whether or not an ump is susceptible to it. IMO - ESZ is a disaster because it WILL inevitably be more accurate than umpires, because it will call the literal rulebook definition of the strike zone, and eventually perfectly learn to adjust for each batter. And the fact is, there are a lot of "according to Hoyle" strikes that no coach, hitter, fan, even pitcher, wants called strikes, and most baseball umps currently don't call them strikes. They're not good for the game. And ESZ will never be able to manage the game like a human ump would. In any system used by humans, automation is important, but often needs human checks...because only humans will ever understand how humans behave. I'm good with an ESZ to help umps on the trouble pitches...whether it be in real time or some kind of review process (pro level only)...but anything more than that, any attempt to replace an ump, would be a travesty. Imagine if robots called NFL games? You'd have a holding flag every play.
  23. Based on games I've seen live (now more than two years out for me) it's loud enough for the dugouts, and more...the batter/catcher/pitcher are really the only ones who NEED to know, but they rarely need to be told - it should be obvious to them where it missed. The coach in the dugout doesn't know if the pitch at the knees was called low or called outside. Frankly, he doesn't really need to know, but it cuts the coach off at the knees...it ensures anything the coach says after that isn't a question, but an argument, and he's less likely to force something, unless he's looking for an invitation to the showers (alone).
  24. First - lots of adult ball, some as a teen playing. Happens more on 60' but have been involved with hundreds of games at 90' with solo ump, over 40 years. The vast vast majority go without a hitch. In the end, there really aren't that many calls/scenarios in a game where it comes up. To be honest with you, the majority of the complaining comes as a result of the umpire not moving his ass from behind the plate, so he's never in position to make any call. And frankly, this is not only a problem on both 90' and 60' bases (I find on small fields the solo ump is less likely to move), this would be a problem in two-man too, but A) some of his sins are forgiven by this partner, and B) his partner is probably riding his ass to get into position. It could also be why a lot of these guys end up working solo... I agree that the biggest problem is being alone - and at that point it doesn't matter the size of the field. No partner, no backup, no protection. I get that.
  • Create New...