Jump to content


Established Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. Jesus Christ - give the crew chief a microphone so the PAYING fans and viewers can be told what the F*#K is going on.
  2. Ken Kaiser was a douchebag and Exhibit A to why MLB accepted all the umps' resignations in '99.
  3. Gawd I hate this. I'll blow this ump's mind by turning right and then going to second.
  4. If you consider the batter a forced runner then the rest is moot...he's a forced runner who got out before reaching his required base. Whether RLI, or U3K, he's a "runner"...and he must reach first base....he's got no choice in the matter if he wants to be safe. Where the rule needs the specific batter/runner mention is for a fly ball...because a b/r typically reaches first before a fly ball is caught. A forced runner can also be out by INT, going off the baseline, missed base appeal, etc. Doesn't matter because it's covered as a forced runner put out before reaching his next base.
  5. First you get the money, then you get the power....then you get the women.
  6. Not sure about that - the rule states that the direction in which the runner is moving/advancing matters in determining if a runner went past a base. He was moving to second from first, not from third. After touching second, on his advance from first, by standing up on the first base/RF side of the base - in a continuous motion to move onto third - is he now deemed to be moving towards first, simply because of where his feet landed? If that is the case then I stand by my statement that this would not be "judgment"...it would be a technical, bureaucratic, fundamentalist application of the letter of the law. Not "wrong" per se...but not practical IMO. Certainly not to the spirit of the rule. He simply stood up on the "wrong" side of the base after acquiring it, mainly as a result of a head first slide. I bet this type of slide/popup/advance happens at least once a week across MLB.
  7. The two plays are indeed different. In yours, the runner is retreating to second...so if he overshoots second, he is then retreating to first. In the Sox/Rays game, he was advancing to second...and reached it...when he popped up his feet just happened to land on the first base side of the base...that's not a retreat, if one is using common sense. I'm sure some fundamentalist arbiter, or a bureaucrat, could convince himself that it is, I guess, but it would not be appropriate, IMO....that wouldn't be judgment...that would be technical enforcement.
  8. Nope...even the mlb.com website calls it a force. It is, for all intents and purposes, a "force" even if it doesn't meet the According to Hoyle definition of a "forced runner". Except for it's name, and that semantical distinction, is the batter/runner going to first different from any of the forced runners he creates? He can be put out by tagging him or the base...and if he makes the third out no runs score. And can he go anywhere else? He can't go back and bat again. The biggest/only difference is there is nothing that can "unforce" the batter/runner. He's forced to advance to first by the on-deck batter becoming a batter. All it does it creates confusion for newbies, and allows us in the know to go "haha, I'm smarter than you." It's pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Even elitist, to a degree.
  9. It's been explained several times, including by myself. The rule only allows for an appeal on a called ball, not a ruled swing, for very good reasons. The plate umpire saw a swing. That is their judgment, and that is their call. We do not force umpires to go to help on any other judgment call in the game - safe/out, fair/foul, etc. The ump can if they wish...and in those situations it's not to get a second opinion, it's to ask if the other umpire saw something the calling ump didn't (eg. was the foot off the base? Was the ball on the ground?) If the PU were to get help on a called swing, it would simply be a second opinion...and would be tantamount to allowing the offense to shop for different calls. There are many many reasons a PU will not see a swing that actually happened...there are ZERO reasons an umpire saw a swing that didn't. (provided he's not guessing...by practice, an umpire is not supposed to call a strike he didn't see) So, consider this scenario. PU calls a swing. The batter "appeals". The PU asks the BU "Did he go?" The BU didn't see anything because he was blocked by a player...or the sun was in his eyes...or he blinked...or 1000 other possible reasons. He doesn't know if the batter swung or not. Does he say "yes", because the PU called strike? (an umpire is not supposed to guess, nor are they supposed to call a swing they didn't see)...does he say "no, he didn't" because he didn't see a swing? And does that overrule the plate umpire's call? On what was obviously a swing to anyone who saw it? Does he say "the ruling on the field stands?" In the current setting, the BU's "safe" call is effectively "I also didn't see a swing"...that could be because he doesn't really think a swing happened...or it could mean he literally didn't see anything. All bases covered. It gets messy when the opposite occurs. PU saw a swing...BU says "well, I didn't, so it's a ball?" Is that really what you want? Not to mention pace of game. I've coached club ball for many years...I also played semi-pro ball. I don't ever want to see a world where the offense can appeal a called swing. And I'll jump off a bridge if it ever goes to replay review. The other umpires are there to help an umpire with something he may not have seen...they are not there for second opinions just because you didn't like the first call.
  10. Frankly, I don't think there ever was, or is, a problem with the rule. The problem is with the comment...it's either A) outright wrong, or B) contextually out of place. Whether it was there first or second is irrelevant, it should have been placed in front of the existing comment to ensure the context wasn't lost or misunderstood. As it stands now, it doesn't help...it only serves to confuse would be newer umpires trying to learn the rules. The only comment that is really needed is clarifying that "TOT" means when the ball leaves the fielder's hand.
  11. I suspect this section of the comment was supposed to be contextual to the Approved Ruling at the end of the rule - it makes perfect sense if applied specifically to that statement...the comment should start with that statement that starts with "The term 'when the wild..." Someone screwed up by putting the other comment/ruling about not always being possible to award bases in between them. I believe the intent was for it to look like this: APPROVED RULING: If all runners, including the batterrunner, have advanced at least one base when an infielder makes a wild throw on the first play after the pitch, the award shall be governed by the position of the runners when the wild throw was made. Rule 5.06(b)(4)(G) Comment: The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands. The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners....yadda yadda yadda...and then put the "impossible to award" section somewhere after this.
  12. As a coach and player, there was a time when I had to realize that, over the course of several games, with multiple umpires in play, that when determining balls and strikes, and seeing so many umpires missing easy ball or strike calls, the common denominator in all this strife was me. Things got so much better when I figured that out. I would hope that, over some period of time, that an umpire, when hearing complaints/chatter from players and coaches on BOTH teams, especially over multiple games with different teams, maybe they might look in the mirror at some point and at least ask "is it me?" In areas of judgment, there needs to be a lot of self-awareness, and openness to it...if the ump isn't figuring this out on their own, I'm not sure if a chat between innings will do much...it might need a more expanded philosophical discussion in the parking lot and/or over beers. Sometimes, they don't care enough to ask "is it me?" because they already know...they demonstrate by declaring that "that is my strike zone". At that point, you know it's all about him, and there's no point in discussing any further.
  13. You disagreed with my statement "an IFF is only an IFF if the umpire says so", and then went on the explain exactly why my statement was correct. In your example, whether the call happened during the play or after the play the only thing that made it an IFF was the umpire(s) determining that it was. It doesn't matter if the most blindingly obvious (to everyone participating in, or watching, the game that is not an umpire) IFF occurs, if none of the umpires determine it's an IFF, either during the play or in discussions after, then it's not an IFF. It's the truth AND it's a cop out (that's why it's a cop out...because it's a "technical" truth that people use as a crutch to absolve themselves of culpability). Yes, the players need to be aware of the situation AND they need to know the umpire's judgment to know what to do. As a runner, I absolutely know the situation...if IFF is called I can stay put...if IFF is not called and the ball drops I need to run. All I need is for you to tell me if it's actually an IFF. In your example, R1 can stand on first base, with no repercussions, until he's sure it was a ball. Even if in his mind there was "no way" the batter swung, there's zero down side for waiting. If he starts jogging and gets tossed out when the check appeal rules a strike, that's on him. IFF is unique here in the players are damned if they do, damned if they don't. And it's the offense that gets the brunt of this. They NEED to know the umpire's judgment to know what to do (or not do). So, I'll ask again...is the runner required to look at all four umpires to find one that has made an IFF call? Or, is the runner expected to assume that it will be called an IFF and act accordingly - ie. stay on their base unless they're really sure they can make it (and get royally screwed when the ball drops and no umpire determines it was an IFF) - keep in mind that the runners are watching the ball, not the umpires. In this scenario, assuming no verbal call was made (or just not loud enough), two of the umpires never signaled IFF, one did so after the ball hit the ground, and the other did so a fraction of a second before it hit the ground. So, even if they're looking at three of the umpires, they players have no indication IFF has been ruled by the time they need to know to run or not...and if they're looking at U3, they may not see the call depending on timing. As the ball is coming down, and it looks like F5 isn't going to make the catch...if U3 is just starting to verbalize at this time, R2 is already going...he has no choice. So even if R2 (and everyone else) hears U3 call IFF at this point, R2 is dead...he'll be about 45 feet from either base when F5 picks up the ball. Now he's in a rundown and likely doubled off. The call came too late for it to do anyone any good - meaning we're back to expecting the players to simply assume the umpires are going to call it, so stay put. Is that what we want? The fact is, this could have been an even bigger CF then it turned out to be...imagine F5 and F6 had seen the IFF call that R2 did not...F6 would have tagged him out by about 30 feet and it would have been David Ross getting tossed (even though the game was over). I don't think U2 is the problem here...he didn't see/hear an IFF call (I'm also assuming he's not watching the ball/catch, so he's not assessing "could be caught"), he called R1 out on a force, and then when he realized there was an IFF killed the play, knowing R1 came off the base only because he had called him out. The problem is, regardless of any discussion about verbalization or loudness, the IFF call came too late. Only dumb luck kept this from being a bigger mess than it was. This is not on the players.
  14. I believe that he's calling time because the only reason the runner over-ran the base was because he called him out. I suspect that, like Goldschmidt, he realized, right at the end, that IFF had been called, but by then it was too late. (I'm curious if there's any footage of U1) I would have no problem with runners returned TOP here, in the spirit of the rule. It would have been a real CF if R2 had been tagged, instead of the base. Shildt is right that they "F*#Ked up"...he's wrong if he wants a DP...he's right, IMHO, if he wants R1/R2.
  15. This is a cop out and I hate this statement with every fiber of my being. Any ump who says this is almost certainly shirking their responsibility. Even U2, who certainly knew the situation, wasn't aware that IFF had been called. So, the players are supposed to know it's an IFF, even if nobody says so, or it's not widely evident that someone said so, or the call comes really late, and just stay on their bases. And if the umps don't call IFF and the runners just stayed on their bases, then getting forced out, then the players were supposed to know they're supposed to run...because nobody called IFF. Which is it? Even if everyone knows the situation they are lost without knowing the umpire's judgment...an IFF is only an IFF if the umpire says so. Less than two out, check. R1/R2, check. Pop fly to an infielder, check. Could be caught with ordinary effort, check. What does the umpire think? Haven't heard anything. As a runner and fielder am I required to take my eye off the ball and look at all four umpires in hope to find one who's calling IFF. Do I sit back on my base and just hope the umps "get it right"? Every player at every level knows that a ball that lands three feet right of the right outfield foul line is a foul ball...they know the situation. To the point where most outfielders will just let up and jog to the ball - it's "obviously" foul (you know, so obvious that at many levels the umps don't even say anything)...Only to realize that the umpire is in fact pointing fair. (real world example of something that really happened...and without exaggeration...if anything, I'm being generous by saying only three feet) Knowing the rule book cold doesn't help you a single bit when you don't know the umpire's judgment....or you assume wrongly about their judgment, no matter how out of whack it may be...because, by rule (MLB replay rules aside) an umpire's judgment cannot be wrong. The only defense we have is clear communication of said judgment. And when that doesn't happen (even if the explanation is completely legitimate for why it couldn't happen - including loud crowd noise) don't blame the players for not knowing the situation.
  16. Does anyone know if U3 verbalized this...we see him point...then we see PU point (presumably because he saw U3's signal)...but it's quite evident that U2, R1 and R2 were not aware...not to mention the defense who played for the force rather than tag. Goldschmidt seemed to realize right at the end that it was an IFF, but judging by his reaction to the force at second, he wasn't aware at that point...I think he finally noticed U3 pointing (or maybe even saying something) right at the end. I see two options - U3 didn't verbalize...or he was drowned out by crowd noise. Am I wrong to expect a pro ump to come up HUGE with this call? A non-verbal signal isn't good enough here...the players are looking at the ball, not the umpires. Ending this play with only one out is the right thing to do, but frankly, IMO, if IFF is communicated properly, loudly and in time, those runners stay on first and second...otherwise, R2 is tagged out by about ten feet at third.
  17. beerguy55

    Balk 2?

    Runner was on first base? Then took off, and pitcher did an inside move to second? Is that right?
  18. beerguy55


    Coach the batter...on a pickoff he can step out of the box.
  19. 6.01(a)(6) deals with the runner committing INT (with intent to break up DP) - runner out, and batter out - quoted above by Mr. Blue. 6.01(a)(7) deals with batter-runner committing INT (with intent to break up DP) - BR out, runner closest to home out (7)  If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference (see Rule 6.01(j));
  20. 1. Makes contact with what...the ball or the fielder? If he made contact with the batted ball then there's no consideration for a potential DP (unless intentional). And, like above, it's immediate dead ball. 2. INT doesn't always need contact, and contact doesn't always mean INT. If F6 was able to field the ball was he really hindered? No hindrance, no interference. Isn't it always the batter for the second out - 6.01(a)(6)??
  21. I don't disagree...the only difference I see is this little temper tantrum interrupts/impacts the game itself. Like you said, the out penalty is likely enough, and like I said, as a coach I'd rather the umpire let me deal with it.
  22. And income includes finding a quarter in a vending machine change slot, or being paid in Amazon gift cards.
  23. Not sure if I'd be quick to eject...I'm asking a question, because I don't know what I'd do. And, if not eject, warn? What I do know is it's not a behavior I want to encourage...and may not want to let it slide. Maybe calling his teammate out is enough punishment, maybe not. At best, it's unsportsmanlike...at worst, it's a bellwether for things to come. As a coach, he's getting splinters in his ass for the rest of the game after that...maybe another. Not allowed to make my players run until they puke anymore, so I'd have to think of something else. My hope is an ump would let me deal with it (especially where ejections come with mandatory suspensions)...but at the same time I get that the ump has very little reason to trust that, based on what he'll see out of most coaches. Where I had long-term relationships with the ump, I could either say "I got this"...or ump could just say my name to let me know the player's on thin ice.
  24. Is there cause/support to eject too?
  • Create New...