Jump to content

beerguy55

Established Member
  • Posts

    3,441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. Even that is a myth...I have yet to run across a softball rule set in Canada nor the US where this is true (I'm sure it is somewhere, but I don't think it's "most"). You still have to offer at the pitch, and keeping your bat still while the ball crosses the plate isn't an offer, even in softball. The language in most rulesets, including the International rules, uses the term "struck at" just like baseball does. "For each legally pitched ball struck at and missed by the batter" Having said that, having seen some of my players had been previously taught by coaches to just keep their bat in place, I taught them that to do so may lead to strikes being called...that they were not making the ump's job any easier, and any kind of movement or flinch could lead the umpire to conclude they offered at the pitch. So, in either sport, leave the bat over the plate at your own peril.
  2. As far as I know in softball, both fast pitch and slow pitch (where a rover comes into play) it is always two bases time of throw...I do not believe there is a "first play by infielder" exception in softball. It doesn't really matter here, but the rover is an outfielder, and in many league/tourney rule sets the rover (and the three other outfielders) must play beyond a line in the outfield. In OP runner would get third base...it doesn't matter that he's returning to first base - he already had first base, he gets two bases from there. He is required to touch first base before advancing to third or he could be put out on appeal. (except maybe in some beer leagues) There might be some leagues with some silly 1+1 rule that would give him first base (because that's the direction he's going), plus one base, but that's the exception.
  3. This is a miss for sure...but is it excusable? Is there something that can be improved, or is this just plain old "SH*# happens"? Looking at this, it seems to me the touch of home plate is missed because the umpire watches the ball as it goes by the catcher to the backstop, and turns his head away from the plate/runner. By the time he turns his head back to the plate, the runner has already touched it and is going back to the dugout. What "should" the ump be watching here? It seems that the base ump IS watching the runner, but I think F2 is in his way so he can't see if the runner touches the plate or not. Thoughts on this?
  4. beerguy55

    Tag up appeal

    And for those keeping score, the play made to throw out R2 comes off the books...it never happened - there is no true "fourth" out...no assist for F8, no putout for F2. It is replaced with the appeal of R3 leaving third base early for the third out. R2 is considered LOB.
  5. Except for the two scenarios shown above the umpire is effectively part of the field. Tripping over an ump is no different than tripping over a base.
  6. It's explained later...the base umpire changed his mind based on something the offense coach said. As far as what the plate ump may or may not have said...there's a difference between "I didn't see a foot off the bag" vs "I saw his foot touching the bag"...they may look they same, but they're not....kind of like the difference between "The call stands" and "the call is confirmed"...or "not guilty" and "innocent".
  7. During discussion between the two umps the plate ump advises he did not see foot off bag - How do you know? This is supposed to be a private conversation. Base ump changes call to "safe". Regardless of what was or wasn't said between the two umps, this is the base ump's prerogative...if he feels he has appropriate information to change his mind, he can. Defense's coach talked to both umpires? Shouldn't happen - he should only talk to the umpire who made the call. By happy accident, defensive coach was able to ascertain that the home umpire didn't provide any evidence to change the call, and that the base umpire decided to change the call because the offense's coach was adamant the fielder missed the base. Do I have that right? Should the umpire change his call based on coach's "demands"? Of course not. BUT...maybe the umpire decided that the coach's opinion had merit, for whatever reason? Maybe the coach never argues anything. Maybe the ump wasn't so sure to begin with. Maybe the coach simply made a compelling case. Not saying it's right or wrong, but this might not be an umpire giving into a coach's demands, but more an umpire listening to a coach's case and weighing it accordingly. Sure, maybe he was bullied into changing the call...and frankly, the base ump should never have said anything but "the fielder's foot came off the bag", and not clarify where he got that information....the plate ump should have told the defensive coach to talk with the base ump, and not said a damned thing about his opinion. And no, the plate ump can't overrule that call...it's the base ump's call to make...and, if he feels it's warranted, to change.
  8. No...dropping the glove (even with the ball in it) is the same as dropping the ball. (assuming the glove was dropped as a result of the tag) The ball must be securely in the glove AND the glove must be securely/properly worn. You also can't hold the glove (by the wrist end, for example) with the ball in it, to give you and extra 4-6 inches of reach on the tag.
  9. beerguy55

    Hit by pitch

    Assumes facts not in evidence. He wasn't hit by a pitch at all. The pitch was thrown behind his head.
  10. He's required to be between the two parallel white lines that run the final 45 feet to first base - that's the runner's lane. If he's literally running along the baseline there's a good chance that his left foot is outside the runner's lane for at least part of his advance.
  11. Well, the opposing team can appeal anything they want. Yes, if they properly appeal, an umpire would have the rules in his defense to call the batter out and remove the run. So...would you ever consider denying the appeal and then telling the coach..."go ahead, protest"? See what hill a coach is willing to die on...
  12. As I read this, the onus would be on the coach to make sure his protest is understood and acknowledged at that time, and ensure it's been properly documented by the umpire and the scorekeeper.
  13. Again...what makes a protest a protest? What does a coach have to do or say, to the umpire, to convey that they are protesting a rule? And what does the umpire have to do or say to the coach to acknowledge it? Does a coach need to ask for a receipt? Does a coach have to say the word "protest"? Is there any other behavior, action or language that would make it apparent that he's protesting? What mechanisms are in place to avoid a coach believing he has submitted a protest and an umpire believing he did not? I understand they have to submit something in writing to the league within 24 hours as a second step. Not much different than any leagues I've been involved with. I'm asking about that initial interaction with the umpire. Completely understand the timing. What is unclear is how to resolve a dispute to whether or not the coach actually submitted a protest. I've dealt with protests before, but have never had to deal with a dispute about the timing, or existence, of a protest. I'll give you an example of the hypothetical I have in my mind... In the third inning, coach and umpire discuss/argue a rule in the 3rd inning. It's very clear the coach believes the umpire is wrong about the rule (not to mention unhappy about the two runs the other team is getting). The umpire sticks with the ruling and the game continues. At the end of the game, the coach's team has lost by one run, he simply says to the umpire "Just letting you know I'll be going forward with the protest - I'll send it in writing tonight"... Umpire says "you're too late, you have to submit the protest before the next play". Coach says "I have to send an email to the league before the next play?" Umpires says "No, that is 24 hours...but you have to tell me you're protesting before the next play - you never did that, so there's no protest" Coach says "what are you talking about? I did do that...what do you think I was doing when we were arguing?" Umpire..."well, I didn't hear you say 'protest'". Conversely - I wouldn't mind seeing umpires trained to shut this argument down at the initial point of discussion, and at the same time force the hand of the coach. There's no reason to argue this. Either pull out the rule book right then and there, or shut the conversation down. "Coach, that's my ruling. If you think I'm wrong, would you like to protest? Otherwise, let's play."
  14. And there's my point..."submitted"...wtf does that mean? Is there a secret code word he has to use? What is the coach required to do/say, exactly, to submit a protest to the umpire? What language crosses the threshold, which doesn't? With this rule that can be very broadly interpreted, a protest committee could determine that "wait a minute...we made a mistake in our ruling...the coach DID protest in time...in his initial discussion with the umpires, immediately after the call was made, he was submitting a protest - for whatever reason the umpire did not hear or understand that...the coach thought he did". Mainly because there's no hard and fast rule to what constitutes "submitting a protest" to the umpire...as opposed to the "in writing with 24 hours", which I'm assuming was definitely done. I want to be clear here - I agree with EVERYTHING you are saying. The likelihood is someone (at least) on the protest committee was pressured into overturning their own call. Maybe the initial committee had voted 3-2 against the protest. I agree - something isn't right. Probably. But there is an out here to make a bullSH*# ruling. And there should be an investigation to how/why this ruling got overturned. My point all along is, it's a mistake to dismiss/ignore the coach in this situation, and assume he'd accept the "sorry, you protested 90 seconds too late". As right as the ruling is, to think he's not going to fight further, and frankly, to blame him for fighting further, for a perceived injustice, is short-sighted. He's at the very least going to try to find out if there's an appeal process for the protest committee. I don't blame him for trying to do everything he can to get the right call. There's a right and wrong way to do it for sure, but I do no begrudge the coach for doing what he could. Especially if he's realizing that he's the one who screwed up his team's chances for winning. In fact, with all the focus on him missing the deadline to inform the umpire, by two pitches, they simply invited him to come up with a way to prove that he did protest in time. "Wait a minute...I said this, this, that and this to the umpire immediately after the call...you mean none of that constitutes a protest?" And, that is a textbook definition of a "technicality". That would depend...we don't know the full nature of the ruling. I would agree 100% that if they still ruled his protest was valid, even though everyone acknowledged he did it two pitches too late, that would be wrong. But...what if they determined that he actually did protest in time...he just didn't use the word "protest". I think the focus on this "technicality" just invites someone with tenacity to come up with a way of "proving" he did protest in time. Can't avoid the technicality? Then change the narrative to fit it. I'd like to know if they really nailed the coach down, on the first argument, on when he believed he submitted the protest. I'm not completely ignorant here - I am/was a coach first...but I've also been a TD and a league president, and I've been on a few protest committees. I know what goes on behind the scenes. Personal interest: I learned the hard way, very early in my coaching tenure, about knowing the protest rules. I don't blame a coach who will do everything he can to undo a mistake he made that cost his kids their game. In my case, the ump screwed up a basic rule and took runs off the board for my team (b/r made third out at second base - he figured since b/r made third out no runs can score). I screwed up bigger by not understanding my protest options, and didn't realize until a few days later, when I complained to the league and umpire association, when it was far too late to do anything. tbh - my complaint was submitted because this umpire was actually training other umpires, not to reverse the call. Anyway, I had to own it, and learn from it. But don't underestimate what I'd do to be able to undo that mistake and give those kids their gold medal.
  15. You're getting hung up on the technicality that he didn't say "I'm playing this game under protest" at the exact time he should have (and don't get me wrong, there are rules for a reason and we have to draw lines somewhere). As I've said before, it's defensible to deny the protest. But don't ever ignore someone who is wrong on a technicality. Kind of curious if the rules define what exact words and language you have to say to file a protest. Or is it like an "obvious appeal"? And I've already highlighted how one could get around that, if they really wanted to. The league would have an obligation to be transparent here and simply say something like "it has been determined that the coach did indeed protest the game, in his initial discussion with the umpires, immediately after the play, but the intent was misunderstood in the moment - we believe if that clarity had occurred the ruling would have been administered properly at that time - as such, we believe the correct remedy is to place the runners as appropriate, and resume the batter's at bat, to the rest of the game." yadda yadda yadda All I'm saying is do not dismiss the coach's perspective here...and don't ignore his actions simply because it isn't what he should have done or isn't what you would have done. Or simply because he's an ass. The league made that mistake. The golden rule is "treat others as you want to be treated"...the platinum rule is "treat others as THEY want to be treated". Likewise - it doesn't matter how you or I would react here, it only matters how he would. Remember one simple fact...no matter how douch-y the coach is, no matter how despicable a human being he is, at the end of the day he was right about the rule, the umpires were not. Dismiss him as a mindless bully at your peril. He has a case. He's doing everything the wrong way, but he has a cause to hang his hat on. The call was wrong...the time limit is an arbitrary technicality. And some people are like a dog on a bone in these scenarios. He doesn't have to believe he is right...he IS right. Being told "yeah, you're right, but you were too late...if you had said something 90 seconds earlier you would have won the protest" is not going to get a positive reaction. His response is almost certainly going to be..."wait a minute, I did protest right after the play." I don't ever want to encourage this bullying behavior, but it sounds like the league has been fostering this for years, so they've made their bed, and in many ways have put themselves into this situation. All I can hope is they can learn from it.
  16. As I'm reading it...at some point somehow for some reason they have decided it was a valid protest. So, if they've magically decided it's a valid protest, for whatever reason as questionable the determination and evidence may be (or if in fact legitimate) then it needs to be executed from that time. Edit - the possibility always exists that whomever made this decision has determined (right or wrong) that the coach did in fact protest right after the play (with or without explicit specific language) and that request wasn't properly administered/understood/executed...ie. the "protest" that occurred at end of inning was a reiteration/clarification/repeat of the earlier rules dispute/protest that did occur right after the play. Further edit - to be clear, this has the stink of political corruption and a lack of ethics all over it...but there is an "out" here, and it seems it's being used.
  17. Then argue this one point - and protest otherwise...the game needs to be played starting at the exact time the correct balk call should have been made. Because, if it was a valid protest, that is the point the protest was made. Runners on 2nd and 3rd, with two out, with the batter still at the plate (the one who struck out to end the inning when the kafuffle started) with whatever count he had at the time of the balk. Otherwise, the only reasonable starting point is in extra innings...if they're going to rule that the "kid would have struck out anyway, so let's just undo the run and start the next inning"...well then "the game would have ended 6-6 anyway, so let's start in extra innings". Unless you have to replay the whole game. As stated...have people recording everything, to capture any abuse that comes from their parents or coaches (and keep your parents in line). The coach may be a horse's ass, but in the end he was defending his players against a perceived injustice. As you said, you don't want to win on a technicality. Losing on a technicality is 1000 times worse. My suspicion is this coach threatened to sue, or go to the press, or something similar, and someone caved. In the end, it's the "right" call...with extremely poor execution. I'm not interested in the technicality of the timing. Sure, it's defensible...but it's a legal response...and that is likely what led to a legal rebuttal. It's what happens when you start acting like lawyers in court and abandon common sense and fair play when it comes to making the right decision about a game being played by pre-teens. It was handled poorly from almost the beginning, and that's the biggest problem here. (you might argue they handled poorly long before that when they continued to let this coach operate for years on end) They got the right answer, but didn't show their work properly. This could have been solved on site at game time...at the point he's coming out to argue a second time and trying to protest, the proper sources should have been at, or near, that game to rule immediately, and the umpires should have called them in...and I'm willing to bet at that exact moment they would have rolled it back, regardless of the technical issue of the timing of the "protest". Whether you agree or not, I can see a coach arguing that, in their mind, they were "protesting" the first time they argued the rule. In fact, there's no reason to argue a rule at all..."Coach, that's the rule, if you want to protest, speak now or forever hold your peace; otherwise, let's play." ESPECIALLY in such a setting - some level of champion final is going to/should have league officials present. And especially if this coach has the reputation you say he has.
  18. I'd say in the end there's no hindrance...pitcher achieved the goal which was to prevent the ball coming back fair (or at least, in the end, with Marte stopped) he had the choice to let the ball come fair or not. That's certainly results-based thinking, but shouldn't int/obs, in determining if there was hindrance, be that? In this case, F1 was never going to get to the ball while it was still in fair territory. This scenario presents a possible variant...with Marte slowing down, he could conceivably interfere with F2 who is following behind him...if something were to happen to make F2 the protected fielder. With all the same foul/fair considerations in play.
  19. If the umpire is the subject of the protest - either because he violated a rule, or violated a procedure, then he's not an impartial witness...he's defending himself, to some degree. What if the coach is saying he did protest in the proper time? Then you have coach saying "I protested in time" and ump saying "he didn't protest in time", and you need an impartial witness...What if he is actually saying he specifically mentioned protest during the first argument, and was ignored? What if he's suggesting that his original argument/dispute of the rule should have constituted a protest, implicitly? I doubt I'd agree there, but there's enough to unpack there that I can see someone considering the notion that he was obviously disputing a rule...and the resources were (should have been?) in place, at a championship game, to quickly validate the on field ruling.
  20. beerguy55

    Passing runner

    No..."passing the runner" is a bit of a misnomer. Think of it more as a state than an act. If the trailing runner at any point finds himself beyond the lead runner, (or conversely, the lead runner finds himself behind the trailing runner) the (should have been) trailing runner is out.
  21. beerguy55

    Pickoff

    I'm pretty sure if you died while rounding the bases you could be called out for abandonment.
  22. beerguy55

    Pickoff

    Like hitting a watermelon with a sledgehammer. The pitcher on my men's league team took one right in the face - literally pulverized both cheekbones, broke jaw, lost all teeth...had to get prosthetic cheeks. The batter was the first person to his aid.
  23. They shouldn't really be moving in any direction at the time of the catch/drop...on their toes at some point between the bases ready to move one way or the other - "halfway", but in reality, the closer the fielder is to you, the closer to the previous base you should be, so you don't get nailed on an appeal for leaving early. You have to assume catch whether IFF has been called or not, so protect yourself from that...you always must return to the previous base. Whereas you only need to advance if the ball is dropped and if IFF was not called. If the ball drops in the shallow outfield, and for some reason IFF hasn't been called, the runners still have a chance to make their forced base...you're probably going to get R2 forced out at third, but it will be difficult for a properly coached R1 to also get forced at second for the DP (but not impossible) - and it would be ridiculously lazy base running if you got the B/R at first...if an easy DP is turned here that should be Clue One that IFF should have been called. If they end up only getting R2 (or R1) then it was probably right to not call IFF. I know you can't wait for the results to rule IFF...but I think you can use the results to help you learn when IFF should be called. In the end, as a coach, I have rarely cared if the ump didn't call IFF when he should have if the end result was one out...was never that worried which out...99% of the time the play ends with R1/R2 and an additional out...exactly what happens when IFF is called (usually). Sure, I'd like him to get that right in the long run, especially as the offensive coach to avoid cheap DP's. As a defensive coach, can't really argue it - if ump didn't call IFF and my fielder didn't catch it, then I guess it couldn't be caught with ordinary effort...my team screwed up...it's ballsy to ask to be bailed out using a rule designed to protect the offense. I'll ask, but it will be half-hearted.
  24. beerguy55

    Pickoff

    Thankfully, at least in my experience, this is not only an exception...I'd say umps like this are so rare I'd call this an abnormality. He doesn't even qualify to be an exception. He's a defect. If anything I've seen umps that are more apt to stop a play a bit too soon...which is fine at this level. As the offensive coach, I'm saying "F U" to the ump and telling my players to stop at the next base (AT MOST). No coach with any integrity, especially at this level, should have let the kids keep running...no player on my team would be crying after hitting a home run off the pitcher's face...he'd be crying at first base, with his parents consoling him then and there...live play be damned. As the defensive coach I'm saying "F U" to the ump and tending to my player...then I'm leaving...then I'm filing a formal complaint.
×
×
  • Create New...