Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beerguy55

  1. This is in the Official Rules of Softball...I'm assuming similar language would be in any rule set of baseball/softball... The plate umpire may forfeit the game if any team member or spectator attacks any umpire physically Otherwise, keep ejecting coaches and players until you reach the necessary threshold.
  2. This...too many umps want contact for OBS/INT, so coaches teach their players to make contact. (that is not an endorsement for said behavior, simply an acknowledgement of cause and effect) It's the same mentality that leads to flopping/diving in soccer, basketball and hockey. If officials need people to fall down to see a foul, well, crazy as it seems, people start to fall more. And its fostered and reinforced all the way up the ranks until it's part of the "professional" product we see on TV.
  3. I disagree...I think it would have been just as bad, if not worse to rule this fair - based on the manner of the umpires it's very clear none of them though it was fair...ruling it a fair ball after-the-fact would have been a really unethical and down-right slimy way to explain away their ignorance of the rules and avoid a protest (and still wouldn't address the batter, who never made any attempt to run to first...or if they really thought it was fair, why did they kill the play and have a conference if the play was still live and a runner still in play - although, how cute would it be if the
  4. Two possibilities...R1 threw to F5, and R3 ran home....in this case we don't know which box the batter is in, or why he's doing what he's doing...OR B1 hits a very hard grounder/screaming one-bouncer to F5...as F5 comes up with it and is throwing home B1 is just starting to run, likely from the RHB box (I've hit line drives that were caught by F3 and I'm still in the box holding the bat)
  5. Why - MLB plays the "World" Series every year...sometimes with teams in the same city....Hell, for the first 60+ years of World Series play there were only US teams in the entire league. When the World Series was named (for a playoff between Boston and Pittsburgh) there were no MLB teams west of the Mississippi (OK, two teams were ON the Mississippi). Also - the first five LLWS did not have international teams.
  6. If the catcher has the ball I'm not sure this statement is true. There are slight variances if he doesn't have the ball, around whether or not "in the act" is relevant...but I think if he's in possession all codes are the same, no? Making the assumption in OP that F2 just received the pitch and held onto it...but if he threw to second, and is now waiting for the throw back, then we have some questions.
  7. I can see two reasons...one, going backwards you're more likely to collide with the catcher, because he's behind the plate, not in front of it - you may not be able to see exactly where he is, but you can both know and see where he is not...and two, going forward ensures you get out of the way of your teammate, who is likely doing a back door slide. The more likely scenario is he just panicked and has no rhyme or reason to the direction he went.
  8. If the catcher is in possession of the ball he can sit on home plate if he wants
  9. I'm not sure if this matters, but I'll ask anyway...did F1 attempt to pick off R3 who ran home? Or did batter hit a screaming grounder to to F5 and he's still near/around the plate, but starting to run to first?
  10. As a player, I treated it like a hit-and-run, not a steal...I'm making sure he's going to the plate and then I'm taking the head start...and that's all it is...The guy at third is typically a jogging start, he's scoring if it's hit anywhere, and unless a swinging bunt occurs he's not worried about beating any play...R2 is just wanting a head start enough to score on any single to the outfield. R1 is just wanting a few extra steps to force the infielders to throw to first instead of second. But, sure, with bases loaded it's low risk to turn and throw to second...second IS occupied, and m
  11. Haha - honestly...I'm going right to "protest"...there's gotta be a protest mechanism in this setting. "IT'S A DEAD BALL!" I am screaming this during the play...and then after...everyone in the stands would know exactly my argument. Now, if what you saw on the field is the protest - ie. the UIC is on the field and he rules on it - then, yeah, I'm probably getting tossed I'm going somewhere between calling them all idiots, or Three Blind Mice...or telling them if they cash their game cheque they should be charged with fraud.....though context matters...if one of the teams
  12. beerguy55

    RHP Balk?

    You haven't met some of the kids I've coached.
  13. That's fine - I'll submit you're only noticing what you're noticing...the blatant stuff...the subtle stuff is, well, subtle...at the amateur level, 99% of the umpires I caught in front of fell into two categories: 1. I could move/turn the glove up to a few inches to get a strike OR, if the ump didn't like to see a moving mitt 2. I could park my glove as far as the opposite batter's box chalk, and if my pitcher stuck it, and I didn't move the glove, I'd get a strike (this is great if you have an accurate pitcher...it sucks if you don't, because this same ump will miss st
  14. To be clear, I'm talking about rule sets/organizations where there's a lower bar/intolerance for unsportsmanlike behavior. At the pro level, this is nothing. At other levels, maybe it's something. The results aren't a requirement for an unsportsmanlike act, but, in some cases, are necessary to gauge/prove the intent...a hard tag that misses isn't always evident to be a hard tag, or an attempt to slap the runner in the face - it might just look like a plain old missed tag...doesn't mean the intent or act wasn't there...it's just harder to detect, or be sure about it. If you can gau
  15. Not really.... It's hard enough to hit a ball right down the pipe. A ball that nips the bottom outside front corner of the strike zone is virtually unhittable. It's actually easier to hit a ball belt high three inches off the plate than a lot of pitches that are technically strikes. So, yeah, leave the hitting lessons to those of us who know how to hit, and know how to teach it....there's nobody harder on hitters than I am. There are "strikes" that aren't hittable, and calling them strikes is not good for the game of baseball...especially the BUSINESS of the game of baseball. And
  16. Though technically correct, this is a pitch that most baseball officials, players (except pitchers), coaches and spectators do not want called a strike. It's not good for the game. There's already too many strikeouts and not enough balls in play. The Atlantic League is trying to train their bots to not call this a strike. That in and of itself is an acknowledgement that the "standard" strike zone called by most umps, and supported by most people involved, is NOT the "to the letter" strike zone written in the rules. Softball specifically has a rule that a pitch that hits the plate, e
  17. I'm pretty sure he has to throw a warmup...but even if the requirement was just toeing the rubber, that is a far different scenario from simply incidentally touching the rubber as he picks up the ball.
  18. Groundball...if it never goes fair there's nothing to interfere with, is there? It's not a matter of whether or not it had a chance to go fair...it's whether or not it did go fair...if that ball eventually rolls fair then it's INT, is it not? I know it's supposed to be an immediate dead ball...but there's a provision on a fly ball(or IFF?) to wait to see if it's fair or foul...wouldn't that apply here too? What if R3 interfered with F5's attempt to touch the ball to keep it foul, knowing he had no chance to get the B/R? I don't know about any provision or judgment on whether or not a
  19. Do you mean if he had succeeded it would be grounds for an ejection? Attempted interference is nothing...so, you can't call him out for trying to interfere. If he succeeded, he would be out. That part's easy. But unsportsmanlike conduct doesn't require success...the attempt itself is either unsportsmanlike, or it's not...success/failure is irrelevant. You're ejecting for the act, not the result.
  20. beerguy55


    Depends on the softball ruleset - by default, softball obstruction only awards the base the runner otherwise would have reached...meaning if they're going back to third, and the obstruction prevented them from reaching third, they get third (but it's still judgment to what the runner would have got without obstruction) I know some softball rulesets award the "plus one" base (otherwise, why wouldn't you obstruct a runner if they're only going to get the base they would get anyway), but not all do. The runner on first wasn't obstructed, so stays put...also, unless the runner was
  21. If I recall correctly it's some kind of attempt to stop gaming/angling
  22. beerguy55


    Yes, but BR is now out - he made the second out trying to get to second base...is the force still on? I know the force was on when he missed the base....but it's not on now.
  23. No, we shouldn't. We should understand how this is called when there's intent, and when there's not, and make sure the reasoning and consistency align. The last thing you should be doing is assessing every scenario in a bubble.
  24. Though this may indeed be the closest scenario, this is still a batter...not a "retired" batter, so, it is different. (or is it?) This is more in line with the Blue Jays/Rangers playoff game a few years ago...in fact, I'd say it's exactly in line with it. I agree with the above stated concerns about just throwing balls at retired runners to get free INT outs. However, if you are concerned that that ridiculousness is plausible, then so is the opposite ridiculousness, which is the retired runner interfering with said throw with no repercussions...whether intentional, not, or accident
  • Create New...