beerguy55

ABS is SUPPOSED to fix the blatantly obvious misses. This 0.1 inch SH*# should be disregarded in either direction...for this very reason. Set a threshold at something like 0.3 inches...that SHOULD, for the most part, eliminated those pitches that nick the front edge, but are off the plate 8 inches later (or vice versa)....that is, the ump's call, whatever it is, "stands". Having said that, help me understand Lindsay's statement about px vs abs. What if the ball tailed the opposite way so it missed the front and caught the back? Would px have it a ball and abs have it a strike? Is neither system measuring the 3d strike zone?

So, a high foul ball that goes over DBT (eg. row ten of the stands behind the dugouts) and then is blown back to the field of play to be caught is "dead"?? Maybe it doesn't say so explicitly but my understanding was always that the condition making the ball dead was TOUCHING something in dead ball territory - the air not qualifying for "something". Otherwise, by the standard you lay out, a player could never reach over a fence to make a catch, because it would always be dead by virtue of it having entered DBT.

I agree 100% that a helmet tap is like drawing the line and would warrant an immediate ejection. But please be certain...drawing a line with your bat is something that just can't be mistaken for anything else. A helmet tap...well, make sure that's what it is and not just a post pitch habit, or an adjustment for comfort/vision. I'll also note that as a third base coach I instructed my batters, and baserunners, to give me a signal that they saw the signs I gave (whether I was actually calling a play or nothing at all) and said signal was, of course, tapping their helmet.

As long you don't mistake "I've umped for this coach once in my entire life" for "history".

20 unbiased people who don't know the rules aren't going to agree on the judgment of the play, so it's moot. I stand by belief of what Joe Sixpack wants - obvious mistakes to be corrected. A pitch that misses the zone by three inches is going to be obvious, and it's going to be applicable in a 2d and 3d strike zone. A ball two feet foul is obvious. A runner safe/out by a full step is obvious. Even to those who don't know the rules. The ticky tack SH*# happening in both review systems sucks. I'd frankly add a margin of error to ABS. Anything under 0.3" stands, for example. I see no reason not to have a similar confirmed/overturned/stands standard for ABS. Then let's see how willing someone is to make a challenge. And on standard replay review...challenge must be made within five seconds...instead of the "immediate" wait signal followed by 15 seconds to watch a video and decide. Now your base runner/fielder/base coach better be damned sure they're right. I'm just acknowledging a reality. Yeah, it's a strike. And almost nobody would complain if a pitch that hit the plate was called a ball, regardless of how it got there. Not just fans. I'd have called it a strike. And then I'd be admonished by almost everybody, including senior umpires, including umps and interpreters on this site, that nobody, including MLB, including a lot of pitchers, wants that called a strike, for whatever reason. I - personal opinion - think that kind of strike sucks for the game. There are about 7000 things that need to be corrected in the OBR book, and they never are - the tweaks become tribal knowledge in various ways that we just go along with. If ABS (or human umpires) called the 3D strike zone 100% accurately, as defined in the rules, viewership would go into the toilet. Would it be better to correct the rulebook...sure...but it will just create different problems. Look at the challenges NFL has had coming up with a clearly written definition of a catch. Sometimes you just have to go with the Justice Potter Stewart approach. Likewise, I'm perfectly fine with the expanded strike zone umps have used to move the game along when position players are in the game (where ABS is not permitted for use). I'd rather they just ended the game when it's clear one time has stopped trying to win, but I'll accept what is there, as managed. I disagree - I think that's what ABS and replay review are correcting. The strike that's called a ball because the catcher moved his glove 18 inches to catch the pitch. The "close enough" force play at second. The late tag that looks great and got sold to the umpire. It's been happening for over a century - right, wrong or indifferent.

I don't disagree with you, and I can make the same statement about the general replay review system. The intent, for both systems, is to correct the egregious errors (like the one Bucknor made on the "missed" first base call last week). If 20 unbiased people look at a play and agree on the call...it should be THAT obvious. I HATE that it's being used to overturn a safe call when the guy stealing the base popped off the bag for half an inch and a quarter of a second. If the ump calls that in real time, great...but don't use replay to look for those. I'd prefer replay review to have a significantly smaller window that does not allow the bench to look at a video...the player/coach better be 100% certain the call was wrong and give him two seconds to tap his head. I think that is one thing ABS got absolutely right. I think some of the gamesmanship will correct itself, especially when you see idiot players costing the team a challenge because they don't want a K on their stat sheet. This will eventually shift to seeing blatant misses significantly outweigh those 0.1 inch misses (which will happen more by accident/luck). Like any sport with a review system, with limited challenges, there SHOULD be a strategy to how/when those challenges are used - I have no problem with that. In the NHL a coach's challenge results in a two-minute delay of game penalty if they're wrong...so you better be damned sure you're right OR the reward far outweighs the risk. I still want framing to be a useful skill in MLB, and I still want the human element of the game, with human umpires, right down to selling a tag. What I don't want is strikes called in the other batter's box, "neighborhood" force plays at second, or any world where good people like Joyce/Denkinger have to feel like SH*# about making an understandable mistake on a high-profile call.

Why would you change how you officiate a game because it's "higher stake"? This is EXACTLY why coaches get frustrated - something that never got called all year suddenly gets called in the final game of the season - either because they've found am ump who consistently calls the rules all year, or, more common, the umpire has decided he better start doing his job in front of the evaluators. I'd rather the ump be a hard ass in the first exhibition game of the season to set the standard and expectation. The stakes may be higher, but the approach to judgment should be the same. Sure, there may be some minor game management adjustments in pure recreational games, but there should not be anything in a playoff game that is handled so differently that it warrants bringing attention to it.

"He didn't catch the F*#King ball" would be clear and concise communication.

Maybe maybe not...it's all fine and dandy to worry about the accuracy of high/low...those inaccuracies will even out...the ones that are overturned, or confirmed by 0.1 inches, will even out, whether balls and strikes, or top of zone and bottom of zone. You can't argue much about the left/right, and that's where there's less wiggle room. Sure, on occasion it's going to miss a pitch that was a strike at the front of the plate, but off the plate by the middle...but that's going to be extremely rare. A pitch that curves around the plate will be a ball, regardless, by nature of where the 2D plane is located. Up and down I'm not really concerned about the ones that are in or out of the zone by 0.2 inches...it's the ones that are so high or low that it doesn't even register a measurement...the ones that are a ball plus high or low will tell the tale, and that is where umpire quality should be focused. Same goes for the ones that are completely within the strike zone but called balls. Likewise, left/right it's going to be really evident really quickly which umpires are falling short, and nobody will be able to argue the player's height. No one's attacking Will Little or Erich Bacchus, who are 5/5 and 10/11 respectively on challenges. I'd like to see how the season pans out, after everyone has 30-40 games under their belt...but early on, when I look at Chad Whitson...he's only called 295 pitches, has had 7 challenged, and all 7 overturned...I want to see what that looks like later. Some umps are challenged a lot, some others not so much. A dozen umpires have had three or fewer challenges....18 have had ten or more challenges. What I wonder if it will highlight "holes"...maybe some umpires suck at low pitches, where others suck at outside...and then their "success" rate with challenges will be impacted by how often pitchers throw to their weak areas. Conversely, when I see Logan O'Hoppe has already challenged 12 pitches, and ten of them were overturned, that just tells me he's not very good at framing...he's causing umpires to call strikes as balls.

Wasn't me, but that was my understanding too...by letter of the rule there are pitches that hit the strike zone that could also hit the plate...I don't think MLB has ever wanted those called strikes, and I don't think any reasonable umpire has ever wanted to call those a strike. I think most players, even pitchers, don't want those called strike. Conversely, it would be easy to correct it by rule - almost every softball ruleset specifically says this, or something like it: EXCEPTION: It is not a strike if the pitched ball touches home plate and is not swung at. That doesn't explicitly address a sweeper that catches the very front corner of the plate and hits the ground beside the plate...but that's a far less common occurrence in softball.

He is out...the base is not a safe haven for him - he is "forced" to vacate. The same concept can apply on an appeal play...eg. fly ball and you run from first to second before the catch...they can tag you while you're standing on the other base. So, a base isn't' ALWAYS safe.

I would say there's a teachable moment for your partner. His homework would be to find that rule that supports his position - he won't because it's not there. R3 being forced does not mean he is required to run (that is, the act of not running does not result in an automatic out). It only means that the base he started at is no longer a safe haven for him. R3 was forced until R2 was put out (by tagging third base). The rulebook outlines the conditions to put out a forced runner. Tag the runner...or tag the next base. A forced runner who chooses to stay on his base of origin also does not qualify for the abandonment rule - so shut that down if you ever hear it. A forced runner can in fact run or be chased back to his base of origin...he (or the next base) still needs to be tagged to get the out.

Ask yourself this - was R3 ever tagged? Was home plate tagged? How or why would R3 be out? That should answer your question. Otherwise, I'd very interested in understanding the justification for calling R3 out, under which rule. R2 was out when F5 stepped on third base, removing the force for R3. The subsequent tag to R2 was inconsequential - he tagged a retired runner. If F5 had tagged R3 and then stepped on the base, in that exact order, then both R3 and R2 would be out.

I had the same thought - I was imagining teams calling an Uber to get to their next game.

I know it's slow pitch, but - this weekend: Lou Berliner Sports Park 31 diamonds 55 umpires 400+ teams 1000+ games I've been TD for tourneys with three diamonds and a dozen umpires...I'm breaking into hives thinking about the logistics of this puppy. As a UIC, is it easier or harder having everyone in one place like this?

It's more common in fastpitch, but could be applicable in baseball. Basically, the batter goes left and tries a running slap to get a head start to first. After a couple of strikes, the batter switches to bat right because it's their stronger side. I've also seen one scenario where it was discovered that the pitcher just couldn't handle pitching to left-handed batters...so, they all bat left, and then if they somehow get to two strikes they switch to right, if that's their natural side.

Agreed - 100%. If the game priority is far enough down the list, where the experienced/strong umps are at the "important" games, and you're at the point where you're willing to take literally anyone, then the coaches are better off finding parent volunteers, or coach umps...or, if old enough, even players. I've said it before and I'll say it again - kids play baseball in schoolyards every day, and in parks every weekend...and they do it without a single adult, parent, coach or certified umpire - and they do it just fine. The game only NEEDS the players...everything else is icing.

As a coach and I have reason to believe something is "wrong" (at this point I don't care if it's pot or low blood-sugar), I'm doing "something". I'm likely first taking an opportunity to talk to the opposite coach to see if he has the same perspective...maybe I'm overreacting. Assuming there's a base ump, I'm talking with him (maybe even with the other coach)...the bottom line is, this game is not continuing with this umpire. At the bare minimum, I'll walk my team away and risk the forfeit. The league and/or umpire association is getting a call from me the next day. Ideally, we're calling the guy a cab...or an ambulance...if it's determined he's simply incompetent he can watch/leave, but we're not continuing the farce. And I HAVE, with the agreement of the other coach, forced an inept umpire (solo) out of a game, where we officiated the remainder of the game ourselves. To be clear...this has happened ONCE. And "inept" isn't a strong enough word. A random passerby would be an improvement. This is so much easier when games are played at centralized facilities, with many diamonds, where there are going to be other umpires, tournament directors, league officials, UIC's, etc, etc to inject authority. When you're out in the middle of nowhere in a community/rec game with one or two umpires of varying ages, skill and experience, experienced coaches are, once in a while, forced to make some tough decisions and beg forgiveness.

The biggest issue with this particular Facebook debate is the number of people convinced that it is a "force play" and that it's not an "appeal" because "those happen after the play". You can definitely see the delineation between those who have umped and/or read the rule book, and those who haven't...as far as knowing whether or not it's an appeal. There's still a number of those who know it's an appeal but weren't aware that they can't be accidental.

OBR 5.09(c) Comment "An appeal should be...an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand, would not constitute an appeal." This language in one form or another is present in every ruleset of softball and baseball as far as I've ever seen. The "obvious" appeal comes from F5 after R3 gets back to the base. Now, if you want to judge that F5 intended to have her leg hit the bag, and/or that she was fully intending to appeal during her process of the catch, and that her late toe-tap was simply a confirmation/affirmation of her original intent all along, then fine, I'll go with it.

With the additional information provided by others, in this context, the coach assist would be nullified here, but not for the reasons you state. In a live play, coach helping the runner to his feet would be an out. In a dead play, this specific scenario would NOT be an out. Uniquely here, the coach was saved by the OBS - during the play he was helping the runner get back up so he could reach base safely - but once the runner was awarded home, this became a simple case of the coach helping a fallen runner to his feet during a dead ball. I suspect if the coach had grabbed the runner to push him back to a missed base this would be a different outcome. (unless, I'm guessing, the OBS is what caused the runner to miss the base)

Because even on an award the runner is obliged to advance to the base(s) legally. The sequence you describe matters in the context that the coach's assistance happened after the OBS, and therefore during the award advancement. The question is whether or not coach's assistance during a dead ball is illegal. I've seen second and third hand account of people claiming to have been told by their state interpreter that it is illegal. I cannot find a case play that explicitly says anything, one way or the other. The closest is the FED softball video above...coach's assistance is illegal during a dead ball in FED softball.

hahaha - I don't know how I failed to notice that.

Yes, that's exactly what you said in the OP. My statement is about a dead ball HR award. When you are awarded home on a ball hit over the fence, you can still be called out for coach's assistance, at least in FED....the difference is there's no OBS happening...but it's still an award of home, just for different reasons. I can't find any official case play, but I will note that this NFHS video explicitly talks about "high fives" during a home run trot not being assistance...this video would be moot and unnecessary if coach's assistance could not be called at all during a home run trot. That part is conspicuously absent here, and it really leaves only one logical conclusion.

I think this might be different in OBR and FED...I'm pretty sure in FED it's an out - ie. coach assistance is a violation any time, live or dead. OBR I'm a little fuzzy.