beerguy55

Not sure what you're getting at here...the shortstop in question in that game was camped under the ball - Pete Kozma was a fine shortstop in an era that didn't really have many standout defensive shortstops - he held his own against the likes of Tulowitzki and Andrus, but you could fairly say he was a decidedly typical MLB shortstop in 2013, and certainly not getting any HOF votes any time soon - and he was indeed camped under the "can of corn", which is why IFF was called correctly. The only reason it wasn't caught is he heard something - perhaps the umpire calling IFF, perhaps someone in the stands yelling, and he thought he was being called off by the outfielder.

I'm assuming there's grounds for ejection if you judge intent...but you better be damned sure. Otherwise - don't root your feet in the ground...always be ready to adjust and move. Baserunners can very easily juke and deke and put themselves between you and the fielder. And, yes, once in a while SH*# happens.

Because that is the definition of a strike: A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which: (a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed; (b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone; (c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes; (d) Is bunted foul; (e)Touches the batter as he strikes at it; (f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or (g) Becomes a foul tip. The "offer" part only matters on a pitch that was missed. A pitch that hits the bat is a batted ball...under the same guise of "non action" or blind luck or whatever you want to call it, the batter could just as easily get an infield single out of it...even an RBI.

It's been established by most here that it likely shouldn't be INT, but an umpire COULD call it under the "confuses" parameter...that would be their judgment. The discussion is more about what happens next - which runs score, and who bats first next inning.

Yes, we've established that. The run doesn't count because the batter made the third out. The question is whether or not both runs on the same play would be negated by that third out, or just the one where he actually interfered.

I'm picking up what you're putting down, I just don't think it's 99%...many umps see the fly ball in the infield part and immediately make the call, forgetting the ordinary effort part. F4/F6 playing back and that little fly ball ten feet in front of second base that doesn't get high enough for someone to camp under.(more than a humpback, less than a can of corn) The other one I've seen is the one to shallow center field that falls in between F4, F6 and F8...IFF...wtf?!?!?! A close cousin to this is when a 60 foot basepath game is being played on a 90 foot infield, and the ump figures anything over the dirt is "the infield" and therefore catchable with ordinary effort by any infielder. Yup, sometimes someone isn't doing their job...usually it's imply not an easy catch. And give the pitcher a lot less credit to make any catch behind them.

LOL - I must have added my edit the same time you posted. I have the same question. I genuinely don't know the answer. I suspect it's TOI and the first run counts, but won't be surprised if neither run counts.

The issue I'm raising is if the batter is the one called out for INT. If batter is called out, he's the third out...and he never reached first base (he never even became a runner)...by strict interpretation of the rule R3's run doesn't count. It's all one continuous playing action from the pitch to the throw to F3 to the throw to F4/6. Is it TOI or TOP? Does it matter? Not to mention, are we really ruling the batter did NOT interfere when he ran to first, but did once he headed to second? If R2 is called out for batter's action, as the closest runner to home, then there's no issue...it's a time play. R3's run scores...however, batter bats the next inning because he wasn't called out, and he never became a runner in the scenario. Edit: let's play it out a different way. Passed ball, and batter gets out of the way...throw from F2 goes past F1; R3 scores and now R2 tries to advance...as F6 throws home the batter now gets in F2's way to make the play, and the ump rules INT. Is the batter called out or is the runner called out? Pretty sure with two out it's the batter. If the batter, does him being the third out negate the first run that scored on the play?

In this odd hypothetical, R2 is called out due to the batter's actions (INT) - if that is the case then that batter is up to start the next inning - they never became a runner (officially). If you're calling the batter out instead of R2, then the batter made the third out (the fact that he ran all the way to second is irrelevant...he was never a runner - he's still a batter) - then wouldn't no runs score? There shouldn't be any INT on the play at all....as this goat show played out, score the run, stick R2 at third and put the batter back in the box.

I'm not expecting the pitcher to make that play at any level. I'll go further to say that that arc around the back of the mound is probably the most likely area for such a ball to need extraordinary effort to make a catch. This is harder for the pitcher than you think it is...yes, he delayed a couple of seconds, but tracking that little fly ball, whether he backpedals or tries to make an over the shoulder play, navigating the rubber and the downslope of the mound, surpasses ordinary effort IMO. He might make that play, but it would not be easy. I don't think anybody complains if you call IFF here, because the purpose of the rule was met (ie. an easy DP was avoided), but I do see many umpires that are too quick to call IFF, when all the infielders fail to reach the ball even from a dead sprint. It worked out for Oakland this time, but if he had kicked the ball all the way to the back wall on his dive attempt it would be Oakland complaining about the lack of an IFF call. You win some you lose some.

I'm still trying to figure out the scope or purpose of this statement...can you provide any clarification? You cannot review a swing, for the purposes of determining if it wasn't a swing; yes...that's true...if the PU sees and calls it swing, it is so...if PU goes to a BU for help and the BU rules it a swing, it is so. And if neither rule it a swing, it is so. But a swing does not prevent the ability to review a play for other purposes. (otherwise you'd never be able to review a catch/no catch..."well, he swung, you can't review the play") In the Angel video above, he judged a swing making the review (almost) moot for the offense - it's a strike either way. But yes, a HBP is reviewable even if the batter swung. The bottom line is you don't need a swing to have a batted ball. And if you have a batted ball, it doesn't matter if he swung or not...ever. See this clip where Justin Smoak swings at strike three and runs to first base. However, if you see the play-by-play here you'll see it was overturned on replay review....dead ball strike three. Toronto Blue Jays vs Baltimore Orioles Box Score: May 20, 2017 | Baseball-Reference.com And, oddly, a week later the review booth seems to have kicked a similar call where MLB had to reiterate that a HBP on a swing is indeed reviewable. https://www.closecallsports.com/2017/05/mlb-admits-error-on-swinging-hbp-strike.html

Pretty sure this one wasn't AI generated.

If you're the other umpire this might be an interesting conversation. I suspect you're the unicorn coach/parent who disagrees with an umpire's judgment call.

It does not matter. It's either fair or foul. It's reviewable or not reviewable NOT based on a judgment of swing, but based solely on where the ball landed....for the purpose of fair/foul.

I'm not clear on the correlation, or where you're getting that interpretation. I can absolutely think of a case (pretty sure it was Justin Smoak) where a batter swung at strike three on a curve ball, the ball went to the backstop and the batter safely reached first. Then upon video review it was determined the ball hit the batter - batter out. A foul ball is reviewable only if it lands beyond the umpires...doesn't matter if he swung or not. If the ball hits the bat and then lands in the in front of the 1st/3rd umpire it's not reviewable. If it somehow hits the knob of his bat (or the barrel over his head when he ducks) and lands 20 feet beyond the third base ump, it is reviewable - for fair/foul. A HBP is reviewable yes, to whether it hit the batter, the bat, or nothing at all. If it hit the batter then hitting the bat is irrelevant (once it hits the batter the ball is dead)...and then it's simply up to the umpire's judgment to whether or not there was a swing - whether the ball hit the bat after the batter doesn't matter. Only if it hit the batter first, not if it hit the bat first...if it hit the bat first it doesn't matter at all if the batter swung. If it hit the knob first it's a batted ball...if it hit the batter first it's immediately dead...if it hit the bat after hitting the batter, that should have no bearing on the judgment of a swing.

It's an irrelevant question. Doesn't matter if it's a swing or not. It hit the bat, it's a foul ball. It doesn't matter how or why...if it's a legal pitch that hits that bat, that's all that matters. There are countless cases, documented in MLB, of a pitch going over a batter's head and hitting their bat as they duck...foul ball.

You ever given yourself whiplash when you turned your head suddenly, like when startled? Same principle - it's your reaction that caused the injury, not the event that caused you to react. There is anecdotal evidence, and maybe even some empirical analysis, related to drunk drivers that explains why so many drunks walk away from car accidents unscathed (whether driving or not), whereas sober drivers, if nothing else, can suffer muscle aches and pains, or concussions, for weeks/months - the drunks are totally unaware/relaxed at time of impact, and the seatbelt, airbags and car crumple zones do their job in protecting the driver/passenger. I learned this (the hard way) as a young kid with an old school catcher's mask...turned my head and took one in the ear, where if I'd just taken it in the mask I'd have been fine. Nowadays, with the hockey helmets, kids aren't learning that lesson, but they still need to be taught to just keep your head forward.

That's why I said "should" - I know what the rule is, doesn't make it right. Don't really care about Jackie Robinson Day or All Star Games for this discussion...they matter sfa when it comes to a Tuesday night ball game in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of 13 year olds, and two teams who've never played each other, and a first time ump who has never seen either. Yes, WHO is batting is what matters...I'm talking about identifying them. I know there are ways around it if someone really wants to cheat, I simply think numbers are easier for everyone. And it's on the coach to properly match the names to the numbers. If there's a dispute the number "should" matter...even if it's a third or fourth consideration. MLB baseball we can expect a level of recognizance that make names and numbers on jerseys moot...keeping in mind until the 30's MLB uniforms had neither. The numbers (except one day a year) are for fans to recognize from a distance, and to sell jerseys. I'll wait for the day where identical twins, playing for the same team, with same build and haircut, and both bat/throw the same way, both take the lineup wearing 42, to see if it ends up mattering.

I'm a little puzzled by this statement - is there yet another version of the lineup that would be deemed "official"? ie. did this guy write a full lineup for the scorekeeper, and then manually write another copy for the VT. Did you get a copy of the lineup too? If the scorekeeper has the official lineup you go by that - especially if it says 74. Unless both brothers are in the lineup it's not BOO/MYTAB, it's an unannounced sub. If 72 isn't even on the bench (ie. only one of the brothers was at the game) then it's clearly an honest mistake. Frankly - it should be the numbers that matter, not the names...and twins/siblings isn't the only issue...I remember coaching a game in 12U rec ball, girls fast pitch. The other team had Kaley, Kailey, Kayley, Kealy, Hayley, and Kylie...all brunettes with pony tails, all the same shape and size...the ONLY way to tell them apart was their number.

It's elemental to the game...what can you get away with in plain sight of the umpires. Here's the opening statement in Ken Burns' Baseball documentary. This sums up the history of baseball and the word "cheating" comes in the first sentence, mere seconds after the series begins. At its heart lie mythic contradictions: a pastoral game born in crowded cities, an exhilarating democratic sport that tolerates cheating, and has excluded as many as it has included. A profoundly conservative game that often manages to be years ahead of its time. It is an American Odyssey that links sons and daughters to fathers and grandfathers, and it reflects a host of age-old American tensions; between workers and owners, scandal and reform, the individual and the collective. It is a haunted game in which every player is measured with the ghosts of those who have gone before. Most of all it is about time and timelessness, speed and grace, failure and loss, imperishable hope, and coming home.”

These should only ever be addressed in two scenarios...1. in a league pre-season coaches' meeting, with a UIC (or delegate) and league board representation, or 2. the pre-tourney coaches' meeting with the TD and UIC. Not to mention, that any certified coach needs to learn these things before qualifying.

I fully admit that this is, by a few light years, the weakest part of my rules knowledge. So that said, I fail to see the balk here. How has that little back knee bend committed him to pitch vs simply stepping towards and throwing to first? Not really sure how you can do that without pushing off the back leg to some degree...this is so small his heel doesn't even lift. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I saw Andy Pettitte do this about 800 times.

As someone whose career and living is cybersecurity, I neither embrace nor resist it - I simply accept that it's here, so I'm gonna deal with it. Working on an AI Policy right now. Rule #1 - AI drives recommendations, not decisions...humans are responsible for the final outcome. That is, when your GPS leads you to drive your car into a lake, that's on you, not the computer.

My daughter is a university TA for an Ethics course...she had one paper she was grading that was detected as plagiarized...in an Ethics class. And now she's dealing with AI. Fun stuff.

Hockey (NHL - not sure how NCAA plays out) cut down on the fighting mostly organically, not through very much the league did through rule changes (instigator penalties, and "first player off the bench" rules aside). They drastically cut down on bench clearing brawls through rules...mano a mano fights dropped on their own, through sound strategic decision-making about lineups. Simply put, for the most part NHL GM's and coaches realized that having a "goon" on their roster creates a hole in their lineup...meaning 5% of their roster is taken by a player who could fight, but could not score, skate, pass or defend against NHL caliber players. Some 30 years ago, the talent pool was thin enough where you could afford to have a plug like this in your lineup, because there weren't great alternative options anyway...today, there are 500-1000 skilled players outside the NHL, just as talented as the bottom 150-200 that are on NHL rosters, and they're not boxing their way to a lineup (much like those MLB players who come from the Dominican Republic or Cuba say "you don't walk your way off the island") And, for the top end skilled players who can/will fight, coaches would rather they not risk breaking their hand on someone's helmet/face. Even with all that, fighting is still a (reduced) part of the game - either due to simple aggressive frustration, or to right a wrong the referees did not address - but still about 1 in 12 concussions for NHL players are caused by fighting. No matter what lawyer/president Gary Bettman says, the NHL has not done "everything it can" to eliminate concussions...because that would mean doing everything it can to eliminate fighting...which some of the Neanderthals still want.