beerguy55

This is all very nice. Doesn't answer the question at all, but still very nice.

Umpire extending/exaggerating the mechanic may be a good learning moment, but doesn't change anything here. F3 is too focused on U1 and immediately spikes the ball after the call F2 is too focused on arguing with PU rather than screaming for the ball, which he could have done before F3 spiked it. I would, however, be curious to how loud PU's call was - because the entire defensive bench missed the call as they probably all turned to watch the play at F3 - only F2 and F5 seemed to know it was as safe call...I'm assuming F2 heard it, and F5 saw it.

And? I wasn't responding to you, nor commenting on your words, so not sure why I need to re-read your post, or how my statement was in any way incorrect...or in any way contradicted what you may have said - I didn't even quote or reference your statement. Color me confused.

Though this is definitely the most likely scenario, don't rule out a simple mistake. Batter/coach forgets at the moment...offense genuinely believes there's no penalty...other runners/teammates don't realize the spot in the order...etc, etc. The funny thing is, if you treat it like MYTAB, then it's a (sort of) wash until it gets to the (in this case) the fourth batter. A gets on base B should be auto out C bats, nobody announces B's auto out, there are three possible outcomes C hasn't completed the at bat, someone remembers, B "takes their at bat", is declared automatically out, and C's at bat continues C completes at bat, defense appeals...B is ruled out for "missing their turn" (ie. not being announced), C has to bat again. (great if C got a hit, SH*#ty if he got out) If D takes a pitch, continue on. I would say it would have to be treated like MYTAB, or some hybrid of it. The Defense is the team that has the ultimate responsibility. Practically speaking, what do you do if someone notices four batters later? Or the next inning? At some point it has to be too late, and I would suggest that point is when "Otto Out" +2 takes their first pitch....at the very latest. I'm not opposed to it being before "Otto Out" +1 takes their first pitch...it's the cleanest solution.

The timing does matter - the question is really what the timing needs to be, whose obligation is it, and what's the penalty if missed? It should be some point before the first pitch is thrown. The timing matters, because umpires need to know the number of outs by that first pitch, so they know their obligations. (eg. with two outs they're not so worried about runners leaving early...or double plays...) As a matter of logistics, I believe the official scorekeeper should be informing the ump immediately. As a matter of practicality, the defense is going to want to inform the ump immediately - why risk losing a free out? As a matter of practicality, the offense is going to especially want to know if there are one out or two if there are runners on base.

Not sure what this has to do with my statement about illegal gambling...all of Rose's gambling in the 80's was illegal. Not just MLB-illegal...federal/state law illegal. There's no evidence in the Dowd Report, or anywhere else, that Rose bet on the Reds to lose. However, though Rose claimed to have bet on EVERY game, the evidence suggests that there were many times where Rose did NOT place a bet on his Reds team. That, in itself, would indicate to other gamblers, and bookmakers, that Rose doubted the outcome of those games - it might even rise to insider information to things like the health or effectiveness of someone in the lineup. I suspect that every time Rose failed to wager on the Reds, the bookmakers shifted their lines noticeably. There is no evidence that the Reds lost every single time he failed to bet, so it's unlikely he was pressured to influence those games negatively. There is evidence that he bet while he was a player/manager during the 1986 season, though Rose claimed he only started betting after he became a full-time manager the following season. Some people, including Rose, feel betting as a player vs as a manager is an important distinction. I do not.

As stated, this is an appeal, not a force. And don't feel bad - I've seen umpires screw this up, so it never surprises me when I see the coaches, players and spectators get this wrong. Force describes the status of the runner, not the method of the out.

I hate "homers" - they check all common sense at the door and will magically see a whole new reality just to reconcile their fanhood. This is a big fat nothing by F3 and B/R must be the lovechild of Lebron and Ronaldo. Can we give an embellishment penalty in baseball??

Keep in mind that the only reason there was a Rose investigation in the first place is it was illegal gambling. The vast majority of sports betting-based scandals have occurred in illegal gambling scenarios (eg. Black Sox, Boston College points shaving, etc, etc)

The biggest challenge for me is MLB and the HOF are two separate entities and should remain so. The HOF changed their rules of eligibility mere months before Rose was to go on the ballot for the first time, to take the decision out of the writers' hands (interesting enough - 50+ years before that the writers kept Joe Jackson out of the Hall without any formal instructions). Not to mention that the writers have kept out Bonds and Clemens, two players who remain in good standing in MLB, and were never even suspended, let alone banned. He should be eligible for the HOF regardless of his ban in MLB - the writers should have been able to choose themselves...and all along the veterans committees should have been able to choose...even if Rose remains forever on MLB's ban list. Let the current HOF members decide if he belongs. Ban him, put him in the Hall, and reference the ban on his plaque. Treat PED users the same - especially those who used before 2004 (when PED's and other drugs were actually officially banned from MLB). The fact that Gaylord Perry is in the Hall, who not only cheated, but wrote a book about it - while he was still playing - is the height of hypocrisy for this handwringing about Rose and the PED era.

Meh - I think this was the unwritten intent all along - he wouldn't enter the HOF while he was alive. He wouldn't be the first deserving HOFer to have the honor come posthumously. But frankly, if they reinstate Rose MLB should, at the very least, if not first, be reinstating Buck Weaver, whose only crime was not being a snitch. And I'd support Joe Jackson too, who likely only committed the same crime as Weaver. (regardless of any HOF discussion)

To me that would make it more a case of INT. The overall consensus back in October seemed to be that since Machado did not look back to see where the ball was located his actions didn't rise to the level of intent*. Whether there was a path at time of throw seemed to be secondary to the discussion, including Lindsay's analysis on this site. Technically, you can see Machado make the move before the ball comes out of Freeman's hand - when Freeman starts the throwing motion the lane is clear, but Machado is changing direction simultaneous to that. He's guessing where the throw is going, part from experience and part from where F6's glove is located. *and then looking at the above play (though Lindsay disagrees on this one), even looking back doesn't seem to really matter, so I revert back to the fact that the runners started their adjustments before the throw was in the air, so they apparently get a free pass at guessing right.

I think it should be, yes, but if Machado isn't INT, then I can see why this isn't INT. In both cases the runner has put themselves into a place, in anticipation of where they expect a throw to go, purely with intent to impede the upcoming throw, but both acted before the throw was made - so they've effectively guessed right before a throw was made, as opposed to reacting to a throw.

I'm not sure about this. Are you really "awarding" the runner third base? He's probably simply standing on it at the end of the play. That aside, there is a provision that if OBS caused the runner to miss said base they do not have to correct that infraction when advancing to, by award or not, the next base. I would treat this the same...the umpire's mistake is what caused the runner to not retouch...to "award" the runner third base, the umpire has determined that the runner not only intended to retouch, but would have done so AND successfully advanced, as to their judgment to what would have happened if the mistake wasn't made. There is no need to retouch. I think your scenario would only apply if it was determined that the runner never had any intent of returning to second base. In this case you're not awarding the runner third base...they are simply there as a result of the play (hell, maybe they even scored). Now, once you change the play to a catch, how do you handle it if there are verbal appeals - In a ruleset that allows dead ball appeals the defense would be able to (almost) immediately verbally appeal the infraction at second base, before said runner would have any time to even evaluate if he should go back and retouch. How much time would you need to give the runner to show intent to correct the mistake before allowing the verbal appeal?

Less than zero tolerance. You want to further reduce the workforce of umpires, let this behavior go unchecked. Outright ban to start. No entry to any LL sanctioned event in any capacity. Depending on how young those umps are (ie. if they are minors) this could be misdemeanor harassment, or even assault, depending on what was yelled. This is not only an act of having those umpires' backs, and protecting all umpires, it's also being proactive. Those umpires may decide to defend themselves if they encounter this asshat again...or, those umpires' fathers.

I've never disputed the second part - I've pretty clearly stated that position a few times in this thread. The first, I think, is up for debate...even with that little word "still" in there...in my hypothetical the runner who committed the violation IS on the playing field (as opposed to the catcher entering the dugout to make the tag - and, frankly, at that point it becomes a dead ball and now you can just make a verbal appeal).

R2 scores on a single, misses home and goes into the dugout. His coach, wrongly, tells him to go back and touch home. F2, with the ball, knowing R2 missed home, had actually followed him to the dugout - when R2 leaves the dugout to go back to home F2 takes the opportunity to tag him, and even says "he missed home". You might be the only umpire I've met that would not grant that as an appeal.

Just to clarify terminology - the runner who starts on second base is R2, the runner who starts on third base is R3. The runner here can indeed by "tagged" out...it's an appeal play for him missing the base (whether or not he missed the base is a different discussion)...it doesn't matter that he's gone to the dugout...the runner going to the dugout just makes him ineligible to correct his mistake. The other thing that makes him ineligible to correct his mistake is R2 scored behind him. Once R2 touches home, R3 can't correct his mistake. So, double whammy for R3 - he can't correct his mistake for two different reasons, but he can be appealed, if he did miss home. Tagging him would/could be the appeal (why else would he be back on the field...he must have missed the base...or at least the defense would reasonably think so)...which happened before the defense left the field. The wrinkle here is that R3 did in fact touch home...once he touches home, that's it...he could come back out of the dugout and run the bases in reverse order all the way back to first...doesn't matter...he factually touched home, the runs scores, permanently. The other wrinkle here is IF R3 did indeed miss home, and was successfully appealed for the third out, then R2's run doesn't count...a run can't score when the third out is made by a preceding runner. What I'd really like to know is how you worked it out in the scorebook, to make sure you and the other team had the same result. Did you still score two runs, with some phantom runner (or B/R) considered to be the last out??

Yup - always hated it. Used to be orange was for batter, white for fielder - purely for safety purpose. Simple. And served it's purpose. Now it seems everyone wants to make up SH*# as they go along and no one is standard - I've seen all of these in baseball/softball in Canada and US: F3 can use orange ONLY on U3K F3 can use orange on any throw that comes from first base foul territory (eg. batted ball deflects off pitcher to foul area, F2 makes throw) F3 can use orange on any throw from anywhere if said throw pulls him to foul territory Then for all the above, I've seen B/R MUST switch, and B/R MAY switch. JFC

I'd call it an obvious opportunity, but not an obvious DP. Too many moving parts. B/R has to have given up, making an "easy" force of R1 followed by B/R. The other moving parts involve the ball being easily playable/fieldable after it drops (those flies in the infield can have some English on them)...and if R1 goes before he can be tagged, forcing F3 to throw, and then F4/F6 to throw back - so now you're assuming two clean throws (and B/R not realizing what's going on). It's too much leeway, even at the pro level, to assume a DP is certain here. Obvious is self-evident to any reasonable onlooker. As a former boss of mine once mentored me - never use the word "obviously" before stating a fact - if it's obvious, then you don't need to state it. And if it's not obvious, you're now condescending. Much like the replay review to overturn - obvious is 20 unbiased people looking at a play and all seeing the same outcome. As stated before, it's a lot more likely if it's F4 that is interfered with. If F3 is close enough to the base to touch it, then R1 is also close enough to touch it. If they're both a few steps away from the base, then F3 has to either make a tag, or beat R1 to the base...it's less certain a scenario to confidently conclude it would have been a DP if R1 hadn't interfered...if R1 hadn't interfered he'd be back standing on the base.

HBP is treated no differently than a BB for the purposes of earned vs earned runs. This is an earned run in every rule set of baseball and softball. Even a passed ball or an error doesn't "automatically" make a run unearned. Eg. leadoff batter walks, passed ball, runner to second...F2 makes an inadvisable throw anyway and throws into outfield, runner now on third due to a PB and an error. If batter hits a sac fly, it's unearned...but if he hits a homerun...that's two earned runs. That is, an error that allows a runner to advance, rather than turns an out into a safe, won't always absolve the pitcher of an earned run.

Is there a provision here if it's determined that R1 prevented a certain double play - ie. catching the ball, and appealing R1 leaving early? It may be less likely with F3, but if it was instead F4...and seeing they are dead in the water R1 interferes with F4, which would otherwise turn an easy double play into just R1 being out.

Going by the video, I rest my case...they obviously can't figure it out. Get the 8 year olds to ump.

Jesus Christ, if they can't get this right then just use the slow pitch home plate rule...draw a line from the baseline to the dugout for BR to cross before F3 tags first base with the ball.

I love it - you won't have anybody wasting a pitch at 0-2...'cause it' might be 2-0.