beerguy55

Don't get me wrong - whenever I had only ten players I always ensured someone was on the bench the entire game. I rarely went with a DH even when I had 11 players. Even if there are provisions for "involuntary" shortened benches, DH restricts your options too much. If you're doing this solely to get more players into the game you're doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons - if that's really your motivation, it's better to sub in players mid-game with the option to re-enter if something goes sideways. Give me a roster of 15+ players then I'll use DH to give me the bet hitting and defending lineup. Give me 12 or less, I'm going with nine fielders that all bat. No player who ever played for me ever got ejected - never, at any level, at any age - but injuries happen.

Sounds to like he was ejected and restricted. (as opposed to making him go to the parking lot without adult supervision). So in NFHS can a team end a game with 8 batters? Skipped or "Otto Out"? Seems a silly gap in the rules - completely understand wanting to prevent creating a float position...but you should be able to separate them with the caveat that there is no more DH for the remainder of the game if there are no other players. The difference here is the DH is no longer batting for said defensive player...the defensive player is hitting for himself...and once the DH enters defensively the DH role is terminated. They have all these rules to come up with nonsensical ways to get more players in the game (bench-based courtesy runners), but won't allow a situation to complete a 9-player batting lineup when there are no other options???

Maybe I'm missing something... Lineup is ABCDEFGHI - J is F9, defense only. A is DH. Nobody else on bench. C gets ejected. Lineup is now ABJDEFGHI. No bench. No DH. Nine players take whatever 9 positions the coach wants them to. Is that wrong? You're revoking the DH role...both players now bat and field. As far as the scorebook - enter J into C's former spot, just like you would a sub - assuming as F9. Update other player positions as appropriate....someone went to F2...I'm assuming A went into their position. You're only ever scoring in 9 batting positions, so the tenth position, formerly for the defensive player, doesn't really matter. I can't remember how you need to do it in Gamechanger, but I seem to recall it's pretty simple.

Though you may be right, there is nothing documented to demonstrate what MLB would do with a challenge "against interest"...ie. there is no upside to the challenge - the challenger either gets the pitch changed to the worse outcome, or they lose a challenge by confirming the pitch that was already called in their favor. The most common scenario I could see here is umpires who have a bit of a deliberate/delayed strike call...where F2 may challenge, wanting to ensure they don't wait too long, not realizing the ump is about to ring up the batter. MLB has, however, demonstrated they will proceed with accidental challenges, and, in some cases, actions that remotely resemble a challenge, no matter how blatantly obvious it is that the challenger will lose. Now, there is good reason for this, because there's already some gamesmanship going on with teams trying to induce the other team to challenge, or pitchers trying to discreetly signal their catcher. It is possible that, under this principle, umps might be instructed to accept challenges against interest.

By that logic...immediately before that paragraph: f. a fair batted ball: touches a runner or an umpire before touching any fielder and before passing any fielder other than the pitcher, touches a runner after passing through or by an infielder and another infielder could have made a play on the ball, touches a spectator, goes over or through or wedges in the field fence, or lodges in players equipment or uniform; or To my original post, applying the same standard, as the same language appears for both batted and thrown balls, the fly ball that goes over the fence and then blows back into play is dead, even if it lands fair. This, taken literally, would also disqualify anyone reaching over the fence to steal a home run. We know that simply isn't true. And the reason nothing is explicit under a foul batted ball about DBT is because the only condition really needed to make a foul batted ball dead is for it to hit anything but a fielder...so it doesn't matter if it's in DBT or not. The discussion would then be about what nullifies a catch, as a caught foul ball is live. If we want to get really silly nothing in 5.1.1f addresses the rare case of a fair batted ball going into the dugout, or any other designated dead ball area (except media in 5.1.1l). And if you read the Immediate Dead Ball Table just after 5.1.4 all the cases of a batted ball bounding or flying over a fence don't mention the requirement to touch DBT. So, again, by that same language, you'd need to treat thrown and batted balls the same...they're either both dead or neither or dead, when they simply pass the fenceline. "Rebound" requires the ball to hit something...if it said "continues to the field" you might have a case. Yup - FAFO.

Meh - I've stated my thoughts on the close ones...in the meantime I'll live with the 0.1 inch calls as they even out in the long run. I'm very happy to see the large number of called pitches that are wrong by the full width of the ball or more being corrected....up, down, left, right.

I did consider this in my original response and opted not to stand up a straw man to respond, and only deal with the response if it came up. My only argument is trying to fathom a scenario where an umpire would ever rule a wild throw "dead" even though the other player managed to reach their glove over (or beside) a fence with their glove in DBT to save the ball from touching DBT - ie. applying a different standard to those two plays based on batted vs thrown ball. Though pitched, batted and thrown balls all have their own provisions in the rules, I've seen nothing in the rules to indicated that a thrown ball only need to enter DBT's airspace to become dead where a batted ball needs to touch a person/object in DBT. Maybe there's an angle...I think it's more likely that following the non-drawn line from the point of the bullpen to the corner has probably created way too many problems/arguments about whether the ball did or did not enter DBT, not to mention a unnecessary number of GRD's, rather than simply using the fence as the boundary.

On a side note, advanced to gold medal game in a tourney in this exact scenario - bottom of last inning, bases loaded zero out, tying run on third - short hopped to F5, tagged R3 (who returned thinking it was caught), touched third, throw to second with R1 still standing on first base. First triple play I was ever part of in a game.

I'll be even more pedantic...this could even be restricted to just tagging the base on an appeal. Though 5.09(b)(5) says exactly what you say it does, about both the base and the runner being tagged, 5.09(b)(4) says the runner is retired if tagged while off the base; that would be all encompassing to include any standard, force or appeal play that entails tagging the runner. By extension, it should logically flow that a runner tagged while on the base would be safe. This is also why you can "accidentally" appeal if you tag the runner...because it doesn't matter why/how you're tagging the runner, or if there was any intent at all - if they're off the base when tagged they're out...if they're on the base when tagged, they're safe. Just boggles my mind why (5) says "fails to touch the base before it is tagged" and (6) says "base is tagged before he touches it".

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.