beerguy55

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.

I sort of get it - the coach's assistance wouldn't have been necessary if the OBS never occurred. But after awarded home, the runner still must legally go there...the coach's assistance is part of that journey, I would think. If the runner tripped after being awarded home and the coach helped him up, he'd be out, wouldn't he? Is the runner awarded home at time of OBS, or only after the umpire declares it? I'm not sure anything in the ruling indicates it isn't also coach's interference. Just that OBS award happens first. Otherwise, if the ruling is saying that OBS supersedes the coach assistance, that would be odd. It might be the only play I can think of where an action during a live ball is negated by some prior event during the live action (that didn't change the status of the runner). You're awarded home on a fair ball hit over the fence too, and if the coach assists you in some meaningful way, you will be called out. I might get it if the OBS immediately killed the play, negating anything that happened after it...but even on a dead ball home run the b/r must round the bases legally. It's a weird scenario, and if you minutely tweak the sequence/order of events you may get a different ruling. In other words, when was the runner awarded home in relation to when the coach's assistance occurred?

"Batter hits a pop-up and infield fly is called. The ball falls to the ground. Fielder throws to first to get the runner going back. 1B catches the ball then steps off the bag. The plate umpire wrongly calls R1 out." Why would R1 be out, in the play as described? If you can address that you might be able to answer your own question.

Not disputing that...but it does change the teachable moment in how it is corrected. Likewise if it's a third option where they just didn't notice he hadn't returned to the right base. The question is how did it happen...not how stupid it was to allow it to happen.

Speculating of course - in your opinion is this about making a mistake on the rule, or simply forgetting where R2 started? There is another possibility though - I don't see any umpire pointing to where R2 should go. Maybe they did send him back to second (subtly? quietly?) but he just went to third base...and defense didn't notice. Is this still up to the crew to make sure he's at second before making the ball live again?

btw - it's not a triple, it's a double...BR stopped at second base and only advanced when/because the INT occurred. Hypothetical 1 - someone manages to make the argument that F2 was making a play on BR (it would be more realistic if he moved towards the ball in front of the plate with an obvious move to go after that runner, but bear with me) ...BR would be out. R1's run is erased because he hadn't reached home yet at TOI? If there was only 1 out, R1 is returned to third base? Hypothetical 2 - R1 scores before INT and BR makes no attempt to advance...he had already stopped at second, and stayed at second even after the ball got away from F2. Still out? He was hindered from catching the throw...but not hindered from making a play on any runner. Thanks

Does the language in any of my proposed changes say anything does? Do they imply it? Is there not a reasonable deduction to make based on the wording in those options to what, if anything, removes the force on the BR? I do address this above, in recognizing the one way the "force" at first (if I were to get my way) is different from the force at second, third and home. Nothing in my proposed language contradicts that, nor does it materially differ from the current OBR language as it pertains to the relationship between the b/r and any forced preceding runners. All my language does is makes the Force Play/forced runner definition inclusive for the B/R. OBR/FED both outline what happens if the batter/batter-runner doesn't reach first before he/the base is tagged. I'm not changing those rules. Keep'em. I'm simply altering the definition of Force Play, and cleaning up the context of the statement "forced runner". These conditions cause a forced runner to no longer be forced - as per current OBR/FED rules/definitions. Acquiring and staying on/beyond the next base (or scoring) Being put out himself (ie. he's no longer forced, he's retired) A following forced runner put out The batter/runner put out Does my proposed definition contradict any of those? Would my proposed changes contradict any of the various scenarios (including appeals) that remove/keep force plays by rule? All my language does is make the fourth condition redundant. For the b/r the third condition would simply be unapplicable/unnecessary. Yet another option: A force play occurs when a batter becomes a runner, as well as any other runner losing the right to occupy their base as a result. Next on the Old and the Hard-headed - the tie DOES go to the runner. That one, frankly, is easier to prove. I don't have to change any language at all. It's right there in black and white. ¡Viva la Revolución!

In my verbiage the batter who becomes a runner is forced. (I can be convinced which of "and" or "or" or "and/or" is more clear - I went back and forth a few times). Perhaps removing the second "when" is more grammatically precise. That is, they are two distinct scenarios where a force play is in effect; the first is always true, the second requires the first to be true. Other options: A force play occurs when a batter becomes a runner, as well as any other runner required to advance as a result. A force play occurs when a batter becomes a runner, as well as when any other runner is required to advance as a result.

No - I know exactly the definition of a 'force play' and I still roll my eyes. The authors of the definitions simply outsmarted themselves when they chose to word it in this fashion, and created an unnecessary distinction between a runner losing their right to occupy a base, and the batter losing his right to occupy the batter's box. It is a distinction without difference. They must advance to the next base. And the next play cannot begin until all runners have met their minimum obligations OR been retired. The only real nuance is the batter/runner is effectively Patient Zero and cannot have their obligation to advance removed due to anything happening behind them. Related to that, there is no scenario on a live fair ball where a batter/runner may return to his place of origin TOP. He loses his right to occupy the batter's box by reason of the on-deck batter becoming a batter...or even before that...he loses his right to occupy the batter's box by reason of himself becoming a runner. Unless there is some scenario or play where these would be administered differently, a simpler definition might be A force play occurs when a batter becomes a runner, and when any other runner is required to advance as a result. It would remove the uncontrollable urge for umpires to invoke their secret club password and say "akshwully, the batter/runner isn't a force play". It would also allow the removal of the clunky language about a run being negated when the third out is made "(1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base;" (oh really? how about when a long fly ball is caught for the third out around the time the batter/runner is rounding second base?)

It's a force play - ¡Viva la revolución!

This goes back to the standard/instruction that "players are expected to understand the situation and act accordingly", which implicitly expects the player to anticipate the umpire's judgment in order to respond appropriately and then rebukes them for trying to umpire when it goes wrong. When the verbal and visual aren't concurrent, and you don't know to wait for a subsequent action (unlike almost, if not all, other MLB umpires) then "ignore" is not the appropriate word - if he saw the visual mechanic and still proceeded under the belief it was a ball, that would be ignoring it, and would place 100% of accountability in his lap...if he had seen more than two called strikes in the game to know this particular ump's SOP, that could be ignoring it...."missed", "failed to notice", even "overlooked" would be more accurate terms. Yes, his decision to turn, look at his coach, and advance caused him to miss the visual mechanic that followed the verbal call. As far as what drove that decision - he didn't "assume" it would be called a ball...he deduced that it was already called a ball, based on the location of the pitch in conjunction with the umpire's verbal sans visual mechanic; the batter's action reinforced what was already a reasonable conclusion. btw - Porter was pretty F*#King great last night...just a few weird/surprising ball calls.

I don't disagree. He should be vigilant, within reason...and I've always told my players that the definition of a foul ball is when an umpire says, "foul ball". I'm simply saying on a pitch that is significantly outside the strike zone, that by all metrics is a ball, with no reason to think an ump could miss that call, especially a pro crew chief, the runner hears "something", with no visual mechanic to (immediately) go with it, it's completely reasonable to conclude it's ball four, and just advance as you're conditioned to do so - right or wrong you go on auto-pilot. Especially if this mechanic is fundamentally different than most...and there hasn't been enough similar calls to gauge what is SOP. Vigilance yes...and I hold my players to a higher standard than most coaches, but I'm not going to lay all the blame on anyone who is simply acting as he has acted thousands of times before, since he was a kid...even if there isn't a reason for him not to wait a few seconds to be sure - you get conditioned to it when the call is apparent to you and virtually everyone else, and assume the same judgment will come from the only person on the field who matters - we don't wait for an umpire to call "out" on a can of corn for the third out - we jog off the field and don't worry about the baserunners who were running on contact...we don't throw the ball in to make tags "just in case" the umpire screwed up a call Stevie Wonder would get right. Imagine, with bases loaded, F8 makes an easy catch near the warning track for the third out and immediately turns to toss the ball to a kid in the stands, only to find out that the umpire has ruled it a no catch. (maybe from his angle it looked like it hit the wall) How vigilant are we supposed to be? Are we really putting ALL (or even half) the responsibility on F8? I know those are extreme extreme examples to what should be "obvious", but I'm just illustrating a point to how players habitually and reasonably act in "obvious" situations - and they're not far from actual scenarios I've seen - the most egregious ones I can think of (all different umpires) are A) ruling fair on a ball that landed just beyond the infield dirt, at least, three feet foul, B) ruling foul on a homerun that hit a tree just behind the wall...a tree that was entirely, including all its branches, inside the foul pole C) ruling fair on a ground ball that rolled through the coach's box as it passed third base, and D) ruling force out on second base where F6 was five feet in front of second base. If a human can screw those up, then I'm not sure there's really a ceiling to human error. Is blame shared here if a player runs into an out, or the defense gives up a run...yes. But the catalyst is the missed call, and that's where bulk of the blame lies, most of the time. The teachable moment is figuring out why you missed the call, and working to improve that...it's not telling players to uncondition years of behavior, especially when it can actually be detrimental the 99.99% of the time the umpire gets the call right. In football we're taught to "play to the whistle"...but when you see a running back step six inches out of bounds, and take three more strides out of bounds, you're not tackling him...you're letting up, and letting him run on by you...all the way to the endzone. It's then a little infuriating when the line judge tells you he never blew the whistle, it's your own fault, so be more vigilant. And then you get flagged for 15 when you do tackle him the next quarter, because you're supposed to be aware he's out of bounds. That's what absolution of culpability looks like. Sure, trust but verify - I work in cybersecurity - that is my life. But imagine if we truly did that for every action? We don't slow down to 5 mph at a green light to verify cross traffic has truly stopped...we trust other motorists to see the red light and follow the law. And that is a life and death scenario...not safe/out in a children's game. I apologize for the rambling...I have the utmost respect for the umpires here and out there...I pride myself on knowing the rules better than other coaches and players (and sometimes umpires) but I could never call balls/strikes, nor administer/manage a game as well as any of you, and I'd probably toss more coaches than imaginably appropriate. You have a thankless job, and I know it often looks like I don't know that. I do. I just get a little off kilter when I perceive (right or wrong) umpires who wash their hands of the mistakes they make.

Is this the zone, or the zone +margin of error? But fine, OK, ignoring that I'm sorry I exaggerated by an inch or so...I'm a man. And, yup, I'll grant "entirely" in the zone as slightly off base...6, 7 and 8 are pretty damned close, and really are, for all intents and purposes, no brainer strikes...not 50/50 pitches. Even by this chart there were nine missed calls that were more than half a ball (one of them more than a full ball) from the edge. It's not good. That MIGHT be relevant if he had made a dozen strike calls by this point. I've played and/or coached in front of hundreds of umpires...from Little League to NAIA - some really awesome, some not so really awesome. I'm pretty comfortable to say that Wegner's verbal, and his visual, speed for called strikes is in the bottom ten percentile. Right or wrong, it's noticeably slow. For the players to gauge what is consistent, to know exactly how he calls every strike, there's a bit of a learning curve to develop a frame of reference. To that point in the game there had only been two called strikes. It's one thing to tell a batter that "that has been a strike all game" in the 8th inning...it's another to apply it retroactively to a player in the first inning. At that point there's nothing to go by except for years of experience, which would tell almost all ball players that not seeing a strike mechanic well after a full second means it's a ball. I'm sure by the fourth or fifth inning the players would have figured it out. In a scenario where it's difficult to hear the umpire, that 1.5 seconds before you get the visual from Wegner is a lifetime. If he took five seconds every pitch, would we be OK with that, because it's consistent? I know we all love "consistency" and I admire an intentional beat to process/validate what you saw...but it looks exponentially worse when you get it wrong. So, yeah, when a baserunner sees a pitch that by all reasonable metrics should be ruled a ball, and with the crowd noise you can't necessarily hear the umpire (even the batter wasn't sure what he heard), it's not unreasonable for him to start to the next base, after what, with most umpires they've had in their careers, is a typical amount of time to get an explicit strike call/mechanic...regardless to what this particular umpire's SOP may be. I keep hearing this mantra that the players are responsible to know the game situation and act accordingly...ignoring the fact that players need to know the umpire's judgment in order to know the game situation, to know how to act, because you just can't assume the umpire's judgment will be the same as yours. This is true whether it's an infield fly (or not), or ball four/strike three, or a catch/no catch. But umpires seem content to tell the players to act to what they see in one breath and then tell them they can't make assumptions in the next. It's a cop out. With the pace of play requirements for said baserunners and the next batter, there is incentive/reason to start advancing immediately on ball four. I ultimately don't care if this caused the runner to get out or caused him to get a free pass to second base, it's not ALL on the players. Wegner shares responsibility here and shouldn't get a free pass.

OK - then kudos to the crew for not giving a SH*# because they never do anything wrong.

Too bad Wegner SH*# the bed on Monday. He had some really bad misses...several pitches four+ inches out of the zone called strikes, plus a few pitches entirely in the zone called ball. I think most people can live with the 50/50 calls...unfortunately, conservatively/generously, there were at least half a dozen head scratchers that you would expect an amateur to get right most of the time. So, forgive me if I don't celebrate his 95.88% score - the extra nine innings gave him 150 additional no brainer calls. His ALDS score (especially as compared to the others) is probably closer to the truth. If the World Series is supposed to reflect best performers, I wonder what they're assessing, because it looks like half a dozen umpires outperformed Wegner in the LDS, across any number of metrics, who instead got to watch Wegner's gem on television. Rehak gets to see it from the replay booth. I wonder if those roles should have been reversed. ABS challenges can't come soon enough. Kudos to the crew for taking the bad call/delay/miscommunication fiasco as a teachable moment. Tumpane was really loud and intentional Tuesday night. It resulted in an out that time...it could easily have gone the other way, with Bichette strolling safely to second base before anyone realized what really happened. I'm looking forward to Alan Porter sticking the landing tonight.

The funny part for me is even if IFF was called both the runners still advance, because of F6. It does seem common sense in hindsight...there's no reason for F6 to vacate and run further than anyone else to try to make the catch - if IFF is called nobody needs to make the catch - if he stays put, he prevents R1 from advancing - whether caught or not. He also prevents R2 from getting too far off the base, making it harder for him to advance. No fielder near second base allowed R2 to get a head start. If IFF is not called, if F6 stays put, they have an easy force if the catch isn't made. Either an easy force to third, because R2 didn't get a head start...or to second...getting both would be difficult, but not impossible. It's a weird interpretation - sun/darkness SHOULD be factors in determining ordinary effort; if you can't see the ball, it would require extraordinary effort to catch it - me catching a flyball is considerably more ho-hum than Stevie Wonder catching a fly ball. However, it would create some problems: 1. It would be easy to pretend you can't see the ball 2. The sun's effect on the infielders might be impossible for the umpires to judge...the sun in the eyes of a player may not be in the eyes of any of the umpires, or vice versa. In this play it appears F3 couldn't see it, but F2/4/6 all could. It's reasonable to conclude that the two right side umpires lost the ball, the other four likely saw it. I'm guessing it's pretty difficult for U1 to make an assessment at the ball's apex when he can't see the ball at its apex. A high fly ball at night that goes above the lights and gets lost against the sky may be easier for everyone to gauge consistently. On a side note - does anyone think the RF umpire is about to point for IFF? It looks to me he's just shading the sun from his eyes.

I don't disagree - the real problem here is, under the objective of fair play, there's no real risk to the offense to continue to try to get one by the defense. Beyond wasting a lot of time with all the appeals and corrections, it's kind of like not having any crimes that start with "attempted". Most, if not all, other infractions in the baseball rulebook have an element of risk/reward baked into the rule/penalty, if not the play itself. Even the bunt play where R2 cuts the corner at third still has some risk of an umpire noticing some percentage of the time, or the defense opting to play R2 who is now between third base and the pitcher's mound. MYTAB for a really SH*#ty batter is zero risk, all reward. (Mostly; I've actually seen some tourneys/leagues have a local rule/bylaw that makes any MYTAB two outs - basically ruling that both the person who improperly batted AND the person who should have batted are ruled out). Some acts of cheating could be addressed by the umpire, supported by the rules (eg. doctoring the ball). Others would be more administrative for the league - falsified birth certificates, game fixing, spiking the other team's cupcakes, etc. It's likely intentional MYTAB falls under the latter. I would hope though, if doing something in game would be overstepping, that an umpire can at least see a cheat for what it is, hold it in some disdain, and be willing to at least report their impartial observation and opinion to the league when asked...if not unsolicited.