beerguy55

I thought that might have been self-evident in the question. Any reasonable coach would want any reasonable umpire to enforce the rules. If there was a rule about it, I would expect you to care. If there is a rule to support some penalty - warning, ejection, forfeit, etc - I would expect the umpire to enforce said rule. If there's nothing to enforce then I would expect the umpire to say "yup, good on you for noticing - you'll have to bring it up with the league." Edit: Knowingly sending the wrong batter to the plate is cheating - most people - players, coaches, spectators, administrators, impartial observers, etc - right, wrong or indifferent, expect umpires to deal with cheaters. It can be an unfair or unfounded expectation, but it's not an unreasonable question to see what is in the umpire's purview.

I know it may be an impossible scenario - for me it's part curiosity part thought exercise, and I hope some will indulge me. Two strikes, nobody on base. Third pitch is a wild curveball, several feet outside...F2 doesn't really try hard to stop it and knowing nobody's on base he either nonchalantly goes to get ball or just puts his hand out for a new ball knowing someone else will collect the other ball. Seeing this, the batter swings, some point after the ball hits the back fence/wall and starts rolling toward the third base dugout, (and before the umpire gives F2 a new ball), looking for an easy trip to first on a U3K. At what point is the swing no longer valid for the purposes of having a strike three? When the ball passes the catcher? The umpire? When it hits the wall? When it stops rolling or is touched by a player? As some point of judgment where you determine the ball can no longer be legally hit by the batter? Thanks for humoring me.

If you determine/believe a team tried to bat out of order intentionally, is there additional recourse? Eg. Bottom of last inning, down a run, 7, 8 and 9 are due up, and they're collectively 0/15 and have a combined "Bingo" average of .071 on the season (but they're better than your bench) - your top five hitters are where all your offense comes from - they're 28/30 in the game. OC sends the leadoff batter up - thinking risk/reward is in his favor. Possible outcomes: - DC acts right away and gets 7 up to bat - no risk for OC - DC waits until 1 gets out, then since he got out, decides to continue to pitch to 2, making 1's at bat legal - somewhat ideal outcome; yes, one out, but 2 and 3 coming up. - DC waits until 1 gets out, appeals, 7 is ruled out and 8 is up. Very little risk, 7 was going to get out anyway - DC waits until 1 gets on base, appeals, 1 is removed, 7 is out, 8 is up - same same. - DC doesn't notice in time - jackpot OC could do the same starting with 9, offering him as a sacrificial lamb, trying to get the leadoff batter up with one out. Seems there's all reward, no risk to attempting this. If DC notices, no harm no foul...if he doesn't....woohoo!! If DC comes out and says "come on Blue, that's a pretty blatant batting order screwup, anyone can see it was intentional" can you really do anything? What if you somehow KNEW it was intentional? Does this fall under the same category as the bunt play where R2 misses third base by 30 feet?

Let me put it this way - if something is obvious to me, but not obvious to another person*, it is, by definition, not obvious. Friendly advice - if you're making a statement, and at least one of the listeners is your boss, or a customer, never use the word "obviously". If it's obvious, then you don't have to state it, because it's obvious. Inevitably, at some point your boss, boss's boss, CEO or customer is not going to find it obvious, and you will find saying that word to be career limiting...whether you intended it or not, they're going to conclude you said they are stupid. "Obviously" is the most useless word in anyone's vocabulary. It serves no purpose - it is at best redundant, at worst condescending. I do everything in my power to avoid using it. For example, what is lacking from "the sun is hot" that requires one to say "obviously, the sun is hot"? Are those two statements factually different? Does one provide more information than the other? And in that respect, why would you have to say it at all? Isn't it obvious? Thank you for listening. *assuming said person is reasonably sane and of reasonable (not even average) intelligence, and where required, not visually/hearing impaired

Disagree on intent, or what is obvious? The first is a matter of opinion, the second is a matter of fact. The first is exactly why people debate, and there is no wrong answer. If we didn't disagree, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In that respect, your statement is obvious. Debating the second is like debating how many sides are on a triangle.

I've explained it TO you; I can't understand it FOR you. I'm not arguing the presence of interference...I'm arguing the presence of intentional interference, which is required here to penalize the offense. It is not "obvious"...the fact that so many are divided here on this judgment is proof of that.

The three-foot mark is almost certainly irrelevant...his sidestep wouldn't be to avoid a tag. The fielder wasn't even making a tag attempt...he only managed to tag the runner accidentally when he pushed him out of the way. It would be reasonable (even obvious) to judge that jumping jacks between the thrower and the receiver entail intent, and intent is required for a runner to interfere with a throw. 5.09(b)(3). Runner out, other runner returns to third. If the runner was put out before moving to do his routine, then intent wouldn't matter at all...you would just have to determine that doing jumping jacks does not qualify as continuing to advance. 6.01(a)(5) Runner at home out.

In no universe, under no definition of "grab", did that occur here. He slowed down and bumped into a fielder that was between him and the base. Some 40 feet from the base there isn't even a fielder between him and the bag. At about 15 feet the fielder shows up around halfway between him and the base and catches the ball. At that point the runner decelerates and in under three steps he makes contact with the fielder. He should neither be expected to stop on a dime, nor veer to the right of the fielder in that short distance/timeframe. At the moment he starts to decelerate there is no indication the fielder is going to throw home...any reasonable runner is assuming he is about to be tagged...and is likely prepared to sacrifice himself for the run. It is likely surprising for the runner to see the fielder turn his back to him, to start a throw. That move by the fielder occurs in under two steps and about half a second. Maybe the bump was accidentally on purpose, and maybe it was unintentional. If this was obvious there wouldn't be a debate.

The AI is getting confused - I'm imagining Star Trek TOS when they put Nomad in a logic loop and he explodes.

It looks, to me, like F9 had a legitimate chance to catch the ball, and nothing there indicates "it would have (gone over the fence) anyway". That ruling is nonsense. I get there are angle deceptions potentially at play, but it does look like the glove hand is further out than the hand on the wall, and right over the fielder's glove. I also agree that this type of ruling just incentivizes people to interfere, especially when it's their team that hit the ball. There's no risk, all reward. The fielder was likely going to catch it anyway...maybe we can steal a homerun once in a while. The bigger nonsense is that this was a problem at all. This may not have been an issue if MLB would have made the commonsense decision to get the two minor league parks up to MLB camera standards, or as close as possible. How about cameras not only along the wall, but at the foul poles that look up the foul pole (like NFL field goal shots) - that may help alleviate issues with the shorter poles. There was at least one ejection in each ballpark due to that issue, and in both cases it's highly likely the foul call was wrong, but not enough video evidence to overturn. I think they're lucky neither the A's nor Rays are making the playoffs this year - this, or a fair/foul homerun issue, would be disastrous in a game 7. With two more years in Sacramento, I hope MLB does the right thing.

Sort of - F4 tags the BR almost accidentally as he pushes him out of the way...it wasn't a decision to tag him because he had no throw...he pushed him out of the way (tagging him in the process) in order to make a throw. And yes, he started the throw first, pushed him out of the way, then completed the throw. Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional to apply a penalty. IMO there's not enough here to call this intentional.

He could prevent it from becoming a homerun, and attempt to make a play on the runner(s), but it would not be a "catch". Show me the rule that would support the runner being called out...HINT: it doesn't exist.

In OBR view definitions of CATCH and IN FLIGHT to get your answer. Because the rulebook says so. Why is a ball lodged in the fence a GRD? Why is a ball lost in the ivy at Wrigley field a double? Why do zebras have stripes? Where do babies come from? Why is AI not intelligent? If it's still bouncing it's not a GRD, or anything else, yet. It's a fair ball that could still become a GRD, a homerun, or a live ball played by the fielder. If that happens, did at "remain on top of the wall"? Proof that ChatGPT isn't ready to take over the world.

You explained it fine - if you look back, I answered this. We cannot read the mind of every umpire out there, nor should we try. If there's no possible appeal attempt at first base, but there is a runner at first base, then a reasonable umpire could reasonably conclude this was a pickoff attempt, negating the appeal. And some other umpire could figure out what you were really trying to do and rule accordingly. That's what happens when we deal with humans. You get to deal with emotions, biases, whims, rationalizations, and a wide range of intelligence. I'd venture to opine that any AI available today would consider it a pickoff attempt...ten years from now AI may be able to get more nuanced and contextual to more accurately determine intent. For the most part, the rulebook doesn't account for stupidity nor total ineptitude. It baselines to a level of competence that may not always be there in either players or umpires. The result: so-called "third world" plays could really go any direction. Nor does the rulebook require the umpire to have a full congressional hearing to determine what your intent really was. They get to use their noodle, put all available information together, and process an outcome in about two seconds. So, if you were to make a really stupid mistake like appealing to the wrong base, you're at the mercy of the umpire's judgment to your intent, which could be reasonably defended in multiple directions. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

At some point you need to use the four inches of real estate between your ears and not depend on everything to be spelled out. A throw to home plate while touching the rubber would be a pitch. The batter hitting it would be an understandable and legal action. Now, if it happened while the batter was out of the box the umpire could use said rule to defend his decision to allow an appeal. If you're unable to contextualize what is happening and make a common sense decision, based on the spirit of the rule if the letter of the rule is contradictory, you're in the wrong line of work. Now I understand there are going to be people on some points of the autism spectrum who are going to take things literally, and not know how to resolve conflicts, but that's unavoidable. The scenarios you raise are either very rare, outright ridiculous, or will never happen, practically speaking. Unless there's a potential appeal at first a reasonable umpire would consider this a pickoff attempt (and if R1 never moved why wouldn't F3 tag him?), negating the appeal at third. Delaying the game is not a condition that negates an appeal. Since there's no runner, there's no play. As an example, on a fly ball to the outfield, where R3 leaves early, F8 could throw the ball to the infield, who then throw the ball around the horn, as defenses do when they get an out with no runners on base, and then decide to throw to third to appeal R3. There's no rule-based, nor common sense, reason to negate the appeal. Any effort to do so is using the rule book to create problems, not solutions. And yes, in the ridiculous scenario of a pitcher throwing to the wrong base while touching the rubber, with no runners on base, you could call a balk. Or you could interpret it as an obvious appeal (why else would the pitcher throw to an empty base with no runners anywhere), and allow it to complete. And before you decide to break this post into 20 separate quotes with 20 separate responses, don't bother. I'm not arguing or debating the minutiae, nor going down a rabbit hill with you on scenarios that will only happen in your imagination. Sometimes you just need to ump. If umping to you is being pedantic to look for reasons to punish someone, then expect pushback, not respect.

It's not OBS because the fielder has the ball, so he's allowed to be in the runner's way...but the runner still has a right to the base, does he not? It's not malicious. Did he initiate "avoidable" contact (as per the home plate collision rule)? Does that rule only apply to home plate or does it extend to the other bases? This may be accidentally on purpose, but he is slowing down his momentum as the fielder catches the ball, so it's reasonable to determine that he could not stop in time, and that contact was not avoidable. (if that even matters) I think it's a big fat nothing. Also - he was not yet retired when contact was initiated, so that interference rule doesn't apply.

This may seem strange for me to say, but I'll be less forgiving and understanding if a coach does this. I hold the coach to the higher standard from this perspective. They may be bringing their own baggage to the game, but the game itself is not causing the trauma that umpires experience. A missed call on strike three isn't abuse. It may be a source of frustration, but it is not an intentional act of abuse. In light of that, I don't care if the coach lost his job at the factory. There's no excuse to attack an umpire. To illustrate, I'd support an umpire to have a one-year suspension, with counselling, anger management, community service, etc. I'd punt any coach forever, full stop - do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

You have no idea what those people do when they leave the field. They may suppress long enough to not act in public, in front of cameras, to not jeopardize the job or criminal record, or whatever. And then they get in a road rage incident. Or snap at the wife. Or smack the kid. Or crawl into a bottle of Woodford. Or or or. As long as they don't do it on the field, you're good? Out of sight out of mind? I have no problem extrapolating that for every umpire you see react (in any way - assault, quitting, ending the game, etc) on the field, ten more bring their anger outside the field. Everything is unprecedented until it isn't. And nobody is the guy on the 6:00 news, until they are. I'd posit the percentage of umpires that have done this (or for that matter, the percentage of coaches) is much higher than you'd believe, or like. How many umpires in the US? 50k? 100k? In 20 seconds on YouTube I was able to find five different umpires hitting coaches, striking first. I wonder how many happen in the parking lot when nobody's recording? This may not be as isolated as you think. Doesn't make it right, at all - but it may be a bigger problem than we hoped. One in a million, maybe call it truly isolated. One in 10000...might be something more to look at. I'll repeat what I said - I in no way condone or support the umpire's response. Not in a million years. And I support any punishment that fits the crime. He should have walked away, quit, forfeited the game, wept, curled into the fetal position, or any other response that didn't entail assault. I simply understand the umpire's response. And recognize there's an underlying problem that led to the response, and that that particular response could happen to literally anyone (including you or me) if the right conditions occur. Punishing the umpires that do snap doesn't solve the underlying problem. And any person that abused that umpire that day, that month, that year I hold culpable - not for his actions, but for his frame of mind. And that's not even talking about the external factors he may be experiencing, that is compounding the abuse. Possible layoffs. Financial problem. Dying wife. Parent with dementia. Kid bullied at school. We also collectively have to recognize when we're not 100%. Not fully productive. More valuable away from the workplace.

What you can or can't imagine is irrelevant. First off - There aren't enough people with the temperament you want in an umpire to fill all the umpire positions. Anyway - You're assuming this umpire got from zero to his breaking point in this one game. How about maybe over weeks, months or years culminating in a "last straw" moment. However that was allowed to happen, it happens. Those who are bullied/abused, over time, will reach their tipping point in different ways, and will respond in different ways. It's shortsighted for anyone to say, "well that happened to me, and I didn't react that way". We've all seen videos of umpires who just up and quit in the middle of the game...or call a strike three feet off the plate to get the game over with...this video just shows a different response mechanism to the same conditions. Whether the response is or isn't appropriate is secondary to what actually caused the response. The abuse, whether from coaches, players or spectators, bounces off you with no effect? Good for you. Not everyone is so fortunate. Maybe you have high EQ and understand appropriate coping mechanisms. Maybe you have a good therapist. Maybe you have a strong support system. Maybe you're the best internalizer in the world. Or maybe you get in your car and sob like a child. Or maybe you drive home angry, and others on the road get to deal with it. Maybe you take that home with you, and your loved ones get to deal with your cheerful self for a little while. Or maybe you drink a little too much. Maybe your blood pressure is a little high. Maybe you don't even recognize what it's doing to you. Or maybe maybe maybe. The possibilities for how humans respond to this are endless and are only limited by your, or my, imagination. How you would or would not respond has nothing to do with how another human being would respond. And no amount of training or upbringing or intestinal fortitude will alter their breaking point. Even if you're an expert at nipping in-game abuse in the bud, it's still there. Warnings and ejections don't erase the abuse that led to them. Let alone the other side of the fence. Claim to ignore it all you want. Abuse is abuse and it wears on everyone who is subjected to it...it's only a matter of how much and how long. And you may never see it coming.

Reasonable conclusion and probably correct. But I posted "just in case". The runner getting too good a jump is why the pitcher is able to step off. And sometimes, especially going home, it's very subtle and hard to see from the CF camera angle. I've seen viewers miss it.

Doing my amateur Jomboy impersonation, when the runner claims the fielder was blocking him it looks like the ump says "he's not". That says to me he doesn't believe it occurred, rather than doesn't care it occurred. Maybe it's because he could see the catch, so concluded the runner should have too. Whereas in the Mets video it's quite apparent that Muncy steps into the runner's line of sight, because he also steps into the umpire's.

The answer above presumes it was a pitch. If the pitcher stepped off and threw it home, then it is nothing. Your OP isn't clear, and both scenarios can and do happen...I'd even guess you see a step off more often than a pitch at the MLB level.

I'm not going to condone the behavior (for either person), but I'm not going to call it "disgraceful" either. I can be awfully pragmatic here. Coach FAFO. Anything can happen when someone is bullied/abused long enough - some rise above it, some cower, some run away/leave/quit, some become bullies themselves, some self-harm, and some snap. I don't care what setting; bully/abuse someone long enough and you'll eventually enter the second phase, which is called "find out". Sometimes that even means you're just the last bully in a long line of them, and you happened to be the final straw. Show me a kid who walks into a school to shoot their classmates, and I'll show you a kid who was bullied to a point of no return. I'm not condoning it; I'm simply understanding it. I'm not blaming any victims, nor claiming any kind of nemesis/karma...but I'm also not ignoring the role of anyone who bullied that person, whether they became a victim of the backlash or not. I understand this umpire's response, though I condemn it. I certainly have more empathy for the umpire than the coach, and can still stand behind any punishment meted out to said umpire. Even if this umpire goes to jail or never umps again, that coach will likely think twice before abusing another one. If that's the good that comes out of this, so be it. On another note - I wish people would stop screaming.

Was at a tournament last September, where a storm rolled in, you could see a funnel cloud forming in the distance, and there was lightning. One umpire suspended play for his game...another did not for his game. The one who suspended play got rebuked by the umpire association "leadership". The best part of this - this all occurred in the same town where a Little League player was killed by lightning 30 years ago, and was being played in a ball park named in his honor.

Nope...no one's operating out of the MSU rulebook, and the "correct" outcome is known to anyone with any degree of common sense. As I said, the rules are the rules, and they don't always align with what reasonable judgment would conclude. That is in no way an endorsement of evading the rules to achieve the proper/desired result. It's just a simple fact and observation that, for reasons known only to you, is causing you angst. The umps kicked the call. Can I be more clear? Not sure how many ways I can say it. I'm not making any rules up. The runner should have been called out. Should they do better and get it right? Of course. Am I gonna get my panties in a knot about it? No... their error resulted in what would have happened if no INT occurred. Yay for blind luck. A so-called GRD can sometimes rob the offense of a run or a base. The rule gives two bases TOP, which doesn't help R1 who is rounding third as the ball bounces over the fence. The correct outcome would score the runner...the rules don't allow it. It is what it is. If you can't understand that I can't help you.