beerguy55

I already stated by rule he should have been out, in the sentence directly preceding the one you quoted...I was simply describing the "correct" outcome, which doesn't always align with the rules. That same preceding sentence makes that very clear. Words don't operate in a bubble - context matters. Mansplain to someone else.

It's one of those cases where they got the rule wrong, but the correct outcome occurred, when you talk about determining what would have happened if no interference. If that ball did not hit the runner, F4 fields it, and....nothing. No play at first or second, R1/R2 no outs. Lindsay botched this one, IMO, and was really fixated on the announcers being wrong...though they were right. If it touched F3 then it's not INT. It's there in black and blue in the LL rule she posted. They were "hung up" on that because it was the only plausible explanation for calling the runner safe. As well, the announcers didn't claim he was safe because the first baseman had a chance...they were telling the viewers what they were told by a third party AND also said they think that is wrong.

It is possible to argue/dispute a call and still remain neutral and impartial.

There's nothing here to support the ump's call, by rule. Unless he somehow imagined that she touched white instead of orange the first time (she did not) and considers this an appeal. A one or two second delay has never been close to the standard here, let alone the fact that it's F3 that caused the delay. And F3 still had the ball by the time BR re-engaged the white, so the pitcher having the ball doesn't enter into it either. This is simply a bad call, and it's a bad look, and there's no excuse for it, beyond either attitude or ineptitude. I don't care if these guys are volunteering for the honor of umping the LLWS...they're still actual umpires - it's not like LL is grabbing random people from the stands or the street to officiate these games. This umpire made this call not because he's a volunteer, but because he's bad at his job.

I'd have to see a specific rule (at which point I would declare the rule makers bereft of brain function), but this just looks like an umpire that doesn't understand the rule...spirit or letter. The only other explanation I can think of is with the ball hit to the outfield he braincramped and thought BR had made a turn to second (as one normally does on hits to the outfield). She overran first - she's allowed to return to first, and except for a one or two second diversion, caused by F3, she did so. If she'd be touching only the orange when the pitcher had the ball on the rubber then he'd have a legitimate out.

These fears are ungrounded. The only thing players, coaches and umpires ever had to fear was illegal gambling. These guys conveniently forget that the Black Sox scandal was around an illegal gambling ring. The Boston College points shaving scandal in the 70's was an illegal gambling ring. And in those illegal gambling settings is where people's lives and well-being get threatened. What legal gambling is doing is bringing to light what would otherwise remain in the shadows. Does it increase volume and temptation for players to get involved...sure, but that's their own stupidity. Mainly that they're bad a math and understanding risk vs reward. We have yet to see any evidence that cases like Clase and others were threatened in any way.

Not in this scenario...we taught our fielders to break off to the right, after throwing the ball, for the express purpose of getting out of the way of the runner. I'm not gonna claim a moral high horse - there are certainly times I taught how to "accidentally on purpose" do something, but this wasn't one. In my mind it was too blatant and too hard to be subtle...I was mistaken in that; subtlety apparently isn't necessary.

On a side note, I'm thinking the call is explainable/understandable/forgivable, albeit likely with a teachable moment somewhere. I'm guessing the ump is following the ball, so he likely only sees the collision, maybe out of the corner of the eye, without seeing the runner change direction to cause said collision?

And you wonder why players in various sports continue to flop. Because there's very little risk and all reward...and they get rewarded far too often. At least hockey has a penalty for embellishment. I'd be all for an INT/out for "attempting to induce OBS"

There are "cups" for female athletes - typically called Jills. And in any situation where a male would wear one, a female should as well.

Jesus Christ - when I played Little League one bench player every game was assigned to trying to ascertain the opposing third base coach's signs. The player who was on/at second base would say first name for fastball, last name for curve...and if possible, point the direction of the target. Our catcher's were taught to be deceptive with the target...and to give false signs...while flashing a "one", the other hand was on the left knee...or on the ground...and that was the sign. As a coach, I'd let the other team figure out my bunt sign...and then add an "indicator"...lost count the number of teams I had F3/F5 playing halfway in to have a ball driven past them. It's part of the game, and LL is the perfect time to figure it out. They're old enough to add that element to the game. For the last two years he played in Atlanta Greg Maddux called pitches based on how he caught the throw back from the catcher.

Like I said...it would have to be a scenario where he had to stretch far to the right, and maybe even brought him to the ground after making the catch...something that would put him in a position where there's just no chance to get the next runner going home....even if he could muster an attempt.

Rarely, but not never. It's certainly lower risk with two out, because if they get the batter then it's moot - but the same principle really applies...you're banking on a bad throw to first base....or even a mediocre throw...and potentially a little bit of hesitation from F3.

I'd have to see the play...it would have to be something like this for me to score both: Slow roller to F6 R2 (Bobby Witt, not Kyle Schwarber) is in a dead sprint and rounds third and heads home without hesitation as F6 bare hands the ball Throw causes F3 to stretch to a position (or even fall) that would have made it impossible for him to successfully fire home (eg. if there was only one out before the play started) Not much different than the play at the end of Major League.

I'll go one further. The batter? The manager? ANYONE on the Mariners saying, "isn't that ball four?" I suppose PU can (sort of) save face by saying he had it as a strike, but gave no mechanic due to the balk call...

He missed it, for whatever reason. Maybe he saw the throw as happening before the batter leaned over. Could be myriad reasons for not getting it, but it's NOT because this isn't INT at the pro level. It is, and this kind of play is called INT just as often as it isn't by the pros... I've seen more innocuous batter action called INT by MLB umpires.

Not the same...the catcher was making a throw in the second scenario/OP. Just because he got the throw off, and in the case above actually got the runner out, doesn't mean he wasn't hindered/interfered with...he was simply (as a professionally skilled athlete) able to adapt to the adversity and make the play anyway. As I said earlier, if you are an NFL wide receiver and the safety has his arms wrapped around you before the ball arrives, and you still manage to reel in the catch, it's still Pass Interference. That you decline the penalty is irrelevant. Don't be results-oriented in assessing a play.

Grit your teeth all you want...he caught the ball and even Joyce agreed. The double clutch is irrelevant...it was not an establishment of control, it was a re-assertion of control. Regardless, Joyce's safe call had nothing to do with the double clutch (something he'd have never seen nor heard)...he made the call because he believed the runner beat the throw. The original point is this call is so hard to make because the umpire can't hear the ball hit the glove on those soft tosses, and that is why the Joyce and Denkinger calls are similar. To your point on Denkinger...you could SEE he was out in real time just fine, and if he had been watching the glove and the bag, like we do when we watch TV, he'd have likely made the right call. Time and time again we see umpires, correctly, to a ridiculous level of accuracy, determine whether or not the tag on the foot beat the hand touching the base seven+ feet away.

This is the Kevin Gausman maneuver, and it sometimes seems to be a bit of a crapshoot when he is and isn't balked.

This would really suck in the bottom of the 9th in the World Series. I would hope any pro ump has the authority to declare that play is stopped "immediately" after a lightning strike, meaning anything happening AFTER the lightning (like a balk) doesn't exist. This ump will have a successful career as a bureaucrat.

I've wondered about that myself. Another coach and I went through a bit of an exercise with our players, more for curiosity than anything. Brought on by a particularly awful umpire we experienced at a tournament who just couldn't get a call at first base right if it was under half a step. Going back to what I said earlier...if you just flip a coin here, you'll get the call right 50% of the time (sample sizes aside) - if your method and effort are falling short of randomness, you're doing something wrong. This ump was truly in the 10-20% range. The other coach's statement to me was (and I was skeptical) that you didn't even need to see the play to get that call right. We created plays at first and had coaches and players be the umpire - and they would close their eyes/look towards the outfield and make the call. All they could do was listen for BOTH the foot and the glove. And they're surprisingly accurate. In fact. they were more accurate than the traditional method (as non-experienced umpires). More surprising...most could accurately make the call at first, from the third base coach's box - just by differentiating between the two sounds. Don't get me wrong...it's not practical for many other reasons, including whether or not the foot actually hit the bag or the ground, was the ball caught...short hops in the dirt...etc, etc. But it tells me that our eyes may be tricking us here...or we sometimes get confused processing the two pieces of information...or something else. So we may be better off looking at glove and listening to the foot...or we may be better off listening for both...or better off watching both (pro umpires, and a lot of amateur umpires) are very good at seeing that a tag on the foot does or doesn't beat the hand on the bag six feet away from the tag. While also accepting the possibility that the method in use is the best of all. I just go back to the coin flip - if stats bear out that we're not outperforming a coin flip, we're doing something wrong.

If this isn't a deliberate attempt to break up a DP then nothing is.

The analysis is incomplete to really determine the meaning of a 60-65% overturn rate each year - you need to include the number of close plays that weren't challenged at all - those are at least plays where the manager didn't have enough certainty to risk a challenge, if not agreed with the call outright. Further that that, we would need to review those plays and determine if the calls "would have been" overturned if challenged. Or, at the very least...if you say 209 close plays at first were reviewed, how many total close plays occurred. That might help contextualize that number. Not in determine why it's 72% vs 65%, but to explain why it's close to 3/4 than 1/2. The other piece of the analysis that would be relevant is breaking the overturned calls down between out vs safe calls made on the field. That would help identify if there's a gap in how the on-field judgment is made. Without that information, this data shows a statistical problem - in short, the umps shouldn't be that "bad". On true banger plays you really should be hovering around 50/50...and for some reason over the past decade 57% overturn has been their BEST year?? The conclusion there would be that umps would be better off randomizing their calls - then they'd only be wrong 50% of the time, not 60, 65, 72%. If you're not even achieving a coin flip using some kind of trained methodology, then maybe the method is flawed. That is, if you do a series of true/false tests, and you keep scoring 30%, you're doing something wrong. The other valuable piece would be to compare overturn rates at other 50/50 calls...and then look at those 50/50 strike/balls. I suspect it's back to the age-old method of watching the foot and listening to the glove, and maybe that's not as reliable as we think? We absolutely know where it fails, and Joyce and Denkinger will tell you all about it...ie. on soft tosses you don't hear the ball hit the glove. Probably similar problem on any throw against crowd noise.

On first look I see no offer - HBP take your base. After a few looks, I see him pulling his bat back AFTER the pitch misses it. He doesn't "offer", per se, but it seems he's kind of going "uh oh...the pitch missed my bat, better pull back to make this look good".

I did some prompts in MS CoPilot and came up with this (using OBR, but it could be repurposed): ⚾ Fair Ball (Refined Definition) A fair ball is a batted ball that touches first, second, or third base or is entirely or partially on or over fair territory when it: Settles between home and first base, or between home and third base; Bounds past first or third base; First lands beyond first or third base; Touches a player or umpire; Passes out of the playing field in flight. ⚾ Foul Ball (Revised Definition) A foul ball is a batted ball that is neither a fair ball nor a foul tip.