Jump to content

Biscuit

Established Member
  • Posts

    535
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Biscuit

  1. This is a seperate incident that happened after the one I was referring too. Different set of circumstances, different potential motives.
  2. Thank you all for the suggestions! To answer @yawetag's questions, he's a Senior in High school, played ball all his life. No officiating experience that I'm aware of. I expect I will have to break some of his perceptions as a player, but he seems to understand that there's a lot more about the rules than he knows. I'm excited! Any other topics are welcome additions.
  3. I really like the suggestion of starting with the definitions section. I'm not sure how much plate mechanics I'll be able to do over video, chat, but I'll try. Thanks for the suggestions!
  4. Would you recommend a straight read through together, or by topic?
  5. Just had a friend text me saying he wants to get into umpiring. Obviously, I said I'd teach him how to umpire. Only thing is, I have very little experience teaching others to umpire. We're going to video chat to start (we'll out to a field eventually to show him what I'm teaching him), so my question is, what would you teach first? Any subsequent order would be great as well. I don't want to overwhelm him, but he seems excited and read to learn, and so am I. My thought at the moment is to go through positioning, then maybe talk about some common plays, and field any questions he has as we go. It's been awhile since I learned how to umpire, and I'm not really sure what order I learned what. Does this seem like a good way to do it, or would you maybe start with more abstract concepts (i.e. timing)? Thanks in advance!
  6. We could appeal to track man? WWTMD
  7. Biscuit

    Zebra Web

    Ah, I see. I'm not sure on that.
  8. Biscuit

    Zebra Web

    I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but CSV files are basically just text files, with each thing separated by a comma (Comma Seperated Values), so they act the same.
  9. Biscuit

    Zebra Web

    I've linked my arbiter I think three times. Twice it has removed games when they go, once it has not. Don't rely on it until you're sure of what it's doing.
  10. I've heard that there was a plan drawn up for a 60 day tournament, in which case it's possible. Sounds like they're gonna play more than that, but who knows? Not me.
  11. Two things. 1) I'm not sure that the signs are really what they're protesting for, it's just the sensationalist low hanging fruit. . I know a lot of people who are at the point of saying, the lockdown had a purpose, but we've past that point. If the cure continues, it will be worse than the disease. (I'm not endorsing that position, but that's what I've seen.) Plus, "I want businesses open" sounds like "I want to go back to work" with extra steps to me 2) Not everyone who is protesting is protesting for the same reasons or in the same manner. In Michigan, the majority of the protesters were in their cars honking their horns, not demonstrating with signs. Additionally, they aren't protesting for the same level of restriction removal. Some were/are (stupidly) protesting for a complete and immediate removal of all restrictions. Using Michigan as an example again, some just want to be able to go follow the stay at home order at their lake house their family has owned for generations. I'd guess that there probably is a higher concentration of the former in the people protesting in person than the general protesting population, but
  12. That's how I read it. I think that'd be pretty cool. Hey, maybe he'll hit it on the button with the games he'll work this year.
  13. No numbers, but yesterday, my assignor held a zoom meeting with a bunch of umpires. He said he thought we'd see an uptick, citing a large increase in umpires following the 2008 financial crisis.
  14. I assume you mean left hand?
  15. If the ball is up the line, he is reacting to the throw and is protected (assuming no intentional acts).
  16. I totally agree, just saying the catcher is protected on that anyway.
  17. I think I may not have been clear enough and/or not emphasized my qualification of what I called an egregious action enough. To be clear, if a catcher runs to set up up the line before a throw is made, that's still obstruction. What this part of the rule protects is the catcher not having time to setup in time. He's trying to get in front of the plate, but he stops in a position that we would otherwise call obstruction on, because he doesn't have enough time with the ball coming from 70 feet away. I don't claim to be a rules expert. I think I'm pretty good, but not perfect. If you can come up with a reasonable reading of that specific part of the rule (I understand the rule at large), I'd love to hear it. Reading the rule though, this is the only way I can figure to interpret it.
  18. If an infielder (or outfielder for that matter) is accurate enough to throw the ball up the line intentionally, the catcher can legally go get it regardless of the play.
  19. Yes, I do. To me, it reads as a specific exception, under the label of a "legitimate attempt to field the ball". I can't think of another way to interpret it than the one given, and it came from an instructor I respect quite a bit. If you read it another way, I'd love to talk about it. If I have the rule wrong, I want to correct my understanding (that's why I'm on here after all.)
  20. 6.01(i)(2) reads, in part, "Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher can- not block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. [...] Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, tra- jectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). " As I understand it, this is generally interpreted to mean that, unless the actions of the catcher are egregious, it's not obstruction or violation of the collision rule if the throw comes from the pitcher or a drawn in infielder. UTD umpires recently posted a caseplay with this rule.
  21. Also worth noting, if the infield was playing in, this is nothing, even if the throw didn't take F2 there... As to why, you'll have to ask the rules committee.
  22. Biscuit

    3 batter rule

    Err, yeah, that.
  23. Biscuit

    3 batter rule

    Without actually looking up the rule, it says something to the effect of "the pitcher [thanks @Lou B] must face 3 batters unlesss..." Basically, they can't switch positions untill they've completed their obligation to face 3 batters.
  24. Look, I understand that I am more optimistic on this situation than most, and maybe I'm wrong. Fine. I don't really feel like continuing to argue that. However, I do take umbrage on you taking one counter argument I made, a little out of context, and ignoring the others. Those counter arguments are not independent of each other, and they address your response. Again, I never said we should open back up with no precautions.
  25. Biscuit

    Legal Pick-Off?

    This is a rule that holds a special place in my heart. It's the rule that made me realize how little some umpires at the rec league I was working knew. Had this exact situation in a game two years ago (at least, I think so. Spending a month in the house has screwed up my sense of time.) Latter, my partner said, "you know, you missed a balk there". I guess he thought only one of the umpires has balk responsibility. After the game, we brought it to the umpire room. Probably 10 umpires in the room, I was the only one saying no balk. Anyways, the applicable OBR rule is 6.02(a)(4) "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when . . . The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;" Also note 6.02(a)(4) Comment "When determining whether the pitcher throws or feints a throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play, the umpire should consider whether a runner on the previous base demonstrates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to advance to such unoccupied base."
×
×
  • Create New...