Velho

17 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I vehemently disagree with the use of "discreet signals."  People see it and see what is happening.  If you don't see your partner's signal or don't go with it, somebody will see it.  Why sow the seeds?

I follow but isn't U3K the same thing?

1 hour ago, Velho said:

This is what happens in Bay Area, CA for all schools (in my experience) other than early before JV season starts.

Part of it is that most fields don't have lights. Only the richy rich ones do.

59 minutes ago, MadMax said:

someone will have to voice up about Little League

Nope. 60 feet is enough for coaches to get out of the way. They "used to play" you know.

22 minutes ago, MadMax said:

By contrast, the bigger metro schools will do “exchanges”… the JV squads of both bat sports will go to the opponent’s school, while the Varsity squads will be at the “host” school. This gets problematic for us (umpires) because we now have to cover two sites, not just one. 

This is what happens in Bay Area, CA for all schools (in my experience) other than early before JV season starts.

16 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

That’s what I mean by unofficial. No action taken. As opposed to action taken, for example, with the second step from the rubber. 

"What you permit you promote"

"What you don't condemn you condone"

3 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I don't have it as a quick pitch. The pitcher started his pitching motion, the batter was set, how can this fall under the definition of a quick pitch?

Was it "made with obvious intent to catch a batter off balance"? If you say no, what if you reasonably synonym "off balance" with "confused"?

[Yes, I know I'm Quixoting this one but OBR is (should) be like legal language. If something is explicitly defined then layman definitions no longer apply. The miming action is obvious and intentional to confuse the batter.

If that pitch (it was 0-2) was a K instead of a foul ball we can fully expect that there would have been an issue. The more fired up I get about it, I think it's like a prior ump not ejecting that rat coach, leaving to us to deal with in the future. These are umps at the very top of the game. They are making it harder on us when they don't deal with this b.s. because we then have to when it's mimiced in our games.

If it's not illegal under existing rules, it should be. Heck [deleted rant that this is a sign of MLBs and Corporate America's moral decay].

💨🤺/end]

Is "4. U3K style quick glance at PU (with as little head movement as possible) for a subtle sign of Out / Safe and call accordingly" an option?

58 minutes ago, umpstu said:

I used super glue.

How'd you get it on F2 shin guards? Or did you put it on the catchers box?

3 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

But what specific rule support would you use to call this an illegal pitch in OBR?

Contrary to the practice of a "quick return" being one where F1 steps on rubber and throws in a continuous motion OBR has this in Definitions: "A QUICK RETURN pitch is one made with obvious intent to catch a batter off balance. It is an illegal pitch." Further, the MiLB Manual states "a deliberate effort to catch a batter off guard” is an illegal pitch. 

I'm unable to find rules to support an umpire telling a player to "don't do that" in this case (damn, that was snippy of me, 😁).

How does one respond when the reply to that admonishment from a MLB player is "Or else what? You going to eject me?"

20 hours ago, Velho said:

2 outs, R3, R2, wild pitch, R3 advances home cleanly with no batter INT. Then R2 advances for home and Batter interferes. (Plausible example: wild pitch that goes up 3B line, batter loitering around home plate, R3 scores standing up (no play - no INT). Then R2 goes for home too while batter is still loitering and batter interferes with throw from F2 to F1.

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

The question is whether or not both runs on the same play would be negated by that third out, or just the one where he actually interfered.

After digging into this I think it's TOI and R3 scores.

5.09(b)(8) Any runner is out when:

27 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Just like, bases loaded, batter hits triple, then is called our for missing first.

Not applicable. That is batter-runner. OP is only a batter.

42 minutes ago, Little Ott said:

Thanks Gents.  As always - I'm grateful for your rules knowledge and this community.  Continue to dispense justice as you see fit.

I assume that is tongue in cheek but do want to point out, just in case for you and anyone reading this in the future:  everyone here is worried about helping you for next time. No one is excoriating you about it. The play happened. We've all done it.

Trying to figure out what to do different next time is what matters. Kudos on you for seeking to maximize your learning opportunity.

On 4/14/2024 at 10:40 AM, umpstu said:

What does a grape and a chicken have in common? 

What are two things that aren't in my kitchen?

13 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

STOP LOOKING FOR REASONS TO ALLOW THIS CRAP.  It is a violation of the spirit of the game.   

To quote a coach friend when I asked his thoughts (seeing aside any rulebook assessment): "Yes, should be illegal to do what Nestor did. Clown show. "

15 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

But just go here;

Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League

Their conclusion is "don't do that". Personally I don't find that compelling and believe it ignores the Umpire Manual (at least the MiLB version I have since the MLB manual is not publicly available).

If I see it (and I'd rather I not) I'm calling it an illegal pitch in the LL (14U and below) games I do.

I follow you @beerguy55. I'd argue TOI.

Exercise to explore this:

Baseline: 2 outs, R3, batter interferes with Fielder --> Batter is ruled as the third out, no runs scores.

Scenario: 2 outs, R3, R2, wild pitch, R3 advances home cleanly with no batter INT. Then R2 advances for home and Batter interferes. (Plausible example: wild pitch that goes up 3B line, batter loitering around home plate, R3 scores standing up (no play - no INT). Then R2 goes for home too while batter is still loitering and batter interferes with throw from F2 to F1.

Batter is ruled out for INT.

One run or no runs score?

45 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

I think Michael Jordan said it best...

"Republicans buy sneakers too" ?

@Daniel1961 what level of play was this?

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

If you're calling the batter out instead of R2, then the batter made the third out (the fact that he ran all the way to second is irrelevant...he was never a runner - he's still a batter) - then wouldn't no runs score?

Fair but thinking about it Batter was aiding Goat2 R2 at this point not R3. Based on the OP, R3 was ruled to score without INT from Batter. Only after R3 scored was R2 called out for Batter INT

56 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Was this a lodged ball (pitch) or Umpire Interference?

Umpire interference, definitely umpire interference. 😉

11 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

but .....this wasn't a "quick return pitch" ....

I agree that there is nothing "quick" about it as defined by Merriam Webster. But, OBR's definition doesn't preconditon acting with speed.

The MiLB Manual has multiple criteria and separates "before a batter is reasonably set" from "a deliberate effort to catch a batter off guard". The mime was meant to confuse and have the batter relax their guard. 

We aren't going to change OBR here - though they should of course be listening 😁 - so I have two questions:

1) If this isn't illegal, what would be illegal with no runners on? Can the pitcher juggle the ball and his mitt before throwing it? Can he pirouette? Being facetious but wonder is anything is illegal as long as pivot foot is on the rubber and it's a continuous motion?

2) Should this be illegal?

5 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

If you don’t like that delivery and call a violation you will have to call every nitpick windup violation. Quoting Jim Evans, that is not a practical way to umpire”

"Do you think that applies to the fake throw in the middle of the delivery?" [asked with curiosity and zero defensiveness]

8 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

My partner was on the plate and we were under FED which would strictly prohibit any of this because the rule there is "continuous motion"

While I think "continuous motion" could be debated for anything short of a complete freeze, FED does have "The pitcher is limited to not more than two pumps or rotations" that I'm guessing is applicable for the Nestor (formerly Cueto) action?

6 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Isn't this legal under the "Japanese pitching delivery" that they wrote into OBR?

What was changed and when? Was OBR changed or was it an interpretation?