Velho

1 hour ago, Coach BIll said:

I was hearing ARod

I found the issue.  

1 hour ago, Coach BIll said:

Wanted to make sure I was right in my interpretation and what I teach runners, thanks fellas

Running at the glove is regularly taught.

1 hour ago, Coach BIll said:

Now, if he established a lane and moved because he saw the glove moving on a throw, that would be interference, is my understanding. Right? But reading the SS setup would not be intentionally interfering with the throw. Great, no call. Fantastic play. 

Maybe. If the runner wasn't waving their arms or something else egregious it will probably not get called though (especially if the runner never looks at the ball like Manny didn't). It certainly opens the door and puts pressure on the umpire for a call/no call.

2 hours ago, Gfoley4 said:

only time I can remember it being called was for a head butt by I think a diamondbacks player

I like this no call. Intentionally interfering with the ability to make a good throw is not the same as intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.

43 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

As described I would have INT but have seen many MLB plays where MLB umps do not call INT as the runner is allowed to make his own basepath.

Interested after you've seen the play. As you said this is a standard no call in MLB.

Would you call this in HS?

For everyone's reference:

OBR Rule 5.09(b)(3) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play

@concertman1971 I'd be getting this to replace an AS Mag (like the lightness of the AS but not the long bars vs tubing). What is it about the AS that you prefer over this? 

14 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

I have two titanium masks, but my AS Mag is my favorite mask--not just because I had it powder coated Carolina Blue. I haven't taken any serious hits to it, but it's so freaking light. My only complaint is the pads--they're fantastic, but the cheek coverage makes them feel hotter than my TW pads I have on my Ti masks.

Your mileage, obviously, may (and probably will) vary.

I have the AS Mag and late last year got the F3 on sale. I really like the rounded bars of the F3 for field of view but love the lightness of the AS Mag. Was thinking of getting titanium to split the difference.

What's difference between AS and titanium for you?

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

On 10/5/2024 at 9:06 PM, Velho said:

Full-time PUs has risk of  providing fodder for perception of bias, no?

I'd say the opposite.   If you see the same plate umpire over the course of a four-game series it would become quite evident that he's not favoring either team....or if there is a problem, then the sample size would be more defensible to demonstrate that.

Fair and rational point. The 2nd and 3rd game to get there is where the road will be bumpy (not to mention those that will never get there even after the series completes).

3 hours ago, grayhawk said:

The OP said his three plays were straight steal, squeeze and wild pitch. Back picking wasn’t in the OP. 

Keep your head on a swivel man. 😁

[Note: defusing not escalating]

Doing 2x, 3x, 4x plates would 2x, 3x, 4x the chance of concussion. That's simple and unassailable (even in an election year). We can then debate the baseline % and severity. Don't know where it ends up.

Even if we go this path, I think we need full rotation during the regular season. That's how you lower whatever the above risk is and develop umpires. I can see doing it during postseason and final month(+/-) of the regular season.

One thing though... we usually try to avoid doing consecutive plates with the same teams, don't we? As much hoo-haa MLBs PU catch today, you don't hear much that there are truly favoring one team or the other. Full-time PUs has risk of  providing fodder for perception of bias, no?

49 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

That specifically deals with batters stepping out of the batter's box. Not really relevant to the text I quoted.

I was showing your point a step further - that even leaving the box doesn't make it interference. 

19 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgment there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play.

I don't see that as carte blanche to stay in the box on a play where batter had time to vacate the box (though I think benefit of the doubt goes to the batter).

18 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Seems counter to the written rule, but there it is.

Even more so, from MLBUM:

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

12 hours ago, 834k3r said:

I get that umpires control the field after the plate meeting, but if the HTHC (as directed by FED) thought the conditions were good enough to play up to the plate meeting, then the teams and the umpiring crew should at least try to make it work. It's a terrible look for umpires to call the game right after the plate meeting.

I will admit I am torn on it.  I don't like the look, but when handed a mud-sandwich, what do we do?  Play till somebody gets hurt because the coach said it was OK?

The few I've had when delusional coaches were trying to go, I all but told them if they hand the game to me, I'll call it. Never gotten far enough for them to see if I was bluffing (I wasn't).

This

On 9/30/2024 at 5:07 AM, SeeingEyeDog said:

the manager coaching at 3rd says, "Call it both ways! That's terrible! Get better!"

is why players think this

On 9/30/2024 at 5:07 AM, SeeingEyeDog said:

I hear a player (there was only 1 adult with this team, the manager) from his dugout on the 3rd base side, "Holy eff, Blue! You need to change your effing tampon!" (He did not say eff...he said, The Word)

is ok.

In the moment you had, I'm not entirely sure how to address it, but the second is certainly a product of the first.

4 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

6 hours ago, MadMax said:

Oh man, this is on the verge of me going off on a rant. 

go ahead rant on.

how are we going to learn anything if withholding is going on.

41 minutes ago, Forrest Marvin said:

Was a teenager umpire.

Was there an adult administrator there to ensure the teenager (working solo?) wasn't thrown to the wolves?

I imagine they are trying to get rid of the step off and perfunctory "feint" arm motion at the runner - which had been a loophole to get a no penalty disengagement?

Not saying they did a good job but looking for the motivation of the change.

15 minutes ago, Thomas Van den Eynde said:

He was standing in front of home plate, then moved towards the throw up the 3th base line, but this happend all well before the runner arrived.

Having the ball well before the runner arrived and would have had to deviated (begin generous to the runner) makes this a very easy no OBS call. You got it perfect. Coach was fishing.

As the doubt in the above increases, where they set up matters. No OBS setup are off the line completely in fair territory or well back in foul territory and off the plate. How they move to catch the ball matters. If the movement is needed to catch the ball and not as an excuse to block the runners path, then no OBS.

Here are some example videos from MLB (yes, we don't always to emulate MLB (and they can be inconsistent) but it's the best OBR examples we have (Little League being a second one).

Likely minor in this case but point of debate in these plays: where did F2 set up before moving to receive the throw?

17 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

Welcome to the sad, sad life of a Mariners fan.

Yep. But at least we have the Soni.... oh, never mind.

4 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

My partner's reluctance to help out was that he thought I was going to call it and when I didn't, he thought too much time elapsed for him to call it.

I understand the elapsed time aspect, though think it's one of the ego / perception things we as umpires need to get over (not as if we'll be liked in the ned anyway).

I will speak to the BU hesitation to call it though. I'm about 50/50 on getting the close ones right. I've had ones that went down, bounced funny, and I was sure they got the BR - who promptly ran to 1B without any argument for BR or anyone else. The can be hard to get.

I suppose where I am now is: give the close ones a beat and see how BR reacts. If BR reacts in a way I believe*, and PU doesn't grab it, I'll come with it. Will I still freeze in analysis paralysis? Possibly - thus a pregame of "I've got info for you" signal (which I know some argue against).

* How is this coached these days? I've always believed you need to sell it (not fake it but sell it) if you're likely to be out on the ball in play. Paging @beerguy55 to speak for coaches.

9 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Unlike football, in baseball it doesn't matter where the fielder's feet are (for fair/foul), it matters where the ball is.

Watching games yesterday I realized how few know the ball placement when you go out of bounds (already having possession).

The spot being where the ball crossed over the plane of the sideline is foreign to almost everybody (and has to be a pain to officiate).

20 minutes ago, oldgatorwrestler said:

Mlb rules. Ball is hit, bounces fair in the infield before third base. It is in the air in foul territory. Third baseman fields the ball [over] foul territory

That's the way to think about this.

Before the ball passes first or third, was the ball over fair or foul territory when first touched? If over fair territory, it's fair. If over foul territory, it's foul.