Jump to content

The Man in Blue

Established Member
  • Content Count

    1,324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

The Man in Blue last won the day on June 17

The Man in Blue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

435 Good

2 Followers

About The Man in Blue

  • Rank
    Resident Contrarian

Profile Information

  • Location
    Central Illinois

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
    Land of Lincoln Officials Association
  • Occupation
    Public Relations
  • Types/Levels of Baseball called
    NFHS, USA Softball, USSSA, Pony
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Back to the original question ... I fully agree with the case play that @Senor Azul posted, but would caution the guidance can be wrong with a slight tweak to the situation. In the case play, the runner scored during (and thus arguably because of) the appeal process/discussion. If the runner was scoring on his own and legitimately ... meaning there was no defensive play to be made IF it hadn't been the third out ... then I am leaving the run on the board as my actions did not cause or allow the run, the defense did.
  2. The Man in Blue

    Appeals

    I can both agree and disagree in theory @beerguy55 ... and that is not what the USA rulebook says. Why would the runs be negated? An appeal is not a force play.
  3. @SeeingEyeDog ... never had anyone do that nor have I heard of it, but I like it and will try to incorporate that into my game. Thank you!
  4. Great, another new mechanic/signal I have to learn? Slightly off-topic, but to me the greatest scene in one of the greatest movies is actually the air-traffic controller scene. I don't know why, but that scene just comes off as so real and authentic.
  5. The Man in Blue

    Appeals

    Because ASA hasn't existed for a few years now. You wouldn't move the runners back if there were less than 2 outs ... why would you do it for the third out? Same concept. An appeal is not a force out. Removing the run for an appeal on the runner who scored but missed the base makes sense (IMO). What the USA rule does not spell out is what runs come off when the appeal is made on a runner who scores. The rule does not specifically state it should be all the runs after that runner. It just says that the run from the appealed-on runner should be removed. (Just poking the bear for discussion here.)
  6. Agreed @Matt, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. He can be as pissed as he wants. It may make my job more difficult the rest of the game, but ultimately it doesn't matter. I was just trying to point out that this is a spiraling puzzle that does not have a correct answer as to whether there was interference, but a "better" answer regarding the mechanics. My takeaway/opinion: if you see it, you should call it IF your partner doesn't ... no signal from the BU means he may not have seen it (just missed it or it looked different) however BU ACTIVELY signaling means he has the call. Interference and obstruction are NOT like a routine safe/out call. Another way of looking at this is that it is better to let the play go on. You can come together and fix it easily. However, once you kill it, it is dead. (Yes, you have the power to fix that, but it is messy.)
  7. I like what you said Recontra, but I do have to drill down on that bolded bit a little more. How do we know that isn't what happened? How do we know the BU didn't miss it from his angle? I am fully agreeable that his signal gave him the call and PU should let it stand ... but that doesn't mean the BU was right. Poking this one a little further ... what happens when the coach comes out to talk to BU and BU comes to PU to talk. BU says "It looked good to me, but I got caught behind the runner." PU says "Oh, I had interference all day on that one." The two come apart, explain the call, and now the coach (who is just an a-hole) wants to know why PU didn't call it since an umpire should always call interference when they see it (eh). We know plays look different from different angles, and this is no different.
  8. I thought most accounting was BS.
  9. That, that, that. Somewhere along the way we got away from playing the game properly and moved towards figuring out what we can get away with. Absolutely agree with the definition of hybrid above that. The rule book gives you two things to chose from. Creating some cock-a-mamie thing in your own mind and then pushing it until it is considered legal is ridiculous. Honestly, this (not hybrid pitching, but the fast-and-loose rule applications) is one of the driving factors that has led to me gradually reducing my baseball schedule and increasing my softball schedule.
  10. I agree with all of this and have done this. However, keep in mind that YOU are not the one punishing the team. The coach is. I would never enforce that lightly or abruptly, but I would enforce it. If you aren’t, then why bother with the ejection in the first place?
  11. We all have our opinions. Granted, the level of play (pro, minor league, college, youth) will have some influence on your action. IMO, 18u Babe Ruth is still “youth” baseball. Regardless of rule set, (again, IMO so you can tell me how wrong I am) an ejection of an adult from youth sports means “you can no longer be where I can see or hear you” not “you can continue to be a horse’s ass and make a joke of this, you just have to do it 20 feet to your left.” Failure to comply means game over. Yes, it sucks for the team and I give the coach every possible opportunity to avoid costing his team the game. Just like ejections though, they do it to themselves. I just enforce it.
  12. Good comments so far ... Nip this in the bud and do it early. Especially when you are calling from behind the mound. Everybody knows that is not ideal, and if you are going to complain about it as a coach then you need to go immediately. You agreed to play the game under this circumstance, we are not screwing around. I will take this a little further though ... I'm not sure how much time he took while "gathering his things" (so this could be true sooner) but at the point that he moved behind the backstop the game is over. Everybody can collect their things. @BlueClue, I went seven years before I had an ejection. Then I had several in three weeks. I was going home asking myself "Is there something wrong with me?" That is always a possibility, but my partners all assured me they were good ejections. I am not working this year, but from anecdotal stories I'm heaing, it sounds as if people are stressed out and even antsier than normal.
  13. Well ... no. His theory was the metal spikes in the ground would make him more of a lightning rod. Technically, they would benefit him by giving him a ground (giving the electricity a better connection/path to ground) plus he would have some minor insulation from the soles. (Realistically, it probably wouldn't make a darned bit of difference at that voltage.) Many years ago the utility that I used to work for had an incident where some kids were using an old flagpole to try to knock a toy off of an overhead power line. Because the pole was so long, they stuck it in the ground to steady it. That probably saved their lives, as most of the current went through the flagpole direct to the ground. Some current did stray and pass through them. They had electric burns on their hands (contact point) and the bottoms of their feet (exit point to ground). The other thing to remember is that it isn't voltage that kills, it is amperage -- specifically amperage across the heart.
  14. In as much as it tells you conditions are favorable, not that lightning is going to strike or where it will strike. I'm not saying it doesn't have value ... but the waters are murky with people who don't understand the difference between that and Weather Bug on their phone. That is where things get dangerous.
  15. Oh crap ... I just got this ... Retroactive like ...
×
×
  • Create New...