Jump to content

spark2212

Members
  • Posts

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by spark2212

  1. Gary Cohen just raised an interesting point on today's Mets broadcast after Pete Alonso reached first base on a dropped fly ball right around the foul line but was thrown out trying for second base: could the Mets (the offensive team) have challenged the fair/foul call to negate the out and extend Alonso's at bat even though they'd be asking to negate a hit for one of their own players? More generally, is there any limit to which team can issue a particular challenge, or could either team ask to review the same call, even if it might be detrimental to their cause? As far as I understand the replay rules, any play which isn't specifically listed as reviewable can't be reviewed by either team, but as far as I know the rules have no mention that a specific team must be the one to issue a challenge, so I would assume there is no such restriction. I can think of other situations where this could come into play, for example, runner on third comes in to score on an apparent wild pitch, the defensive team might want to challenge for a hit by pitch so the ball would be dead and the run wouldn't count. Anyone know of a specific ruling on this?

  2. So let's say there's a roller down the first or third-base line. The fielders want it to roll foul. Obviously if they touch the ball it's fair, and they can't blow on it, but what happens if they pile up the dirt in front of the ball to deflect it into foul territory. Is that allowed? Is it the same as touching the ball? I can't find a rule on this, and it feels like a bit of an oversight. 

  3. 2 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

    Food for thought:  Remember, however, that if a runner is injured during play, the ball remains live until the play is over.  The exception being if the injured player is in jeopardy of further injury.

    Which is why I asked. If the ball is out of play the runner cannot be tagged out, but the play isn't over until the runners finish advancing. 

  4. 7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

    The umpire will not know if the fair ball, fair being touched but not yet a catch, will be a catch until he sees voluntary release or it’s equivalent. And you have to take your chances or wait for the ruling. 

    I’m talking about cases where possession is clear. If the umpire doesn’t know whether or not it was caught by all means he should call fair/foul.

  5. Just now, spark2212 said:

    But consider this: there’s a runner on first. Low line drive down the right field line is maybe caught, maybe trapped in short right field right on the line. As a baserunner, if it’s foul, I don’t need to know that right away. If it’s fair, I need to know which direction to run. What if the extra hesitation waiting for the catch/no catch call results in the runner being forced out at second?

    Basically, nothing bad will happen because the umpire waited to tell me fair or foul. But I can get screwed if I don’t know whether or not the ball was caught. 

  6. 6 minutes ago, DevildogUmp said:

    I would say because the timing matters:

    1. Status of ball (fair/foul) is determined the instant it is touched by the fielder.

    2. Catch/no catch is determined after the fielder has shown possession and voluntary release.

    Fly ball touched in the area of the foul line as the fielder is moving into foul ground and juggling the ball. If the ball is touched fair, you need to make the call then not a minute later when the fielder ends up dropping the ball.

    Plus, remember in a tag up situation, runners don't have to wait for the catch/no catch determination. They can advance on first touch. So when the umpire is calling fair/foul, he is also letting the runner(s) know he has a touch and they could advance.

    But consider this: there’s a runner on first. Low line drive down the right field line is maybe caught, maybe trapped in short right field right on the line. As a baserunner, if it’s foul, I don’t need to know that right away. If it’s fair, I need to know which direction to run. What if the extra hesitation waiting for the catch/no catch call results in the runner being forced out at second?

  7. 9 minutes ago, Matt said:

    ...and that's why to me, logically, the OP is a home run. If a ball is a home run by passing out of the playing field touching only the top of the wall, then by the definition of home run, it left the playing field in flight. The definition of a ball in flight includes a ball that has touched a fielder. If the top of the wall doesn't render a ball no longer in flight, and we know touching a fielder doesn't, then touching both should not matter--whether it's fielder then top of fence, or top of fence then fielder.

    If the issue is the vertical plane, then it doesn't matter what happens after it hits the top of the fence, and should be a home run at that point (and no balls on top should be considered in play.)

    This is not how I would necessarily rule on the field were this situation ever to happen to me, however.

    The OP was referring to a fly ball that hits the face of the wall and gets knocked out of play. 

  8. Just now, Jimurray said:

    Maybe you should let MLB know this should be a reviewable play. Without researching I think it might be. How they would tell NY I don't know. If you are asking about venues lower than MLB/MiLB we just go with bounced over or bounced not.

    I think it’s just standard practice to consider the top of the wall indeterminate. Just seems a bit weird. 

  9. 1 hour ago, noumpere said:

    FAIR TERRITORY is that part of the playing field within, and
    including the first base and third base lines, from home base to the bot-
    tom of the playing field fence and perpendicularly upwards.

     

    So, a ball that hits the top of the fence has left fair territory.  If the ball bounces (directly) back, the it really hit the facing of the fence, not the top.

     

    Later / recent interps have held (incorreclty in my view) that a ball that rest atop the fence has not left the field and can be retrieved (but not caught).  If the ball can't be retrieved, it's a two-base award.

     

    With enough backspin, it can hit the true top of the wall and bounce back into play. 

  10. 4 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

    2019 NFHS Rule 2 Playing Terms and Definitions

    SECTION 6 BATTED BALL

    ART. 1 . . . A batted or thrown ball is in flight until it has touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

    I really don’t mean to be annoying here, but why is the top of the wall indeterminate? If a fly ball hits the top of the wall and bounces out of play, it’s a home run, but if it bounces back onto the field, it’s in play.

  11. 12 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

    2019 NFHS Case Book Play 8.3.3 Situation H:  B1 hits a long fly ball to left field. F7 goes back to the fence, leaps, but is not able to touch the fly ball. The ball then rebounds off the fence, strikes the fielder’s glove and ricochets over the fence in fair territory. Is this a home run or a ground-rule double? RULING:  This would be considered a ground-rule double. To be a home run, the ball must clear the fence in flight. Action secondary to the hit (ball ricocheting off the fence and then off the fielder’s glove) caused the ball to go into dead-ball area. Therefore, the hit shall be ruled a ground-rule double.

    So why then is it a home run if the ball bounces off of Jose Canseco’s head?

  12. 2 minutes ago, Tborze said:

    I’m not sure of the legality of it.  Maybe because there was a pinch hitter?  
    I can’t recall who they played. 
    Check “close call sports “ on YouTube. It might have been there. 

    As far as I can see, the official rule makes no mention of any exceptions for pinch hitters. 

  13. I have a friend who told me there was a Yankees game a few days ago where the team was allowed to make a pitching change before facing three batters because the other team put in a pinch-hitter.

    I told him the only mid-inning exception to the three batter rule is for injury or illness, but he seems convinced. Does anyone have any idea what he’s talking about?

  14. Just now, Senor Azul said:

    And I say that your friend is wrong because according to Carl Childress in the 2016 edition of his Baseball Rules Differences (section 348, p. 232), there is an official interpretation concerning malicious contact for the MLB:

    “The umpire has the right to eject (a player) from the game if it’s (the contact) blatant, and he’d be automatically out.” [Joe Torre, MLB.com, 2/24/14]

    In addition, there is a great analysis of the MLB collision rule written by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports that will answer your questions--

    HP Collision Rule - Marisnick Illegally Hits Lucroy 7/8/19

    https://www.closecallsports.com/2019/07/hp-collision-rule-marisnick-illegally.html

    You know, I used the Marisnick collision in my argument, but my friend argued that he veered towards lucrative at the last second, and so it couldn’t be used as an example. 

  15. 2 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

    Rule reads: "A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct
    pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher,
    or otherwise initiate an avoidable collision."

    It's TWO requirements.

    1) He many not deviate (alter his path) in order to initiate contact.  aka he may not deviate (alter his path) for the purpose of creating contact.

    2) He may not initiate an AVOIDABLE collision.

    AND THE OFFICIAL IN THE BOOK  COMMENT on your blocking question

    If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner,
    the umpire shall NOT find that the runner initiated an avoidable
    collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1).

     

    The whole comment

    Rule 6.01(i)(1) Comment: The failure by the runner to make
    an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder,
    or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or
    arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated
    from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in
    violation of Rule 6.01(i), or otherwise initiated a collision that
    could have been avoided. A slide shall be deemed appropriate,
    in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs
    should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the
    case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid
    appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact
    with the catcher. If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner,
    the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable
    collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1).

     

    So I think your friend is right.

     

    So, is this even if the catcher has the ball and is attempting to apply a tag?

×
×
  • Create New...