jimurrayalterego

Yes, if the Cubs had handled it correctly there would be at least one and maybe two outs and the no call would be much more controversial on the offensive side. But would those umps have used the no call in error interp and negate a DP?

MLB did not consider the sun to be part of the weather conditions back when Jaska-Roder interps were authoritive: "When determining ordinary effort, wind is a factor, sun in a fielder's eyes and natural darkness are not". We don't know if that's Lindsey's opinion or she has knowledge of an updated MLB interp.

The question is if the ball is in the air on what should be an IFF and the Cubs actually faked it can you call the IFF after the fact because you judged they faked it? But what if the cubs got a DP or TP on this one that was not faked but had two infielders that could have caught it with ordinary effort. Do you negate the DP/TP because the IFF was not called and should have been. That's been our guidance before. Luckily the Cubs totally screwed up.

The Cubs are not guilty of acting like nobody could find it to let it drop and get a DP or TP but F1 and F2 had a shot. But if you don't point IFF with a ball in that area because smart MLB players do a goatrope and want to let it drop to get a DP or TP do you then call IFF?

That's the last interp I have known. Per BRD, Jaska-Roder has wind as a factor but sun in a fielder's eyes is not.

From the Comment to the rule: "This rule is designed to require constant vigilance by the players and managers of both teams."

I get it now. So can ABS be up and running tomorrow?

I don't know you mean by E-Management but there should be some penalty for what happened at the dugout.

I argued in this Facebook post to no avail. The sycophants all said the second example was illegal. Whether that is actually being called in the real world games I don't know. https://www.facebook.com/groups/465162970169200/?multi_permalinks=3931889993496463&hoisted_section_header_type=recently_seen&__cft__[0]=AZUDRY95yyEy2qbW-BCrR7RxANY5ZrsAV_RnPLJFZK6BAsWMxjh--VIi5aM9_HwbEX9HXIeULk528JZp7ymDGMPGit53R0PR0H-H2lmSMWsmxFXVddbfOLDiTodjwfbEMetDQDwSvOwhZbM6wT3l6vj8qE3VddYVziNrcouNALbEWA&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Manager did come out and batter did confront the ump. Reynolds let it slide. Could they get the technology going by tomorrow?

Oh well.

You need to ask them where the rule book restricts a pitcher's choice of delivery. No matter what the runner config, if a pitcher/game sit doesn't care if the runner steals he might prefer to deliver his best pitch from the windup. Do your guys balk a conventional windup pitcher who backward steps toward 2B with R2 there when the bases are loaded?

I'm getting the impression you seem to think they might have missed calling it after the pitch was delivered and the ball wasn't put into play. Just to be clear this is not a balk but if the MLB umps were to call a balk for some other reason it would be called immediately. What would be delayed would be the call of "time" depending on what happened.

Examples of square windup pitchers using stutter step to deliver sideways. Both legal in OBR. I don't know if Randy Bruns still has an issue with the forward stutter step in NCAA. In years past he was literally enforcing the wording of not taking a second step toward home which would make the black uniform pitcher illegal. Step Forward.MOV Step side.MOV

MLB will be along shortly to learn them. Meanwhile we effin idiots educate one little thread on a tree of threads on Facebook or Youtube where no poster ever reads the whole thread. Pissin in the wind.