Jump to content

What cha got IV

dumbdumb

By dumbdumb
in Collegiate

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 5299 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

Two things, the U3 ruled on it as it happened. He saw it and showed a smurfey signal. Two, since when do players plead their case?

dumbdumb

dumbdumb

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Two things, the U3 ruled on it as it happened. He saw it and showed a smurfey signal. Two, since when do players plead their case?

Why is the word saafe--coming up as smurfey when we spell it correctly. What's going on?

And, what cha got for the call. Interference or no interference. Just asking.

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

I think it is smurfey to say that is was definitely SOMETHING.

If you judge the fielder to be "protected" then it's INT and kill the play, otherwise, OBS and DDB.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

I think it is smurfey to say that is was definitely SOMETHING. If you judge the fielder to be "protected" then it's INT and kill the play, otherwise, OBS and DDB.

Clearly the joker saw it...he signaled "that's nothing" then changed it to that's something. Seems like maybe he made the "that's nothing" signal as more of an automatic than signaling what he saw. (Which I likely have done at one time or another)

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

I am sure you are right, and by no means was I digging at the calling umpire. Hell I've been guilty of the automatic "that's nothing" my fair share as well.

I just wanted to further the discussion towards whether or not the fielder in this instance should be afforded "protection".

Was he attempting to field the ball? Absolutely.

Was he in the immediate act of fielding the ball?

Is a "step and a reach" what you would normally use as your guide?

Is this play an exception to that rule of thumb? Ie, an example of INT even though the bounding ball was still a good ways away?

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

Is a "step and a reach" what you would normally use as your guide?

This is not what I have used as my guide. I use the above as a guide for a ball that has been misplayed.

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

Since it was interference could they have gotten 2 outs out of it?

Fittske24

Fittske24

Posted
Posted

Since it was interference could they have gotten 2 outs out of it?

I don't see any chance of turning two on the play so I only get one out. In NCAA, if there is a chance at turning two, then the runner committing interference is out and the runner closest to home plate regardless of where the double play would have occurred is also out.

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

Is a "step and a reach" what you would normally use as your guide?

This is not what I have used as my guide. I use the above as a guide for a ball that has been misplayed.

So are you saying the fielder is still afforded "protection" after he has misplayed the ball, if the ball remains within a 'step and a reach'?

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

Side note - for any younger/newer umpires reading this: Please do not EVER EVER EVER say the words "step and a reach" when talking to a coach. It is not written in the rule book, just a generally accepted guideline for us umpires to determine what 3 feet is.

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

Since it was interference could they have gotten 2 outs out of it?

I don't see any chance of turning two on the play so I only get one out. In NCAA, if there is a chance at turning two, then the runner committing interference is out and the runner closest to home plate regardless of where the double play would have occurred is also out.

Thats only true if the batter runner interferes with a fielder that the second out is the runner closest to home. If another runner interferes then the batter runner becomes the second out. Both of those are only if a double play is likely and as a practical matter the benefit of the doubt goes to the offense so most of the time you will get only one out on this play.

I am sure you are right, and by no means was I digging at the calling umpire. Hell I've been guilty of the automatic "that's nothing" my fair share as well.

I just wanted to further the discussion towards whether or not the fielder in this instance should be afforded "protection".

Was he attempting to field the ball? Absolutely.

Was he in the immediate act of fielding the ball?

Is a "step and a reach" what you would normally use as your guide?

Is this play an exception to that rule of thumb? Ie, an example of INT even though the bounding ball was still a good ways away?

Your first criteria is the only one that is needed and the immediate act and step and reach have nothing to do with this play.

The concepts on the interference are the same in all the rules mentioned at the begining and whether to get the second out is stated differently in pro than in NCAA or HS but as a pracitacl matter most of the time it will end up the same as I mentioned before.

Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

Side note - for any younger/newer umpires reading this: Please do not EVER EVER EVER say the words "step and a reach" when talking to a coach. It is not written in the rule book, just a generally accepted guideline for us umpires to determine what 3 feet is.

In OBR at least, while "step and a reach" is not anywhere, "reach" is - in the following in the MLBUM. While this thread is about NCAA, the OBR is more widely used and much of the NCAA rule set is OBR-based.

6.23 (4) With bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off of the shortstop and starts

to roll away from him. As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides

with him.

Ruling: After the ball deflects off the shortstop, if the ball is within the fielder's immediate reach,

the runner must avoid the fielder, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, interference

shall be called and the runner declared out. (In this situation the fielder is still considered "in the

act of fielding" the ball and has not "missed" as described in the Casebook Comments to Official

Baseball Rule 2.00 (Obstruction).) However, if the ball is not within reach of the fielder after it

deflects off him (i.e., the fielder must chase after the ball), the fielder must then avoid the runner,

and if contact occurs under those circumstances, obstruction shall be called under Official

Baseball Rule 7.06(b )

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

Since it was interference could they have gotten 2 outs out of it?

I don't see any chance of turning two on the play so I only get one out. In NCAA, if there is a chance at turning two, then the runner committing interference is out and the runner closest to home plate regardless of where the double play would have occurred is also out.

Thats only true if the batter runner interferes with a fielder that the second out is the runner closest to home. If another runner interferes then the batter runner becomes the second out. Both of those are only if a double play is likely and as a practical matter the benefit of the doubt goes to the offense so most of the time you will get only one out on this play.

I am sure you are right, and by no means was I digging at the calling umpire. Hell I've been guilty of the automatic "that's nothing" my fair share as well.

I just wanted to further the discussion towards whether or not the fielder in this instance should be afforded "protection".

Was he attempting to field the ball? Absolutely.

Was he in the immediate act of fielding the ball?

Is a "step and a reach" what you would normally use as your guide?

Is this play an exception to that rule of thumb? Ie, an example of INT even though the bounding ball was still a good ways away?

Your first criteria is the only one that is needed and the immediate act and step and reach have nothing to do with this play.

The concepts on the interference are the same in all the rules mentioned at the begining and whether to get the second out is stated differently in pro than in NCAA or HS but as a pracitacl matter most of the time it will end up the same as I mentioned before.

Agreed. I think this is pretty clear case of INT. Just posing the above as more of a mental exercise than anything.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

Side note - for any younger/newer umpires reading this: Please do not EVER EVER EVER say the words "step and a reach" when talking to a coach. It is not written in the rule book, just a generally accepted guideline for us umpires to determine what 3 feet is.

Agreed C. Brown...it is simply an accepted interpretation on a misplayed ball. If the fielder has to chase the ball, he now has to avoid the runner.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...