Another reason OBR is the MOST complicated :-)

[Thunderheads]

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=23736361

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23736361&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_23736361&v=3

[kristoffae]

"A balk is like a penalty, you can decline it" :spit:

[johnnyg08]

Douche announcer. "It didn't take Angel Hernandez long to insert himself into this game..."

Easy call, batter and all runners didn't advance at least one base...so the hitters comes back and hits again. No, the offense doesn't have the option on this play.

[BRUMP]

Anyone see what the balk is? Im not seeing it.

[Thunderheads]

Anyone see what the balk is? Im not seeing it.

no pause .......

http://www.closecallsports.com/2012/08/galarraga-gaffe-umpires-correctly-rule.html

[cyclonehokiece]

Umpires announcing what is going on, boy, this could get interesting......

[Thunderheads]

Umpires announcing what is going on, boy, this could get interesting......

yeah, that football referfence was bad!!

[BRUMP]

Anyone see what the balk is? Im not seeing it.

no pause .......

http://www.closecall...ectly-rule.html

Oh now I see it

[Guest]

I don't see how this makes OBR the most complicated?

F1 doesn't stop. Verbal "That's a balk" and point once the pitch is caught or hit so you don't get drilled. When F8 catches the ball, the criteria for not enforcing the balk becomes impossible to be met, so kill it then: "time, you (R3) score, you (R1) to second, you (batter) back here."

The conference was most likely due diligence to Mills who probably wanted the out and had the rule confused with catcher's interference.

I don't see an issue with umpires announcing non-routine plays over the PA system like hockey and footballs penalties / video reviews. What's the big deal? If it goes against the home team, you get booed. If it goes in their favour, you get cheered. That's how it is anyways. It would also straighten out moron announcers trying to guess what happened and misinforming their audience in the process.

Plus, inevitably, some umpire would come up with their own version of a "giving them the business" call, which would be hilarious.

[Thunderheads]

Chris, ...for us, not so much because we study it ..........listen to the announcers ....and think of the common folk thinking "wtf" ?? ;)

[Umpire in Chief]

Correct ruling, but I don't see why the guys had to get together.

[johnnyg08]

It's not a common play, my guess is that he was just making sure that they couldn't take the out, the run, and "decline" the penalty. It really didn't seem like there was much discussing going on...the one umpire was there nodding his head like..."yep, he's gotta go back and hit again"

How fun must that be to explain on a hit by pitch?

[cyclonehokiece]

I don't get why they would want to decline the penalty (I know they cannot decline a balk). They get the run on the balk, R1 moves to 2nd, and the batter is still up. Advantage offense on the balk penalty, no need to get together, advance runner, put batter back at plate.

[JHSump]

I don't get why they would want to decline the penalty (I know they cannot decline a balk). They get the run on the balk, R1 moves to 2nd, and the batter is still up. Advantage offense on the balk penalty, no need to get together, advance runner, put batter back at plate.

"...they can decline the penalty..." As regards the ultimate outcome, that was the announcer putting his mouth in gear before engaging his brain.

[Umpire in Chief]

Now if it were catchers interference there would be the possibility of declining the Interference.

[Haid D' Salaami]

I don't see how this makes OBR the most complicated?

F1 doesn't stop. Verbal "That's a balk" and point once the pitch is caught or hit so you don't get drilled. When F8 catches the ball, the criteria for not enforcing the balk becomes impossible to be met, so kill it then: "time, you (R3) score, you (R1) to second, you (batter) back here."

The conference was most likely due diligence to Mills who probably wanted the out and had the rule confused with catcher's interference.

I don't see an issue with umpires announcing non-routine plays over the PA system like hockey and footballs penalties / video reviews. What's the big deal? If it goes against the home team, you get booed. If it goes in their favour, you get cheered. That's how it is anyways. It would also straighten out moron announcers trying to guess what happened and misinforming their audience in the process.

Plus, inevitably, some umpire would come up with their own version of a "giving them the business" call, which would be hilarious.

PU should not point... just announce.. good way to get hit with the ball.

[Umpete]

That's former major leaguer F. P. Santangelo (see the Mitchell Report) providing the color for my Nat's. He's no Vin Scully, but I can listen to him. He's definitely a homer, but not in a Hawk Harrelson way.

[JHSump]

Now if it were catchers interference there would be the possibility of declining the Interference.

Excellent point...which they didn't seem to understand either!

Why doesn't ESPN, Fox, etc., just give them a little training session on these sorts of things? They could even hire an umpire to run through the basic most common issues! Then the trained announcers would be so much better and sound so much more authoritative.

[Jocko]

Or have a retired umpire in the booth micd up too. Jimmy would probably be a good one.

[JHSump]

Well, it wouldn't hurt to have an umpire guest once in a while. But don't hold your breath!! :)