Jump to content

This is just bad ....

Thunderheads

By Thunderheads
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 5128 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 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Richvee
Richvee

(3) The runner may slide through and beyond the base toward left field and be unable to reach the base provided that he does not do so in order to contact the fielder who has retreated to this positio

Jocko
Jocko

Just the way it should be

JaxRolo
JaxRolo

No way that is clean. Dirty, maliciuos, unsportmanlike. Why they let MLB guys get away with hurting players is beyond me! There should be Jail time involved in this!

Posted Images

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

For the record, I hate that they play like this, but it's MLB. They play hard and often dirty. Was it rotten? Yes. Horsesh*t? Sure. Part of the game? 100%. Thats why I expect some chin music in the near future. Because that's part of the game too.

I have a good no-call by U2. Sucks, but thats the way it is. Hope noone sharpens their spikes. This has the makings of a riot.

SF will get a chance for their pound of flesh, THEN the warnings will come.

Just the way it should be
  • Like 2
AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

As an aside: anyone else notice Gibby's SUPER quick timing on the play?

Can't help but wonder if that was a factor in the call he made.

SUPER quick?

Uh-Yea! He made the call before the ball left Scutaro's hand! Rewatch and see Thunder.

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

I am going to say it so feel free to flame away...

If Gibby had called it, NOT ONE of you would be posting here saying "he kicked it, that is not INT". It would be all "atta boys" and the like.

Can his no call be justified by rule? Some here have shown it indeed can be (not unlike Sammy's IFF call BTW).

But, if he had called it would anyone (his CC, MLB supervisors, any one here to a lesser extent) have called him out or criticized the call? I highly doubt it because it would be really easy/obvious to grab.

Just my .02

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

I am going to say it so feel free to flame away...

If Gibby had called it, NOT ONE of you would be posting here saying "he kicked it, that is not INT". It would be all "atta boys" and the like.

Can his no call be justified by rule? Some here have shown it indeed can be (not unlike Sammy's IFF call BTW).

But, if he had called it would anyone (his CC, MLB supervisors, any one here to a lesser extent) have called him out or criticized the call? I highly doubt it because it would be really easy/obvious to grab.

Just my .02

so, are you saying he has carte blanche and no argument either way?
basejester

basejester

Posted
Posted

[As an aside: anyone else notice Gibby's SUPER quick timing on the play?

Can't help but wonder if that was a factor in the call he made.

What mechanics would you use if you were calling interference? Wouldn't you call the force out first?
Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

I am going to say it so feel free to flame away...

If Gibby had called it, NOT ONE of you would be posting here saying "he kicked it, that is not INT". It would be all "atta boys" and the like.

Can his no call be justified by rule? Some here have shown it indeed can be (not unlike Sammy's IFF call BTW).

But, if he had called it would anyone (his CC, MLB supervisors, any one here to a lesser extent) have called him out or criticized the call? I highly doubt it because it would be really easy/obvious to grab.

Just my .02

I would have. This is not INT in OBR, no way, no how. Bush? Yep. Just like bunting or stealing when up by 10.

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

[As an aside: anyone else notice Gibby's SUPER quick timing on the play?

Can't help but wonder if that was a factor in the call he made.

What mechanics would you use if you were calling interference? Wouldn't you call the force out first?

The mechanic he would make is irrelevant, it was the timing that was pointed out.

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

I am going to say it so feel free to flame away...

If Gibby had called it, NOT ONE of you would be posting here saying "he kicked it, that is not INT". It would be all "atta boys" and the like.

Can his no call be justified by rule? Some here have shown it indeed can be (not unlike Sammy's IFF call BTW).

But, if he had called it would anyone (his CC, MLB supervisors, any one here to a lesser extent) have called him out or criticized the call? I highly doubt it because it would be really easy/obvious to grab.

Just my .02

so, are you saying he has carte blanche and no argument either way?

No all I am saying is noone would have said a peep criticizing a INT call had it been made.

basejester

basejester

Posted
Posted

No, if you are calling the interference the BR is going to be out too.

?

I realize that.

What signals are you using if you judge interference on a crash after the crashing baserunner has been forced?

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

I am going to say it so feel free to flame away...

If Gibby had called it, NOT ONE of you would be posting here saying "he kicked it, that is not INT". It would be all "atta boys" and the like.

Can his no call be justified by rule? Some here have shown it indeed can be (not unlike Sammy's IFF call BTW).

But, if he had called it would anyone (his CC, MLB supervisors, any one here to a lesser extent) have called him out or criticized the call? I highly doubt it because it would be really easy/obvious to grab.

Just my .02

I would have. This is not INT in OBR, no way, no how. Bush? Yep. Just like bunting or stealing when up by 10.

Well I would have admired your cajones if that had occurred.

I wouldn't go as far as "no way, no how" though. If the umpire had grabbed it and said three words "judgement-willful-deliberate" he would, by rule, have been justified in calling the INT.

Just sayin'

  • Like 1
Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

I am going to say it so feel free to flame away...

If Gibby had called it, NOT ONE of you would be posting here saying "he kicked it, that is not INT". It would be all "atta boys" and the like.

Can his no call be justified by rule? Some here have shown it indeed can be (not unlike Sammy's IFF call BTW).

But, if he had called it would anyone (his CC, MLB supervisors, any one here to a lesser extent) have called him out or criticized the call? I highly doubt it because it would be really easy/obvious to grab.

Just my .02

I would have. This is not INT in OBR, no way, no how. Bush? Yep. Just like bunting or stealing when up by 10.

Well I would have admired your cajones if that had occurred.

I wouldn't go as far as "no way, no how" though. If the umpire had grabbed it and said three words "judgement-willful-deliberate" he would, by rule, have been justified in calling the INT.

Just sayin'

No, he wouldn't. "Willful and deliberate" is the criteria for the second out. There still has to be an initial basis for the violation.

Example: Grounder to F6. F6 starts to flip to F4, at which point R1 slides to the 3B side of 2B. F6 holds the ball instead of flipping. R1 takes out F6 as F6 reaches the bag. This is not "willful and deliberate," because R1 tried to avoid the fielder he thought was going to make the play, even if R1 slid too far wide.

basejester

basejester

Posted
Posted

"Time, that's interference", while pointing at the runners.."you, out. you out."

Thank you for answering the question.

7.09(f), where we'd kill it and then call both outs, refers to a batted ball. Is there another rule that applies? I thought we were getting the R1 under a normal 7.08(e)?

I don't see how the umpire hasn't missed his opportunity to get an out under 6.05(m)/7.09(e) by calling the R1 out.

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As an aside: anyone else notice Gibby's SUPER quick timing on the play?

Can't help but wonder if that was a factor in the call he made.

SUPER quick?

Uh-Yea! He made the call before the ball left Scutaro's hand! Rewatch and see Thunder.

Well, I guess it is a little quick. I think he called it once he saw a clean transfer ....

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

I am going to say it so feel free to flame away...

If Gibby had called it, NOT ONE of you would be posting here saying "he kicked it, that is not INT". It would be all "atta boys" and the like.

Can his no call be justified by rule? Some here have shown it indeed can be (not unlike Sammy's IFF call BTW).

But, if he had called it would anyone (his CC, MLB supervisors, any one here to a lesser extent) have called him out or criticized the call? I highly doubt it because it would be really easy/obvious to grab.

Just my .02

I would have. This is not INT in OBR, no way, no how. Bush? Yep. Just like bunting or stealing when up by 10.

Well I would have admired your cajones if that had occurred.

I wouldn't go as far as "no way, no how" though. If the umpire had grabbed it and said three words "judgement-willful-deliberate" he would, by rule, have been justified in calling the INT.

Just sayin'

No, he wouldn't. "Willful and deliberate" is the criteria for the second out. There still has to be an initial basis for the violation.

Example: Grounder to F6. F6 starts to flip to F4, at which point R1 slides to the 3B side of 2B. F6 holds the ball instead of flipping. R1 takes out F6 as F6 reaches the bag. This is not "willful and deliberate," because R1 tried to avoid the fielder he thought was going to make the play, even if R1 slid too far wide.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd out is what has been discussed the last 4 pages...

mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

If you are calling interference then absolutely you get the second out. The runner is already out, WTH do you think he would interfere, to break up the double play. I don't like the baseball definition of a rolling block. Football has passed all kinds of rules to protect players, some horrible I might add, but baseball has done nothing to protect very highly paid players. If it wasn't borderline or bush then I wouldn't be watching them talk about it on Mike and Mike this morning. He wouldn't have been asked about it in post game.

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

2nd pitch hits B1 in the knee. Not hard, but I believe definite payback. Maybe it's all settled now.

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