Jump to content

What's the call?

JaxRolo

By JaxRolo
in Rules

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4936 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

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

..sigh...

Becker is spot on. Was the runner (still) being forced to the base AT THE MOMENT HE MISSED THE TOUCH. If so, no runs, if not, time play.

Clear as mud?

..sigh...

Becker is spot on. Was the runner (still) being forced to the base AT THE MOMENT HE MISSED THE TOUCH. If so, no runs, if not, time play.

Clear as mud?

...sigh...somefolksmakethingswaymoredifficultthantheyactuallyhavetobeespeciallywhentheydonttakethetimetoapplywhattheyKNOWtobecorrect.
  • Like 1
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

grayhawk
grayhawk

Read what Harry has to say - does this change anyone's answer? WUM Page 215. Harry's Hints: If a runner is called out on appeal for missing a base that he was forced to advance to at the time th

UmpJM
UmpJM

If the R1 had not yet reached 2B at the time the BR was retired, score the run. If the R1 had already passed 2B at the time the BR was retired, the appeal of his miss is a force out and the run is

johnnyg08
johnnyg08

Man, I couldn't agree more. One lesson that I learned early in my career, when you're getting trained by guys who work much higher levels than you...4 letters, STFU.

jjskitours

jjskitours

Posted
Posted

This is really sad. To think that there are this many umpires that don't know the rules. What is all this nonsense about where R1 was when BR was put out for the 2nd out. The bottom line is that the force on R1 was removed when BR was out and that the appeal is CLEARLY a timing play no matter where his position was at the moment that BR made the 2nd out. Where are you so called umpires getting your information.

yawetag

yawetag

Posted
Posted

jjski, are you saying the position of R1 relative to 2B is immaterial to the appeal for a missed base and whether that miss is considered being forced to the base? If you are, I'd highly suggest you re-think your opinion on the matter.

If your post was sarcasm, it flew way over my head. Sadly, I don't think it was, though.

jjskitours

jjskitours

Posted
Posted

Like I said once the batter-runner was put out at 1st base, the force on R1 no longer exists. Whether R1 had reached 2nd base or passed it at the time BR was put out is irrelevant. The subsequent appeal of R1 missing 2nd base for the 3rd out is a timing play and not a force out. No sarcasm, just a fact. If you have some authoritative proof to the contrary, I'm all ears.

yawetag

yawetag

Posted
Posted

Like I said once the batter-runner was put out at 1st base, the force on R1 no longer exists. Whether R1 had reached 2nd base or passed it at the time BR was put out is irrelevant. The subsequent appeal of R1 missing 2nd base for the 3rd out is a timing play and not a force out. No sarcasm, just a fact. If you have some authoritative proof to the contrary, I'm all ears.

grayhawk posted an answer from Wendelstedt back on page 2.

AZump78

AZump78

Posted
Posted

Like I said once the batter-runner was put out at 1st base, the force on R1 no longer exists. Whether R1 had reached 2nd base or passed it at the time BR was put out is irrelevant. The subsequent appeal of R1 missing 2nd base for the 3rd out is a timing play and not a force out. No sarcasm, just a fact. If you have some authoritative proof to the contrary, I'm all ears.

grayhawk posted an answer from Wendelstedt back on page 2.

Yet-for some unknown reason-it just doesn't sink in for some.

Here it is boys. The never ending thread.

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

But if F1 took his signs off the rubber, it nullifies the whole shooting match, right? Especially if HP is wearing one navy ball bag :fuel:

BRUMP

BRUMP

Posted
Posted

Anyone else find this thread similar to the Braves IFF thread in that some people still won't accept the opinion of a professional umpire academy that has sent more umpires to the big leagues than anyone else?!?!

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

Tell them the sky is blue and watch the pages of follow up posts pile up...

I've sat in class before and listened to guys try to argue with Jim Evans about basic interpretations. :shrug:

Again, I've said it once, I'll say it again. When you're being trained by professionals....STFU

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

And like I said before, if I think 1 thing and HWUS says I'm wrong, I'm not arguing. I will endeavor to better understand the rule and WHY I WAS WRONG. Umpschool TRAINS PROFESSIONAL S!!! You actually think you know more than Hunter and the gang?!?

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

And like I said before, if I think 1 thing and HWUS says I'm wrong, I'm not arguing. I will endeavor to better understand the rule and WHY I WAS WRONG. Umpschool TRAINS PROFESSIONAL S!!! You actually think you know more than Hunter and the gang?!?

No, I do not.

jjskitours

jjskitours

Posted
Posted

Although I have a great deal of respect for both the Jim Evans and Wendelstedt clinics, I'm not sure that their interpretations are always correct nor can they be necessarily considered authoritative proof.

I can't find anything in the OBR or NF rules to support their interpretation. If I rely on what I believe to be the best definition of a Force Play, then R1's position at the time BR is out is irrelevant.

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner. This means anytime a batter is put out before reaching first base ALL forces are off. If a following runner who was forced to advance is put out, the force on the preceding runner is removed.

  • Like 1
UmpJM

UmpJM

Posted
Posted

jj,

Not everything is spelled out in the rules.

Hence, there are interpretation manuals.

If the runner is forced at the instant he misses the base, a subsequent successful appeal of his miss will be considered as a force out.

Even if a following runner is subsequently retired.

I concur that once a following runner is retired, the preceding runner is no longer forced. But, he was forced when he missed the base, and that is what is material.

Whether the following runner is retired before or after reaching 1B is immaterial. Whether the following runner is retired before or after the preceding runner misses his "forced to" base is wholly material.

As Jaksa/Roder puts it:

If a consecutive runner has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner, and he is forced at the moment he misses his advance base, an appeal of that base is always a force out.

I can't believe an umpire with limited experience such as yourself thinks he has the "standing" to credibly argue a point of rule interpretation with major league umpires. Because you don't. And you're wrong.

Yes, I'm sure.

JM

  • Like 2
Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

So sayeth Jurisprudence Magistrate. Wow. JM, can I carry your gear bag? Lol

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

And like I said before, if I think 1 thing and HWUS says I'm wrong, I'm not arguing. I will endeavor to better understand the rule and WHY I WAS WRONG. Umpschool TRAINS PROFESSIONAL S!!! You actually think you know more than Hunter and the gang?!?

No, I do not.

that wasn't for you :notworthy:

It was for the idiot that says HWUS and JEUA, and by implication TUS are not the be all end all.

  • Like 1
noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

Although I have a great deal of respect for both the Jim Evans and Wendelstedt clinics, I'm not sure that their interpretations are always correct nor can they be necessarily considered authoritative proof.

 

 

I agree with this statement but in this specific case they are right.

 

And, if or when I disagree with an interp, I do try to figure out where I went wrong and 99% of the time I find it but sometimes I do think they got it wrong - especially if another interp or authoritarian has a different interp.

jjskitours

jjskitours

Posted
Posted

The problem I have is that I find HWUS, JEUA and J/R differ on interpretations. I wonder if that makes one of them an idiot and if so which one. To be honest, I'm more interested in how NF would interpret this situation. Case Book 9.1.1 K makes no distinction as to the position of the runner from 2nd. Based on the fact that he scored, I could easily envision that he had already rounded 3rd when the putout at 2nd was made which in effect removed the force. If it made a difference you would think the Case Book would have so noted.   

UmpJM

UmpJM

Posted
Posted

jj,

 

There are, indeed, a few situations regarding which those three sources of "authoritative opinion" diverge which are not addressed in any "official" interpretation. Some of the JEA and J/R interpretations I believe have become "outdated" in terms of current "custom and practice". I don't (yet) own the Wendelstedt manual, but I would expect it to be the most "current" of the three.

 

I might also suggest that you have far too much faith in the authors of the FED case book, though your point is well taken.

 

JM

  • Like 1
grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

I sent off the question to Ken Allan for a Fed interpretation.  I guess I would like to know if we are still "so called umpires" or does the posting of two authoritative opinions on the subject qualify us as just "umpires"?

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

I sent off the question to Ken Allan for a Fed interpretation. I guess I would like to know if we are still "so called umpires" or does the posting of two authoritative opinions on the subject qualify us as just "umpires"?

I heard back from Ken and he said that the Fed interpretation is the same as Harry's.

  • Like 1
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...