Jump to content

1951 world series

JohnnySpot

By JohnnySpot
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 6282 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

JohnnySpot

JohnnySpot

Posted
Posted

Ok, before I begin, refrain from thinking I'm a geek and think about this....I am watching the 1951 World Series footage on MLB network and I see this...

the count is 3 balls and ? strikes on a Yankee batter and Rizzuto is stealing...ball 4 and the film shows a stealing Rizzuto pulling up (slowing down to a jog)and veering toward the outside (centerfield side) of 2B about 5 feet north of the bag...

1)do you think he should have been in jeopardy of being put out with respect to this rule?

Rule 7.04(:crybaby2: Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. B]

2)how do you judge if he was 'past the base to which he is entitled'?

PS the 2B umpire actually grabbed Rizzuto to slow him down and put him on the base

I wish you all could see it to better understand what i am talking about but I think you get the idea

  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

widac

widac

Posted
Posted

I was watching the same show but didn't notice this play. I can't follow your description easily. If the runner was stealing 2nd and ran past the bag then yes I think he would be in jeopardy of being put out. I would love to see the part of the ump grabbing a runner in a live ball sit.

LMSANS

LMSANS

Posted
Posted

This took place over 58 years ago. I don't see how you can apply todays rules and methods to this situation.

Even if the rule was the same, umpiring philosophy was very different than today.

B)

BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
Posted

This took place over 58 years ago. I don't see how you can apply todays rules and methods to this situation.

Even if the rule was the same, umpiring philosophy was very different than today.

B)

Agreed, though I doubt that an umpire grabbing a baserunner was an acceptable practice, even in those days. That must have been a hoot!

"Careful there, Scooter, you don't want to overrun second base! Say, where's a good place to get dinner while I'm in the City? You want to join me?" :D

Is this video on the MLB.com site, or is it via their subscription service?

JohnnySpot

JohnnySpot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This took place over 58 years ago. I don't see how you can apply todays rules and methods to this situation.

Even if the rule was the same, umpiring philosophy was very different than today.

B)

You are kind of being a master of the obvious...I was just asking your (everyone's) opinion based on today's rules...I can tell you'd be a joy to be partner's with

LMSANS

LMSANS

Posted
Posted

You are kind of being a master of the obvious...I was just asking your (everyone's) opinion based on today's rules...I can tell you'd be a joy to be partner's with

:HD:

So, you don't like my opinion I guess. :shrug:

Actually, one of my partners was umpiring in 1951. Maybe I can ask him to compare that play with a similar play today.

BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
Posted

:HD:

So, you don't like my opinion I guess. :shrug:

Actually, one of my partners was umpiring in 1951. Maybe I can ask him to compare that play with a similar play today.

Yeah, but was he friends with Rizzuto? ;):fuel: :D

BT_Blue

BT_Blue

Posted
Posted

Ok, so I have dish and they dont carry MLBnetwork. So it looks like I need to spend time at the inlaws that do have DirectTV and MLBnetwork. I guess you have to take the good with the bad right?

widac

widac

Posted
Posted

I'm telling you that it is a great channel. I woke up this morning and the '69 World Series is on. It seems like they have 1/2 hour shows with WS highlights from every year. They carried all of the Caribbean Series, 12 games in 6 days, all live. They are going to show spring games, there are 3 games on on 2/25, live, and hey are going to split the WBC with ESPN.

Oh, the '77 WS is coming on now.

BT_Blue

BT_Blue

Posted
Posted

I agree, it seems my local Comcast has passed on the channel. :shrug:

I think they are owned by the same company... maybe not. Anyways I want my MLB network but sounds like for now it will involve many trips to the inlaws and their DirectTV connection.

BT_Blue

BT_Blue

Posted
Posted

I would be willing to handle what ever extra charge it would be for me to get the channel. Now just to have Dish comply with my request.

widac

widac

Posted
Posted

According to the link, it's carried in my area - - so what's the added cost to my Comcast cable bill? :?

I don't know about Comcast. I have Direct TV and it just popped up on the menu on Jan 1, right next to the NFL network, no extra charge.

mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

According to the link, it's carried in my area - - so what's the added cost to my Comcast cable bill? :?

My understanding is it should be part of your HD basic. It shouldn't be an additional cost but you may need to call Comcast and have them reset your signal.

When I got my HD box they carry two types, one that has an individual wire bundle and one that works through a HDMI cable. Unfortunately they didn't have any HDMI types but I am going to talk to them Monday and see if I can upgrade, it affects the sound, and ask them about the MLB channel.

Bigdog

Bigdog

Posted
Posted

I don't know about Comcast. I have Direct TV and it just popped up on the menu on Jan 1, right next to the NFL network, no extra charge.

Hey all,

And a beautiful thing it is, too!!:clap::clap::clap: Channel 213.

Bigdog:cool:

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