Pan-Am games. What the heck?

[noumpere]

Hidden Content

 Clowns circling the wagons: 

“The ruling was that he (Vargas) wasn’t astride or straddling the rubber,’’ said Baseball Canada technical director Jim Baba, who is also an IBAF official. “If he wasn’t astride the rubber or if he was behind the rubber, he was okay. The U.S. wanted to protest it but we had to explain to Mr. Tracy that you can’t protest a judgment. You can protest a rule but you can’t protest a judgment.’’

Then he was "simulating a pitching motion while not in contact" -- so it should have been a balk for that.

 

Poor pooch.

[Jimurray]

Then he was "simulating a pitching motion while not in contact" -- so it should have been a balk for that.

 

Poor pooch.

That's if you want to make the argument that in Canada the PU pointing made the ball live in F4's glove. I've got a tally of balks called after the PU was fooled into making the ball live (not) on a hidden ball trick. Now we have an out called after the PU was fooled into making the ball live. 

[UMP45]

Hidden Content

 Clowns circling the wagons: 

“The ruling was that he (Vargas) wasn’t astride or straddling the rubber,’’ said Baseball Canada technical director Jim Baba, who is also an IBAF official. “If he wasn’t astride the rubber or if he was behind the rubber, he was okay. The U.S. wanted to protest it but we had to explain to Mr. Tracy that you can’t protest a judgment. You can protest a rule but you can’t protest a judgment.’’

You still can't put the ball in play.

[noumpere]

That's if you want to make the argument that in Canada the PU pointing made the ball live in F4's glove. I've got a tally of balks called after the PU was fooled into making the ball live (not) on a hidden ball trick. Now we have an out called after the PU was fooled into making the ball live. 

I'm assuming that the ball was live, otherwise the explanation makes even less sense. 

 

I have seen umpire point the ball live, even when it already was.  Heck, I might have even done it myself once or twice.

 

(I saw only one video of the play and that video did not show the umpire pointing the ball live, nor did it show anyone calling "time", so I honestly have no idea on the status.  I do get that no matter how you slice it, it was a wrong call.)

[Jimurray]

I'm assuming that the ball was live, otherwise the explanation makes even less sense. 

 

I have seen umpire point the ball live, even when it already was.  Heck, I might have even done it myself once or twice.

 

(I saw only one video of the play and that video did not show the umpire pointing the ball live, nor did it show anyone calling "time", so I honestly have no idea on the status.  I do get that no matter how you slice it, it was a wrong call.)

If the video you saw was the OP video then it's possible the ball was live. We assumed the ball was dead because they showed a break and after that there was an infielder at the mound and the PU pointed it live after that. So then in the video the pitcher was not on or astride because his full foot was not astride the rubber? The umps got it right? Maybe we are wrong? Did you see the pitcher on or astride in the video?

[zm1283]

Hidden Content

 Clowns circling the wagons: 

“The ruling was that he (Vargas) wasn’t astride or straddling the rubber,’’ said Baseball Canada technical director Jim Baba, who is also an IBAF official. “If he wasn’t astride the rubber or if he was behind the rubber, he was okay. The U.S. wanted to protest it but we had to explain to Mr. Tracy that you can’t protest a judgment. You can protest a rule but you can’t protest a judgment.’’

So not only are at least some of the umpires clueless, but so is this Baseball Canada clown. 

The pitcher was on the rubber when the PU appeared to put the ball back in play. You can see him from both angles step off just as the runner is tagged. Depending on the status of the ball, this was either nothing or a balk. 

[noumpere]

So then in the video the pitcher was not on or astride because his full foot was not astride the rubber? The umps got it right? Maybe we are wrong? Did you see the pitcher on or astride in the video?

Sigh.  No.

 

*IF* the ball was dead, then it couldn't be made live and return the runner.

*IF* the ball was live, and the pitcher was astride, then it's a balk for "being astride without the ball".

*IF the ball was live, and the pitcher was NOT astride, then it's a balk for "simulating a pitching motion".

 

By definition (?), one of those three things happened, yet the ruling was an out.  Unless there's some evidence we don't have and isn't apparent from the video I saw, it was a wrong call for one reason or another.