Lineup and Balk Questions from Varsity Fed Game

[GreyhoundAggie]

Had 2 different situations in our game tonight I want to ask the group and see if we did it right. FED Varsity.

Situation 1

Visiting Team is batting. #12 is up to bat with a 3-0 count. Home team coach comes and out and mentions "The lineup says #19 is supposed to be at bat, they don't have a #12 on the lineup anywhere." The coach wanted an out which was incorrect no matter what since even if it was an incorrect batter, the correct batter would take over the count. 

I ruled that he had the proper name of the player written even if he had written the wrong number down and therefore he was the proper batter. Is this correct?

Situation 2

Runner on 2nd. Runner breaks for 3rd. Pitcher steps and throws to 3rd without disengaging. My partner ruled this a balk. I thought you could step and throw to an unoccupied base for the purposes of making a play without disengaging. What's the correct ruling here? We stuck with his call since I wasn't positive.

And for a fun way to start, we had to eject a player in the bottom of the 1st inning. R1 got in a rundown between 1st and 2nd on a pickoff. Ended up being tagged around the head/face area and didn't like it but the play was fine. No MC or intent, just a baseball play. I was PU. R1 got in the face of the kid who tagged him. My partner broke them up and warned them both to not say another word. As R1 is going back towards his dugout he yells for the whole park to hear "tell him not to hit me in the f-ing face."  I promptly acknowledged his desire to no longer participate.

[ElkOil]

Sit. 1: Correct. The name is what matters, not the number. A team can have multiple players with the same number.

Sit. 2: You're right. You don't have to disengage to throw to a base. F1 must step toward the base if he's on the rubber.

[Jimurray]

Not impressive rule, and caseplay knowledge by two umpires. 

[VolUmp]

The Great Eight:

1)  Rose Griffey Morgan Bench Perez Foster Concepcion Geronimo

2)  ... Except For The Purpose Of Making A Play

Not only is it disconcerting that two FED umps were not "sure" of this rule, it's disconcerting that two HS coaches evidently weren't either to not have a rhubarb started.

[Mad Mike]

Can I just say that why not give props to Greyhound Aggie for posting the situation, instead of bashing him and his partner? We can all learn from each other's mistakes without having some holier than thou attitude, right? Or perhaps you guys have never made a mistake before?

In many locations, baseball is starting back up. We all have some rust on us and some have all heck of a lot more rust than others. No need to put guys down. What does that possibly solve? Wait for it..........

 

Take it easy on folks or nobody's gonna wanna post their "mistakes".

Geez....no respect around here!

[ALStripes17]

Not impressive rule, and caseplay knowledge by two umpires. 

The Great Eight:
1)  Rose Griffey Morgan Bench Perez Foster Concepcion Geronimo
2)  ... Except For The Purpose Of Making A Play
Not only is it disconcerting that two FED umps were not "sure" of this rule, it's disconcerting that two HS coaches evidently weren't either to not have a rhubarb started.

Shameful commentary by both of you...

[maven]

9 hours ago, GreyhoundAggie said:

Visiting Team is batting. #12 is up to bat with a 3-0 count. Home team coach comes and out and mentions "The lineup says #19 is supposed to be at bat, they don't have a #12 on the lineup anywhere." The coach wanted an out which was incorrect no matter what since even if it was an incorrect batter, the correct batter would take over the count. 

I ruled that he had the proper name of the player written even if he had written the wrong number down and therefore he was the proper batter. Is this correct?

The penalty is for the proper batter missing his time at bat. There is no penalty for the coach writing the proper batter's number incorrectly on the lineup card. Assuming that the proper batter was up, you handled it correctly.

9 hours ago, GreyhoundAggie said:

Runner on 2nd. Runner breaks for 3rd. Pitcher steps and throws to 3rd without disengaging. My partner ruled this a balk. I thought you could step and throw to an unoccupied base for the purposes of making a play without disengaging. What's the correct ruling here? We stuck with his call since I wasn't positive.

Well, here's the rule your crew applied, so you tell us:

Quote

 

6-2-4: Balk. If there is a runner or runners, any of the following acts by a pitcher while he is touching the pitcher's plate is a balk:

b. ... throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner;

 

 

[GreyhoundAggie]

Thanks for the replies. I appreciate the comments and clarifications. 

I'm glad I handled the lineup issue correctly. The proper batter was definitely up. I was almost positive I had it right. Just wanted to make sure for the next time it comes up. 

On the balk issue. I told my partner that he could throw to the base for the purpose of making a play and used that exact terminology. He said he was positive you couldn't and it was his call originally so I wasn't going to overrule him. He made me doubt myself about whether I was remembering correctly. It nagged me the rest of the game so that's why I came here and double checked whether or not I had it right in my head.

My partner even said let me know what they say. He wants to know whether he had it wrong so he can get it right next time. 

Another reason I was second guessed myself was in another game a coach tried to say the same thing about disengaging on a play to 2nd on the runner going from 1st. Tried to say it was a balk and I disagreed. So there are times when you start doubting yourself when multiple people disagree with your ruling. 

 

[Kevin_K]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundAggie said:

Just wanted to make sure for the next time it comes up. 

Over the course of my experiences, whether they are on the baseball field or elsewhere, when I have sought counsel on my actions, I rarely doubt how I approach similar situations in the future.

Self reflection, the willingness to seek advice, and accepting sound advice are traits too many fail to embrace.

Keep it up @GreyhoundAggie

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, ElkOil said:

Sit. 2: You're right. You don't have to disengage to throw to a base. F1 must step toward the base if he's on the rubber.

Unless, somehow, F1 was in the wind-up.  NOt that I think he was -- just for FED clarification.

[Forest Ump]

4 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

Shameful commentary by both of you...

 

Agreed.

[Jimurray]

Like I said, it's not impressive. And I would hope that comment would encourage more perusal of the rule and casebook since 514 posts/visits here did not avail the OP of sufficient confidence in his rule knowledge.

[scrounge]

26 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Like I said, it's not impressive. And I would hope that comment would encourage more perusal of the rule and casebook since 514 posts/visits here did not avail the OP of sufficient confidence in his rule knowledge.

I think the original disparaging comment was very unfortunate, and this doubling down on unconstructive sneering is, frankly, outrageous. The OP put himself out there with, yes, not the most difficult situations, but I bet someone learned something. But now those that learned will be less inclined to post their situations and their questions, lest someone look down their nose and say how unimpressed they are with them. I would hope with your 2,724 posts that you would have learned that this place cannot function if every time some one messed up - no matter how basic - but had the guts to say what happened to learn or help others.

Frankly, if I were a moderator, I'd delete this entire thread after the 2nd post.

[ALStripes17]

Like I said, it's not impressive. And I would hope that comment would encourage more perusal of the rule and casebook since 514 posts/visits here did not avail the OP of sufficient confidence in his rule knowledge.

And that's why we can't have nice things...utterly ridiculous that you treat your own that way on a public forum.

[Jimurray]

Perhaps I should say it's not impressive that given a somewhat basic rules question, the umpires did not have a chapter person who they could trust to answer their questions and the OP's partner would rather have the question answered here. Still, correct me if I am wrong, but I would expect a guy calling college baseball to be confident in the application of the particular rules.

[MidAmUmp]

3 hours ago, scrounge said:

I think the original disparaging comment was very unfortunate, and this doubling down on unconstructive sneering is, frankly, outrageous. The OP put himself out there with, yes, not the most difficult situations, but I bet someone learned something. But now those that learned will be less inclined to post their situations and their questions, lest someone look down their nose and say how unimpressed they are with them. I would hope with your 2,724 posts that you would have learned that this place cannot function if every time some one messed up - no matter how basic - but had the guts to say what happened to learn or help others.

Frankly, if I were a moderator, I'd delete this entire thread after the 2nd post.

Greyhound - you had a brain fart. We've all been there (well, we all haven't been there...apparently there are 2 who have never had a brain fart). Thank you for having the courage to post your questions and situations on here. I'm sorry that 2 "umpires" decided they'd ridicule you instead of answering your questions. But that's how it goes with umpire message boards...you'll always have a few who feel the need to insult rather than help. Keep doing what you're doing, learn from your mistakes. You've been to camps, you have a good knowledge, trust your instincts. Even if your partner may have more experience than you it's okay to tell him you're not comfortable with the ruling. Give him what you think and let him decide what he wants to do with it. 

Keep working hard. Don't be discouraged by the few and continue to post situations if/when they happen. But you also have my email address and you can always contact me instead of subjecting yourself to ridicule when you are simply seeking advice and answers. 

And with that, since I am a moderator, I'll take scrounge's advice and shut this down. 

[Majordave]

6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Like I said, it's not impressive. And I would hope that comment would encourage more perusal of the rule and casebook since 514 posts/visits here did not avail the OP of sufficient confidence in his rule knowledge.

@Jimurray

I'm calling you out on this. You are over the line. Consider yourself warned. Further attack like postings like this WILL get you sanctioned on this website. Clear?