Jump to content
jms1425

HBP sequence video on NCAA hub

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

He could have been anticipating the pain which did not then from the slight touch of his finger. The ball deflects down from the knob so the potential of touching a finger is there. The ball did not squarely hit the knob. The PU had something that engendered a HBP.

Not exactly the same type of hit but more akin to the reactions I have seen by a hand hit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Ok, that was a bit broad on my part ... any complex error that kills a live ball.

It wasn’t a batted ball that hit the batter in the batter’s box.  It never was a foul ball, so it cannot revert to one.

I do not understand how or why we keep going to a foul ball, it was NEVER a foul ball and it was never called a foul ball.  The plate umpire killed it on a HBP.  Had he called it a foul ball, we have the answer.  He didn’t.

I fully agree with with you on the umpire calling it too quickly though.  There was no need to kill it/call it that fast, especially with no runners on base.

Except you gotta make chicken salad out of chicken $hit. 

What else are you going to do? 

You can absolutely sell a foul ball on a play like this. The initial ruling was HBP...upon further review we have a batted ball that also hits the batter while in the batter's box...which is also a dead ball...just a different outcome. 

It's not a do over....and I don't think you can get an out by rule either. 

Foul ball is the cleanest option.

Your thoughts? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:


:WTF  

 

Pitched ball hits batter = dead ball, either (1) HBP if the batter didn’t swing or (2) dead ball strike if he did swing

Pitched ball hits bat = either (1) fair ball or (2) foul ball

:cheers:

 

Pitched ball hits batter:

  • HBP = ball 
  • dead ball batter stay put = ball (not HBP)   potentially no longer applicable with recent rule changes
  • dead ball strike = strike

Pitched ball hits bat:

  • Foul = strike
  • Fair = strike (for the purposes of scorekeeping and pitch counts and pitching stats)...all fair batted balls are recorded as strikes.

Every pitch must be a ball or a strike.

So, as I said, once the pitch hits the batter or the bat it is either a ball or a strike.:givebeer:

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Except you gotta make chicken salad out of chicken $hit. 

What else are you going to do? 

You can absolutely sell a foul ball on a play like this. The initial ruling was HBP...upon further review we have a batted ball that also hits the batter while in the batter's box...which is also a dead ball...just a different outcome. 

It's not a do over....and I don't think you can get an out by rule either. 

Foul ball is the cleanest option.

Your thoughts? 

I have no problem with the little white lie to clean this up, to turn it into a legal foul ball and keep onside with killing the play, especially if there isn't a blindingly obvious out/safe call in the "what would have happened" department.

But it is a lie, and might be a slippery slope.  So the question for you is, if we know that the ball never hit the batter, and we assume we are morally opposed to lying to clean up the mess, what is the best solution?   Besides "learn to lie and improve your poker face".

So I have no problem with the umpire making a judgment to what would have happened and living with it.  In many ways I prefer that to the revisionism approach. 

I do think a "do over" is the worst outcome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Except you gotta make chicken salad out of chicken $hit. 

What else are you going to do? 

You can absolutely sell a foul ball on a play like this. The initial ruling was HBP...upon further review we have a batted ball that also hits the batter while in the batter's box...which is also a dead ball...just a different outcome. 

It's not a do over....and I don't think you can get an out by rule either. 

Foul ball is the cleanest option.

Your thoughts? 

My thoughts are all over this thread!  :D  I’ll try not to keep :Horse:.  
I will say I am 180 degrees from “foul ball is the cleanest option” though.  To me, it is the dirtiest.  I’ll agree I don’t like the “do over” either, but I would accept it as a last resort.

I’m still not sold on the claim that you cannot get an out “by rule”.  I need a citation or good line of logic on that.  (Hint: there isn’t one.)  The umpire has authority to fix his error.  I will agree that IF the catcher had not completed the play or IF the batter had taken off running and then stopped, it makes this a SH*#show.  However in this case, the runner NEVER attempted to run and the catcher completed the play.  The outcome was obvious.  Man up and fix it.  Don’t make use of the MSU book to cover your screw up.

As @beerguy55 says above, if you are selling a foul ball you are selling a lie.  Either you are falsely claiming that was what you called (when it was very evident it wasn’t) or you are using a MSU contract with that sale.

”Well, coaches.  We aren’t sure if that was a home run or a foul ball, because neither of us saw it.  So we are just going to call it a ground rule double.”  NO!  You can’t split the difference and try to cover your own ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

My thoughts are all over this thread!  :D  I’ll try not to keep :Horse:.  
I will say I am 180 degrees from “foul ball is the cleanest option” though.  To me, it is the dirtiest.  I’ll agree I don’t like the “do over” either, but I would accept it as a last resort.

I’m still not sold on the claim that you cannot get an out “by rule”.  I need a citation or good line of logic on that.  (Hint: there isn’t one.)  The umpire has authority to fix his error.  I will agree that IF the catcher had not completed the play or IF the batter had taken off running and then stopped, it makes this a SH*#show.  However in this case, the runner NEVER attempted to run and the catcher completed the play.  The outcome was obvious.  Man up and fix it.  Don’t make use the MSU book to cover your screw up.

As @beerguy55 says above, if you are selling a foul ball you are selling a lie.  Either you are falsely claiming that was what you called (when it was very evident it wasn’t) or you are using a MSU contract with that sale.

”Well, coaches.  We aren’t sure if that was a home run or a foul ball, because neither of us saw it.  So we are just going to call it a ground rule double.”  NO!  You can’t split the difference and try to cover your own ass.

If replay had only the ball hitting the bat I agree, they should have placed the runner, batter-runner in the dugout with an out at 1B. They state the replay official had only the ball hitting the bat. I would dispute that they could discern that the ball only contacted the knob. But if they did I don’t know how we got to a 2-2 count and I don’t think NCAA wants to go there. Really, “what’s the count”? Unless the narrator misspoke that the replay official said the ballot only hit the bat. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Do we know what the test answer was?

The count is 2-1 according to the NCAA online video answers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

My thoughts are all over this thread!  :D  I’ll try not to keep :Horse:.  
I will say I am 180 degrees from “foul ball is the cleanest option” though.  To me, it is the dirtiest.  I’ll agree I don’t like the “do over” either, but I would accept it as a last resort.

I’m still not sold on the claim that you cannot get an out “by rule”.  I need a citation or good line of logic on that.  (Hint: there isn’t one.)  The umpire has authority to fix his error.  I will agree that IF the catcher had not completed the play or IF the batter had taken off running and then stopped, it makes this a SH*#show.  However in this case, the runner NEVER attempted to run and the catcher completed the play.  The outcome was obvious.  Man up and fix it.  Don’t make use of the MSU book to cover your screw up.

As @beerguy55 says above, if you are selling a foul ball you are selling a lie.  Either you are falsely claiming that was what you called (when it was very evident it wasn’t) or you are using a MSU contract with that sale.

”Well, coaches.  We aren’t sure if that was a home run or a foul ball, because neither of us saw it.  So we are just going to call it a ground rule double.”  NO!  You can’t split the difference and try to cover your own ass.

The NCAA is explicit that you cannot award outs on replay (as I mentioned already.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Matt said:

The NCAA is explicit that you cannot award outs on replay (as I mentioned already.)

If that's the case we're left with two options (assuming we know the ball never hit the batter, and we're not willing to lie about it)

1. Do Over (ew)

2. Award batter first base (double ew)

 

Sophie's choice....ok...not THAT bad, but friggin ugly....and now we're back to rationalizing the merit of falsifying the facts...which is looking more and more attractive (in the short term)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Matt said:

The NCAA is explicit that you cannot award outs on replay (as I mentioned already.)

You mentioned it ... did you read that (where) or were you told that (by whom)?  Just looking for a citation (beyond MSU).

I haven’t read the whole NCAA manual, but I did read all of Appendix E “Getting the Call Right” a few times for this discussion.  There is nothing there.  In fact, it is very explicit that you can get outs on overturned calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If that's the case we're left with two options (assuming we know the ball never hit the batter, and we're not willing to lie about it)

1. Do Over (ew)

2. Award batter first base (double ew)

 

Sophie's choice....ok...not THAT bad, but friggin ugly....and now we're back to rationalizing the merit of falsifying the facts...which is looking more and more attractive (in the short term)


The intro to Appendix E:

The first requisite of an umpire is to ultimately get all decisions correct. Umpire pride is important, but never as important as getting the play right. It is the philosophy of the NCAA that umpires always seek to get the call right. This may involve the reversal of a previously rendered decision. However, the correct decision—not the pride of any umpire—must prevail.

And from 1.f in Appendix E:

Also, some calls cannot be reversed without creating larger problems.

You can read that last bit one of two ways: do NOT overturn those calls (call sticks or do over?) OR be prepared to think like an umpire and rationalize your way through it.  I don’t see “lie” or “make things up” as options, but that’s me.  :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

The count is 2-1 according to the NCAA online video answers.

I forgot to say “thank you” ... thank you for posting that!  Do they provide any commentary, or just the right answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

I don't think it's "lying" 

 

It's lying if you know the ball never hit the batter...if you can honestly say that you don't know and you think the ball "might" have hit the batter, then fine...but that rationalization requires honesty...if you need to go through mental gymnastics to get to where you want to get, you're probably circumventing the truth.   The reality is you, and most people, likely looked at the replay and said "that ball hit the bat, and only the bat"...and then went "oooooooh, that's ugly...let's see if maybe the ball hit the batter too and we can tidy this up a bit."   And after a lot of squinting, repeated watches, and internal debate I'm sure even the Dalai Lama could eventually convince himself the ball truly hit the batter too.

I'm not hear to argue the morality of lying, and I'm an ardent supporter of the notion that sometimes telling lies is a moral and absolute necessity to the greater good, and doing so doesn't make you a "liar"...the question is if this is one of those scenarios where you don't think lying is appropriate, how do you clean up the mess?

Otherwise, in the end you're left with a play that can only be correctly ruled a batted fair ball...so how do you correct the outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I forgot to say “thank you” ... thank you for posting that!  Do they provide any commentary, or just the right answer?

There is no rule reference, but the next question was:

After the ball came off the bat, does the fact that ball landed in fair or foul territory have any bearing on the play per the replay regulations?

The answer provided to that was question was yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 9:56 AM, The Man in Blue said:

You mentioned it ... did you read that (where) or were you told that (by whom)?  Just looking for a citation (beyond MSU).

I haven’t read the whole NCAA manual, but I did read all of Appendix E “Getting the Call Right” a few times for this discussion.  There is nothing there.  In fact, it is very explicit that you can get outs on overturned calls.

It is in the February 12th clarification.

"The Crew Chief/Replay Official may not declare a runner out based on a play the umpire believes would have occurred subsequent to the play subject to Video Review."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt said:

It is in the February 12th clarification.

"The Crew Chief/Replay Official may not declare a runner out based on a play the umpire believes would have occurred subsequent to the play subject to Video Review."

It's a little more complicated than that:

"Subsequent Calls and Outs. If the Crew Chief/Replay Official determines that an incorrect call on the field had no effect on the subsequent behavior or conduct of the offensive or defensive players, the Crew Chief/Replay Official shall change the incorrect call, but let stand any on-field calls or plays unaffected by the incorrect call. The Crew Chief/Replay Official may not declare a runner out based on a play the umpire believes would have occurred subsequent to the play subject to Video Review."

You could say that the batter did not run of his own accord, already backing up before it was killed. The defense was unaffected by the call and played on. Could we get an out then?

Btw, what test question confirmed a 2-1 count and was that what transpired in that game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

It's a little more complicated than that:

"Subsequent Calls and Outs. If the Crew Chief/Replay Official determines that an incorrect call on the field had no effect on the subsequent behavior or conduct of the offensive or defensive players, the Crew Chief/Replay Official shall change the incorrect call, but let stand any on-field calls or plays unaffected by the incorrect call. The Crew Chief/Replay Official may not declare a runner out based on a play the umpire believes would have occurred subsequent to the play subject to Video Review."

You could say that the batter did not run of his own accord, already backing up before it was killed. The defense was unaffected by the call and played on. Could we get an out then?

Btw, what test question confirmed a 2-1 count and was that what transpired in that game?

I disagree that it's more complicated. The sentence I quoted restricts the God-rule portion of the clause. Call overturned--you can do whatever you think would have happened, but you cannot call outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Matt said:

I disagree that it's more complicated. The sentence I quoted restricts the God-rule portion of the clause. Call overturned--you can do whatever you think would have happened, but you cannot call outs.

Doesn’t it preclude judging what might have happened. If it happened wouldn’t that be allowed. Let’s say the runner ran and was thrown out while the PU killed it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Doesn’t it preclude judging what might have happened. If it happened wouldn’t that be allowed. Let’s say the runner ran and was thrown out while the PU killed it?

If that was the case, wouldn't they have used this clip as of an example of how that could happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Matt said:

If that was the case, wouldn't they have used this clip as of an example of how that could happen?

I was stretching the interp when I say the batter was not affected by the call. If you judge that the batter was affected by the call in the OP you can't allow any play to happen. But what if he took off. You are not calling an out. You are letting stand a play and out call that happened. But what was clip an example of, a do-over with a 2-1 count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...