Jump to content

Video of HS Championship


TNCoach
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 518 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

Props to @Senorazul for his rulings.

I can't believe we are going to allow the defense to pull that kind of crap by intentionally stuffing a ball in their pocket to kill a play. I like what @The Man In Blue was saying on an above post. Common sense needs to play a part here.

While a bit off the topic, take a look at what Ted Barret had to say about the 3 base award for detached player equipment (I know...it's OBR), but at the 2:50 mark, watch the clip and Chris will ask him about a ball player who asked him, "Why don't I just throw my mitt at a home run ball and knock it down, it will be a three base award instead of a home run." Barrett sets it strait-the umpire will use common sense and allow it to be a home run.

The common sense ruling is to not bail out the defense for an act they created. We use the rules to solve a problem-not create one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Guys, quit overthinking this.  Who cares if the ball is thrown, placed, pushed, etc. etc. ( NFHS 10-2-g ) Score everybody. We are certainly (hopefully) not going to penalize the offense because the catcher put a live ball in his back pocket!!!

So... if a ball is thrown and it goes into a defenders jersey... we are keeping it live?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

Props to @Senorazul for his rulings.

I can't believe we are going to allow the defense to pull that kind of crap by intentionally stuffing a ball in their pocket to kill a play. I like what @The Man In Blue was saying on an above post. Common sense needs to play a part here.

While a bit off the topic, take a look at what Ted Barret had to say about the 3 base award for detached player equipment (I know...it's OBR), but at the 2:50 mark, watch the clip and Chris will ask him about a ball player who asked him, "Why don't I just throw my mitt at a home run ball and knock it down, it will be a three base award instead of a home run." Barrett sets it strait-the umpire will use common sense and allow it to be a home run.

The common sense ruling is to not bail out the defense for an act they created. We use the rules to solve a problem-not create one.

Intentionally putting a ball out of play is a time of throw award. So if a defender fields a ball in the corner, and then steps out of play with the ball, should we not kill the play? I mean they created the problem...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Guys, quit overthinking this.  Who cares if the ball is thrown, placed, pushed, etc. etc. ( NFHS 10-2-g ) Score everybody. We are certainly (hopefully) not going to penalize the offense because the catcher put a live ball in his back pocket!!!

It's not about choosing who we are penalizing. It's about using the rules at our disposal to make the objectively correct call. In OBR and NFHS you are allowed to score them if you feel that common sense and fair play permit them to score, though I would disagree pretty vehemently, and I think most leagues and associations would not support it, and might even overturn it on protest. It would come down to whether "common sense and fair play" can be sufficiently quantified so as to separate it from umpire judgment. I don't think common sense permits two runs to score on a U3K, but a ruling would probably vary league to league. I digress... In NFHS though, it's two bases. We don't get to do more.

If a rule set wants this particular play penalized so as to allow everyone to score, they will amend the lodged ball rule to do so. If it doesn't take a brand new rule to cover it, we can't use 10-2-3(g). We just have to work with what we got.

Examples where 8.01(c) (or 10-2-3(g) or 3-6(b)) was correctly invoked are incredibly rare. The only modern instances were when Randy Johnson struck a bird with a pitch, and when the switch hitter met the switch pitcher for the first time. There was nothing addressing these scenarios at the time, and it required completely new interpretations (MLBUM for a pitched ball hitting an animal) and completely new rules (5.07(f) for ambidextrous pitchers) to address the hole. This doesn't. It's just a lodged ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mjr_2013 said:

If a rule set wants this particular play penalized so as to allow everyone to score, they will amend the lodged ball rule to do so. If it doesn't take a brand new rule to cover it, we can't use 10-2-3(g). We just have to work with what we got.

 

 

There is no play to penalize. That catcher had the ball and could have made a play with it. In the meantime runs scored not because of a penalty but because the defense didn't. When the catcher looked at 1B and decided not to throw we can't assume an out or wild throw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

There is no play to penalize. That catcher had the ball and could have made a play with it. In the meantime runs scored not because of a penalty but because the defense didn't. When the catcher looked at 1B and decided not to throw we can't assume an out or wild throw.

When the F4 is frantically looking for the ball, he isn't given the opportunity to make a play. If not a single player looked for the ball, and there was just a dogpile on the pitcher which included every defensive player, I think there is a case to be made that the ball was not "wedged, stuck, lost, or unreachable" per 2-4-4. Personally, I would still say it's wedged, and would be killing it as soon as it's put in the pocket, but for the sake of argument I won't go there.

The ball was absolutely lost and unreachable to F4, by way of it being lodged in F2's pocket. You say the defense didn't, I say the defense couldn't. If F2 threw the ball into the second deck in celebration instead of tucking it into his pocket, I don't think there is any question we would award two bases, and I think this is basically the same thing. Either way, his action made the ball unreachable to the rest of the defense. We aren't asking to assume an out or wild throw, we are just looking to acknowledge the lodged ball and award bases accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, mjr_2013 said:

When the F4 is frantically looking for the ball, he isn't given the opportunity to make a play. If not a single player looked for the ball, and there was just a dogpile on the pitcher which included every defensive player, I think there is a case to be made that the ball was not "wedged, stuck, lost, or unreachable" per 2-4-4. Personally, I would still say it's wedged, and would be killing it as soon as it's put in the pocket, but for the sake of argument I won't go there.

The ball was absolutely lost and unreachable to F4, by way of it being lodged in F2's pocket. You say the defense didn't, I say the defense couldn't. If F2 threw the ball into the second deck in celebration instead of tucking it into his pocket, I don't think there is any question we would award two bases, and I think this is basically the same thing. Either way, his action made the ball unreachable to the rest of the defense. We aren't asking to assume an out or wild throw, we are just looking to acknowledge the lodged ball and award bases accordingly.

It wasn't unreachable by F2 and it wasn't on the playing field as required by 2-4-4, which is why a ball stuck in the glove is not lodged on the playing field.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2023 at 11:02 AM, The Man in Blue said:

I would say that is different … and maybe I am misreading something.  Those are ways a ball gets out of play, not “status of a ball.”  A ball is live or dead, that is its status.  

I still have a live ball as the defense is still under control of the ball.  The ball has not left the field or the confines of “live ball territory.”  It is not in a spot that is unreachable by the defense.  The ball is not hung up or stuck while in flight.  The ball has not been illegally contacted.  I see no reason to call it a dead ball.

I still contend calling that a “thrown ball” that is “out of play” is yucky (professional term there!) and we shouldn’t be bailing the defense out.

A ball that get's lodged between a catcher's chest protector and body could still be reachable.  That's still a dead ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the catcher deliberately sticks it in there, I do not consider that a lodged ball.

That also applies only to a batted or thrown ball.  We have not come a consensus that a placed ball is a thrown ball.

I still contend there is a difference between a ball "that becomes lodged" and a ball that is "deliberately stuck into a lodged position."  Are we going to allow the catcher to stick the ball inside his chest protector to prevent R1 from reaching third base?

Edit to add: I mentioned in a reply to @beerguy55 that softball codes have a provision to prevent fielders from deliberately "killing" a ball to prevent base runners from tagging up.  NFHS baseball also has this provision, I just wasn't seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Honest question ... for those who are in the "kill it once it goes into his pocket" camp: what would you have awarded?  Mind you, you killed it and don't have the benefit of seeing what happened.

2 bases minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Honest question ... for those who are in the "kill it once it goes into his pocket" camp: what would you have awarded?  Mind you, you killed it and don't have the benefit of seeing what happened.

NFHS requires two bases. OBR and NCAA I’m probably doing one base. I’m okay with anyone who awards two though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2023 at 10:17 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Honest question ... for those who are in the "kill it once it goes into his pocket" camp: what would you have awarded?  Mind you, you killed it and don't have the benefit of seeing what happened.

 

On 6/3/2023 at 12:10 PM, umpstu said:

2 bases minimum.

 

On 6/3/2023 at 4:19 PM, mjr_2013 said:

NFHS requires two bases. OBR and NCAA I’m probably doing one base. I’m okay with anyone who awards two though. 

On top of that, are you ejecting the Defense players for storming the field?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2023 at 11:16 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I know what the book award is.  There is also a provision to award more to nullify the result of the offending behavior.

If you only awarded two, you penalized the offense.

You only penalized the offense because you now know the outcome of the play.  What if after realizing what was going on the catcher removed the ball from his pocket and tossed to F4 to force R1...game over, no runs score...now you penalize the offense by not calling it.   Even in a scenario where R2 successfully scores, F2 realizes his mistake, gets the ball out of his pocket, and tags out R1 at the plate to end the inning.  This still puts the defense in a better scenario than giving two bases, because now there are three out.

If I opted to immediately kill the play when F2 hid the ball, I score R2, and place the other two on third and second.  It's now a tie game, and offense is still up with two out.  Worse (for offense) than what would have happened, better than what could have happened.   Keeping in mind if I kill the play immediately I theoretically will never know what would have happened.

Forget results-based thinking for a sec.  In a world where the catcher hides the ball in his back pocket, what are all the potential outcomes...in all the potential scenarios.  Even in this one scenario, the runners don't know where the ball is.  They likely think it's in the glove which is ten feet away from the player, and thereby think it's safe to advance.  As a rule of thumb, would killing the play immediately and giving the runners two bases from time of "hiding the ball" be appropriate...in the vast majority of those scenarios?

 

EDIT: I am treating this like hiding the ball, which I understand it is illegal to put the ball in your pocket or inside the uniform, and that the umpire is to kill the play when it happens.   All I know is I was deceived.  I watched the video 15 times before seeing it...before that I thought the ball was in F2's glove, which was on the ground.

I believe the OBR penalty is one base (or more if warranted by umpire's judgment) - I'm assuming FED is similar.   In that context, you could place the runners on R1,R2,R3...R1,R2 and score...R1,R3 and score.  I think you could justify any of them.  Based on where R2 was at the time, I think scoring him is the best option.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally understand that POV, @beerguy55.  If you are killing the ball immediately, I agree with what you said.  Where I disagree is that the ball should be killed at that point.  

Ball going to the outfield and approaches a tarp, temporary fence, or other obstruction covered in the ground rules.  You see it get there, but can't tell what happened next.  Fielder throws his hands up ... what do you do?  Do you kill it immediately?  What happens when you kill it, stop the runners, and then the fielder bends down and immediately picks the ball up and tosses it in?

Now you do bring up a really good point which I addressed earlier ... IF the catcher yanks the ball back out and tries to make a play, now I believe you have a good argument for him "hiding the ball" and at that point I agree it's time to kill it.  Until then, I firmly believe you need to leave it live until there is confirmation of a reason for the ball to be declared dead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Where I disagree is that the ball should be killed at that point.  

In OBR 5.06(c)(7) says to call "Time" when the ball is placed in the pocket/uniform, presumably immediately....but does have the "for the purpose of deceiving a base runner" qualifier which could give some leeway on timing.

Does FED have any language about it?

 

The over-reaching consideration here too is that the umpire wasn't big and loud with his mechanic and contributed to this SH*# sandwich.  I'm not absolving F1 or F2 on their poor baseball sense, but if we're talking hypotheticals, I think a lot of people here know that if PU does a better job then nobody has to worry about what to do when F2 puts the ball in his pocket.  So, if you contributed to the confusion, does that factor into any sense of saving the defense from itself, and finding a compromise that fits in the rulebook?

Otherwise, I tend to agree with your last thoughts...especially if you came up big and loud on the U3K and the non-tag, and F2 still puts the ball into his pocket...let it play out...if the offense scores they score...if F2 pulls the ball out to make a play then you can determine if he was "deceiving the runner" and rule accordingly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2023 at 12:27 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I totally understand that POV, @beerguy55.  If you are killing the ball immediately, I agree with what you said.  Where I disagree is that the ball should be killed at that point.  

Ball going to the outfield and approaches a tarp, temporary fence, or other obstruction covered in the ground rules.  You see it get there, but can't tell what happened next.  Fielder throws his hands up ... what do you do?  Do you kill it immediately?  What happens when you kill it, stop the runners, and then the fielder bends down and immediately picks the ball up and tosses it in?

Now you do bring up a really good point which I addressed earlier ... IF the catcher yanks the ball back out and tries to make a play, now I believe you have a good argument for him "hiding the ball" and at that point I agree it's time to kill it.  Until then, I firmly believe you need to leave it live until there is confirmation of a reason for the ball to be declared dead.

I think that's different though because you don't know the ball is lodged. If I see a ball skip over top of the tarp and wedge itself between the tarp and the wall, I'm not going to keep it live, because I know it's lodged. There's no need. Plus no one (especially not me) wants the camera on my fat ass jogging to the outfield to check on a lodged baseball. 🤣

Here, presuming you see the catcher put the ball into his pocket, you know it's lodged. Kill it loud and kill it often. Point at the ball in his pocket and I bet he takes it out, and now the optics are totally different. We don't have a dogpile, players running the bases, an F4 searching for the ball frantically, and two teams thinking they've won... Instead, we have an umpire who is fully in control, with an emphatic call.

I agree with @beerguy55that the lackluster mechanics are inseparable from the fielder's actions. If a textbook drop third mechanic and vocal is given, we don't get this problem... There is a difference between intentionally (willfully) putting the ball in the pocket and intentionally (with the intent to deceive) putting the ball in the pocket. In this scenario, the catcher was absolutely in the first, but far from the second category. Putting the ball in the pocket was stupidity, not 4D chess. I think beerguy is also absolutely correct also that a lot of this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking based on the results of the play and what we think is "just" in a postmortem dissection. I don't think keeping a lodged ball, that you know is lodged, live while you await the results of the play, is at all supported by rule.

Finally, I agree with @Thunderheadsthat I will be fascinated to see if the NFHS comes out with an AR on this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mjr_2013 said:

I think that's different though because you don't know the ball is lodged. If I see a ball skip over top of the tarp and wedge itself between the tarp and the wall, I'm not going to keep it live, because I know it's lodged. There's no need. Plus no one (especially not me) wants the camera on my fat ass jogging to the outfield to check on a lodged baseball. 🤣

Here, presuming you see the catcher put the ball into his pocket, you know it's lodged.

 

 

We still have not established that an intentionally placed ball is lodged.  In fact, I will still argue there is support that it is not from the rules that prevent intentionally throwing or carrying a ball out of play.

So what are you doing if you don't know it is lodged?  That is the question I was asking.  Are you killing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mjr_2013 said:

If a textbook drop third mechanic and vocal is given, we don't get this problem...

To clarify...this is a "no tag" mechanic where the PU needed to be BIG. 

13 hours ago, mjr_2013 said:

Here, presuming you see the catcher put the ball into his pocket, you know it's lodged

I, personally, don't know if the rules (or any existing interpretations) support that the ball in this scenario is "lodged".  IMO, it's "hidden".   And by that I mean F2 intentionally put it in his pocket and it is now hidden from the offense.  (not that he put it in his pocket TO hide it from the offense)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:
13 hours ago, mjr_2013 said:

Here, presuming you see the catcher put the ball into his pocket, you know it's lodged

I, personally, don't know if the rules (or any existing interpretations) support that the ball in this scenario is "lodged".  IMO, it's "hidden".   And by that I mean F2 intentionally put it in his pocket and it is now hidden from the offense.  (not that he put it in his pocket TO hide it from the offense)

I agree with this. When F2 pulls it out to make a play I think that's when you kill it because at that point it went from place in his pocket to his detriment to now being hidden to the offense's detriment. I say that after many days and this long discussion. I feel for PU on this since he's patient zero.

Coming up big on the no tag though, yeah that's one he could have been prepared for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...