Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Son nearly ejected from a game/rule question

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Matt13 View Post
    1. It's never happened to me (because, again, despite what happens in your little corner of the world, it's not considered part of the game.) And if I ever were to do a game at those levels again, I would enforce the appropriate penalty--which would be an award of third base after the conclusion of playing action and an ejection.
    Now Matty, are we really to believe that in your "little corner of the world" that you've never heard an F6 say anything to an R2 to try to entice him to get back to the bag before the pitch...even though others are telling you it's happening elsewhere...as in it's the exact reason of the topic of this thread?

    Also, why would you wait until "after the conclusion of playing action" that really hadn't even started yet, and not instead call "time" if/when the pitcher hasn't "moved towards home [and] can still throw to second", enforcing your obstruction or USC penalties immediately?

    2. That is not illegal.
    How so? If you're going to try to enforce the "verbal" part of 22-2-1, or try to make it USC to say something to a runner to try to confuse him into going back to the back w/o a throw there by the pitcher (if that's what you're calling it for), than you also have to enforce the "physical" part of it as well. In fact, isn't this....

    ...the case study you used for your position earlier, where it's a player is simulating the game sound of an overthrown ball hitting the fence? How is that any different than an F6 simulating the game sound (and action) of catching a PO play throw from F1 that never happened, but trying to make R2 think it did?
    Last edited by mudvnine; 06-12-2019, 07:56 AM.
    In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by mudvnine View Post
      Now Matty, are we really to believe that in your "little corner of the world" that you've never heard an F6 say anything to an R2 to try to entice him to get back to the bag before the pitch...even though others are telling you it's happening elsewhere...as in it's the exact reason of the topic of this thread?
      It has never happened to me. And don't call me Matty. That is not my name.

      Originally posted by mudvnine View Post
      Also, why would you wait until "after the conclusion of playing action" that really hadn't even started yet, and not instead call "time" if/when the pitcher hasn't "moved towards home [and] can still throw to second", enforcing your obstruction or USC penalties immediately?
      Because the rule says that is when it is enforced.

      Originally posted by mudvnine View Post
      How so? If you're going to try to enforce the "verbal" part of 22-2-1, or try to make it USC to say something to a runner to try to confuse him into going back to the back w/o a throw there by the pitcher (if that's what you're calling it for), than you also have to enforce the "physical" part of it as well. In fact, isn't this....

      ...the case study you used for your position earlier, where it's a player is simulating the game sound of an overthrown ball hitting the fence? How is that any different than an F6 simulating the game sound (and action) of catching a PO play throw from F1 that never happened, but trying to make R2 think it did?
      Because FED says it doesn't.

      I'm through with your ignorant dog-and-pony show. I've wasted enough time with you.

      Comment


      • #63
        So about 11/12U. Don't remember the exact chain of events but the ball ended up in our 2nd basemans mitt with runners on 1st and 2nd. So the 2nd baseman walked to the mound and had a conversation with our pitcher then returned to the field. The pitcher addressed the batter, the runners took their lead, and the kid playing 2nd walk over and tagged the runner out. While talking to the pitcher he had never returned the ball to him and no one noticed. Their coach, the ump, their fans, no one said a thing. Inning over.

        Comment


        • #64
          Physical contact does not need to be made either for obstruction or interference. The infielders play is obviously obstruction if the runners would've advanced otherwise. It's the other side of the coin where a runner cannot slide into 2nd on a double play with 1 out and yell "that's three outs" to trick the fielder into not throwing.

          It's not only unsportsmanlike and bad form, but it's actually against the rules.

          However, an ejection for obstruction or interference should be almost impossible unless the play is so egregios or dangerous or if the player had been warned multiple times.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by SomeBaseballDad View Post
            So about 11/12U. Don't remember the exact chain of events but the ball ended up in our 2nd basemans mitt with runners on 1st and 2nd. So the 2nd baseman walked to the mound and had a conversation with our pitcher then returned to the field. The pitcher addressed the batter, the runners took their lead, and the kid playing 2nd walk over and tagged the runner out. While talking to the pitcher he had never returned the ball to him and no one noticed. Their coach, the ump, their fans, no one said a thing. Inning over.
            If the pitcher is on the mound without the ball, it's a balk. So if by "Addressing the batter" he was on the mound (does not need to be on the rubber), then it's a balk.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Matt13 View Post
              It has never happened to me. And don't call me Matty. That is not my name.

              Because the rule says that is when it is enforced.

              Because FED says it doesn't.

              I'm through with your ignorant dog-and-pony show. I've wasted enough time with you.
              What!? You wanted me to "stop talking and start listening", and I was giving you the opportunity to talk so I could listen to you explain to me why you'd do what you say you'd do. Yet suddenly you don't want to do so, and just want me and others to take your word for it because you think that's what the FED says. Cool, duly noted.


              In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by andre8 View Post

                If the pitcher is on the mound without the ball, it's a balk. So if by "Addressing the batter" he was on the mound (does not need to be on the rubber), then it's a balk.
                Good lord IDK. Maybe he wasn't on the mound, or maybe the ump missed it. That was 10 years ago. Point was it was a play based purely on deception and no one really seemed to care.

                And then there's this. Dam sneaky women. They ought to all be ejected.
                 

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by SomeBaseballDad View Post

                  Good lord IDK. Maybe he wasn't on the mound, or maybe the ump missed it. That was 10 years ago. Point was it was a play based purely on deception and no one really seemed to care.

                  And then there's this. Dam sneaky women. They ought to all be ejected.
                  What's your point here? A hidden-ball trick has nothing to do with the rest of this thread.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Matt13 View Post

                    What's your point here? A hidden-ball trick has nothing to do with the rest of this thread.
                    Really, I thought it was about deception/deceiving the other team and if that were fair. I'm not sure the deferential you're making. Baserunners were deceived into making an error. Whether by spoken word or action what is the difference?
                    Last edited by SomeBaseballDad; 06-12-2019, 06:02 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by SomeBaseballDad View Post

                      Really, I thought it was about deception/deceiving the other team and if that were fair. I'm not sure the deferential you're making. Baserunners were deceived into making an error. Whether by spoken word or action what is the difference?
                      This is precisely why I ended the conversation with a certain person. It caused more confusion than it helped.

                      The OP involves issues of INT/OBS/USC. A hidden ball trick does not. There are plenty of forms of deception that are legal, and plenty that are illegal.

                      The rules have nothing to do with being fair. They are written for advantage/disadvantage.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by SomeBaseballDad View Post

                        Good lord IDK. Maybe he wasn't on the mound, or maybe the ump missed it. That was 10 years ago. Point was it was a play based purely on deception and no one really seemed to care.

                        And then there's this. Dam sneaky women. They ought to all be ejected.
                        Some deception is legal, some is not. It's really that simple. Hidden ball trick is legal. Verbal obstruction is not.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by andre8 View Post
                          Some deception is legal, some is not. It's really that simple. Hidden ball trick is legal. Verbal obstruction is not.
                          I think you might have a typo there andre, the hidden ball trick that SBD described is not legal ("addressing the batter" w/o the ball in hand) which you already correctly stated previously.

                          Also, can you please define what you believe to be "verbal obstruction", and how you'd use it and adjudicate it in the case of the OP question(s). It would be helpful if you can quote the actual verbiage of the rule(s) you're using in your decision, and how you're using them in their application to the situation(s) at hand. Thanks.
                          Last edited by mudvnine; 06-13-2019, 08:16 AM.
                          In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by mudvnine View Post
                            I think you might have a typo there andre, the hidden ball trick that SBD described is not legal ("addressing the batter" w/o the ball in hand) which you already correctly stated previously.

                            Also, can you please define what you believe to be "verbal obstruction", and how you'd use it and adjudicate it in the case of the OP question(s). It would be helpful if you can quote the actual verbiage of the rule(s) you're using in your decision, and how you're using them in their application to the situation(s) at hand. Thanks.
                            Agreed. Legal hidden ball tricks are legal. Non-legal ones are not.

                            I already stated the OPs description is clearly verbal obstruction. If I believe the runners would have advanced 1 or 2 bases on the play without the obstruction, I'd award that. I would NOT eject the player unless his action was physically dangerous (likely not) or was after a warning or two.

                            This is certainly open to interpretation..but clearly meets the requirements in this situation.
                            The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

                            SS was NOT in possession of of the ball and was not fielding the ball and clearly impeded the progress of the runner.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by andre8 View Post
                              Agreed. Legal hidden ball tricks are legal. Non-legal ones are not.
                              Well OK then...

                              I already stated the OPs description is clearly verbal obstruction. If I believe the runners would have advanced 1 or 2 bases on the play without the obstruction, I'd award that. I would NOT eject the player unless his action was physically dangerous (likely not) or was after a warning or two.
                              Were you "assuming" they would have been stealing? Because I'm not sure how having...
                              Originally posted by mobius75 View Post
                              The batter hit a ground ball to the third baseman who stepped on the bag and turned two at second base.
                              ...would have advanced the runners one or two bases other wise. I personally don't believe an umpire should "assume" anything, but that's JMO of how it's done...OMMV.

                              This is certainly open to interpretation..but clearly meets the requirements in this situation.
                              The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
                              Yes, and that's all I'm asking anyone to do when it comes to these types of discussions, share their interpretations of the rules, and not just tell me..."that's what they say".

                              SS was NOT in possession of of the ball and was not fielding the ball and clearly impeded the progress of the runner.
                              So then what about the slapping the glove move to simulate a baseball sound similar to what's stated in the case study (8.3.2.J) above? Wouldn't that also be something that "clearly impeded the progress of the runner", yet we know that's not called even though it's closer to the case study than a MIFer saying something in the direction of the runner. No?

                              EDIT: It can also be noted that the F6 did not impede R2's progress to the bag...which he just happened to be "returning" to in this case.
                              Last edited by mudvnine; 06-13-2019, 09:39 AM.
                              In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I declare Matt the winner. Mud, you're getting old. It's okay. You're like Muhammed Ali was- once great but didn't know when to stop. Not that you're not sharp with most stuff. Just don't go to any casinos.
                                Major Figure

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X