Quote:
|
You're kidding, right? You think instead of whining about a "flat" pitch they would TELL you about the "modified" pitch they just saw HAD to be illegal? If you think there is disparity in umpire's judgment of 6', what to you see the difference in what umpires believe is "too" fast.
|
Nobody in this area has even seen Modified Pitch so unless the pitch would get up to fast-pitch speeds I dont think we have to listen to em whine about that. I just believe the point that from 50+ feet in slow pitch it is pretty impossible to throw a strike without it hitting the 6' mark pretty much takes the need for the 6' requirement out of the picture. It is also very hard to get illegal out in time on these pitches that come in below 6' that this would get rid of having to call....
Quote:
Nothing to rewrite in Obstruction. If the player does not possess the ball, and they impede the runner, it is
obstruction. I think this makes the rule much clearer.
|
I agree fully if stated this way in the rule book it will be much easier for everyone to understand than the ball must be closer than the runner
Quote:
|
To which HR rule are you referring? The "D"s or the walk-offs. I don't care much for the D HR change, but I like the walk-off.
|
We agree again. I wont tell anyone if you wont. I dont see a need in changing the existing excessive HR rule..
Quote:
|
The physical assistance at home is a clarification as a runner is usually no longer considered a runner once they've crossed the plate.
|
I would have to disagree on this if a runner that has not touched HP I would still consider a runner until he has entered the dugout or DBT..
Quote:
The USC change is in relation to a discussion I had with Walt Sparks in August. I assume he, or someone else had
a problem which sparked this proposal. If a runner rounded 1B while the ball was in the outfield and for some reason attacked, punched, ran over (you get the point) F3, the umpire has no rule to do anything until the play was over and then, he could only eject the player. This is a provision to kill the play immediately and adds a little bite to the penalty involved.
|
You could rule obstruction F3 must have been to close(just kidding). I would agree with a tougher penalty as the player or the player closest to home would be called out and the player ejected. Just not sure best bet would be to call dead ball. What if the USC was to try to break up a double play our we just going to allow the one out and player ejection because of the dead ball situation??
Just a few thoughts
Don