|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 10:25am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok Rich started what "appeared" to be a simple thread and it escalated which starting me thinking (Watch out now).
Gentlemen, this might sound stupid (hey we are all here to learn right), but exactly what is meant by End of Playing Action . This is important especially in a FED game in which a runner misses a base and end of playing action we call runner out. When should Blue Kill the Play and say TIME! or at what point in a FED game do we call the runner out for missing a base? We just had a thread on a continous play after a Balk. I understand (I think) what everyone is saying but let's play devils advocate for a moment. In Rich's example, suppose Blue did not call time and kill the play the moment F1 Feinted to First . Instead he allowed r1 to go all the way to third and subsequently he was either out / safe. Is this protestable? Obviously if he was safe the defensive manager would come right out and say hey Blue he only gets second right! conversely, if r1 was put out at third, the offensive manager would say hey Blue he should get second. His argumenet is a little weaker than the former since it was his own runner who chose to go to third. In summary, IMO it's very important for an umpire to know when a play is dead (over) vs. when to keep it alive . As always thanks gentlemen Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth 
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 10:49am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pete, I don't see this as a complex issue. The "end of playing action" would be when all apparent attempts have ceased of:
(1) all runners attempting to advance, and (2) a defender attempting to put out a runner Both must have ceased for playing action to be complete. End of playing action can also be caused by an official declaring "Time", handling a live ball, or by other acts in the rules so specified causing the ball to become dead. Just my opinion, Steve Member EWS
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 11:00am
|
|||
|
|||
|
NAPBL refers to this as a "definate break in action".
In your case the umpire blew it by not calling time immediately since this was FED. Hopfully by the time the coach came out the umpire would have realized his mistake and sent the kid to second and then moved along.
__________________
Buster
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 05:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pete,
(Remember now, I'm an OBR-only umpire, so this FED business is foreign to me - - I won't even touch it.) I think it is important to remember that, in Rich Fronheiser's play, the ball was not dead because of the umpire's call of, "Time." It was dead by rule because, when he feinted to first, the pitcher was no longer attempting to pick-off the runner. Therefore, he cannot possibly throw the ball wild when attempting a pick-off. You see? He aborted his attempted pick-off, which resulted in a balk being called. We are not calling this dead because of a break in continuous action. We are calling it dead because of a break in the pitcher's continuing action. As Papa C. pointed out, there is a difference. The end of continous action is a definite break in play, and is used to define when the umpire calls time on various plays, Type B obstruction, for example. It also defines when the umpire calls time after a pitcher follows a balk with a wild pick-off attempt. However, the question of the end of the pitcher's continuing action defines the very question whether or not the pitcher ever even completed a wild pick-off throw to begin with. Since he aborted his pick-off throw, he was disengaged from the rubber, he was an infielder at that moment, he was no longer attempting a pick-off throw, and, therefore and ergo, he cannot possibly throw his pick-off attempt wild. I hope that difference is clear. Otherwise, I can see how the definition of the end to continuous action could be blurred by this play.
__________________
Jim Porter
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 05:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim, you may wish to re-read the sitch referred to. It states pitcher is engaged on rubber and never speaks of him disengaging---merely not throwing to first. The "almost immediately" might lead one to believe he stayed engaged and "without pause" turned and threw to center. I guess it is how the situation is read and interpreted that really would determine how the rule would be applied. Would that not be true?
(quote) PLAY: R1, outs irrelevant. R1 breaks for second just as F1 starts a pickoff move to first. Surprised by R1, F1 quickly fakes to first while engaged, but almost immediately turns and throws the ball into center field trying to retire R1 at second base. Steve Member EWS
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 06:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
IT *might* be true if you somehow misread it that F1 threw "in the same motion" to second and overthrew (e.g., he stepped toward first, saw R1 break, then threw "across his body" toward / past second). I find it hard to misread that much into the situation. It's been debated ad nauseum in the original thread. Do we really need to resurrect it again? I think this horse is dead. IF we haven't convinced you, Steve, then that's fine. Call it however you want on your field. Just recognize that, right or wrong, it's opposite to how everyone else (afaik) who has weighed in on this subject would call it.
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 08:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Continuous action is an uninterrupted progression of play, commencing with the pitch [throw], and ending typically when the runners have ceased trying to advance, and the defense has relaxed and returned the ball to the pitcher. Continuous action is distinguish from a "play", which can disallow the viability of an appeal.
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 10:39pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
No. Rich
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2001, 10:39pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
No. Rich
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
