Trick play for the early season

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rcichon

Only a moron beats a dead horse.

Says the man with the whip.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rcichon

LOL Garth ok I'll post it. I just wanted to ATTEMPT to stay on-topic in threads and thought a PM was more appropos. I can see that subtlety is not your strong suit.

I prefere honesty and transparency. I don't need a penpal.

I don't think mcrowder needs your assistance and in fact I may have the wrong idea but really:
Who asked you? I didn't. Why not just shut up and mind your own business.

Again, one of the features of public boards is the ability and the habit of responding to any post. Are you saying you only respond to posts which specifically are addressed to you? Would you like me to post some examples that demonstrate that is not true?

I was not defending Mcrowder, I was disagreeing with you. Perhaps that's not allowed.

Rich Ives corrected me and I appreciated it. Did he get a PM from me? No. Crowder corrected me and I answered via posting in the thread.
You posted ad nauseum and I just had had enough.

One post is "ad nauseum?" I posted just one time to you prior to your unsolicted private message. Maybe counting isn't your strong suit.

So take a hint Garth: Only a moron beats a dead horse.

Again, you're the one flailing away.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rcichon

LOL Garth ok I'll post it. I just wanted to ATTEMPT to stay on-topic in threads and thought a PM was more appropos. I can see that subtlety is not your strong suit.

I don't think mcrowder needs your assistance and in fact I may have the wrong idea but really:
Who asked you? I didn't. Why not just shut up and mind your own business.

Rich Ives corrected me and I appreciated it. Did he get a PM from me? No. Crowder corrected me and I answered via posting in the thread.
You posted ad nauseum and I just had had enough.

So take a hint Garth: Only a moron beats a dead horse.

Now who's getting personal? Garth's response was the first to your accusation to mccrowder.

Enough of this back-and-forth. Comment on the OP, or don't comment at all.

[LMan]

To return for a moment to the OP (shocking, I know), and playing devil's advocate:

Since the purpose of F6's 'attack' can be accomplished in a matter of a second or two (only needs R2 to look at him for a moment), I daresay that the umpire is going to be hard-pressed to argue that "time" was called the instant F6 moved. Like everyone else not in on the ruse, the umpires are going to just be looking at the guy for a few seconds trying to figure out what's going on, and by then R2 is picked off.

So, you are going to be retroactively nullifying the play by invoking something you didn't really call at the time, and everyone is going to know that...and you will carry that into your subsequent discussion with the offensive coach.

[David B]

Originally Posted by LMan

To return for a moment to the OP (shocking, I know), and playing devil's advocate:

Since the purpose of F6's 'attack' can be accomplished in a matter of a second or two (only needs R2 to look at him for a moment), I daresay that the umpire is going to be hard-pressed to argue that "time" was called the instant F6 moved. Like everyone else not in on the ruse, the umpires are going to just be looking at the guy for a few seconds trying to figure out what's going on, and by then R2 is picked off.

So, you are going to be retroactively nullifying the play by invoking something you didn't really call at the time, and everyone is going to know that...and you will carry that into your subsequent discussion with the offensive coach.

My comment is never that I called time - its simply "Coach I had time"

What did you have time for? Insert one of hundreds of answers.

Maybe just me, but I keep it all very simple.

Thanks
David

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by LMan

Like everyone else not in on the ruse, the umpires are going to just be looking at the guy for a few seconds trying to figure out what's going on, and by then R2 is picked off.

Exactly. Everyone but F6 and F1 will be looking at F5. Including the coaches. If the defensive coaches aren't looking at F5 they'll be looking at R2 to see if he's taking the bait. No one in the park will know if I did or didn't have time.
I prefer killing the play, even if delayed, than any other option available. It's not such an egregious act that anyone needs to leave the game for it. Nor, IMO does the offense deserve to profit from this creative, if not flawed, attempt to attract R2s attention.
Actually the more I think about it, if F5s dramatics are only a second or two I might even let the play stand.

What if F5 starts jumping up and down and yelling nonsense? F1 and F6 only need a split second distraction to make the play.
Should we be killing, or calling obstruction on any action that might distract the runner?
What if F2 stands up when F1 is set and yells something funny to F5, distracts R2 and the play is made.
Are we only wanting to penalize F5 for the nature of his distraction or merely for distracting?
Curious to hear what you think.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

What if F5 starts jumping up and down and yelling nonsense? F1 and F6 only need a split second distraction to make the play.
Should we be killing, or calling obstruction on any action that might distract the runner?
What if F2 stands up when F1 is set and yells something funny to F5, distracts R2 and the play is made.
Are we only wanting to penalize F5 for the nature of his distraction or merely for distracting?
Curious to hear what you think.

Verbal obstruction is a HTBT and judgment. An act might be obstruction to one umpire and not another. The same act might be obstruction in one instance and not obstruction in another. If the act does not distract the runner, I would be extremely reluctant to call obstruction.

In your F2 yelling something funny to F5 situation, if R2 ignores F2 and is not distracted, I would definitely have nothing. An if it did distract him, I probably still would have nothing. Kids say funny things all the time on the field and the runner needs to have better focus.

For me, verbal obstruction would be pretty much automatic if the defense says something baseball related, like "back" as the pitcher begins his delivery to the plate, or "get down" as the runner nears the base, or "foul ball" on a clean hit. I am likely to ignore other comments.

The original situation and your F5 spouting nonsense situation, however, go beyond simply saying something. A feigned medical emergency is clearly obstruction to me. At a minimum, a base will be awarded, and depending on the conduct of the defensive team, other penalties will be invoked as necessary.

I see it similar to a fake tag (absent the safety issue). If a player fakes a tag, it is obstruction whether the runner takes the bait or not. If there is verbal obstruction, it should be penalized regardless of whether the attempt was or was not successful.

[Eastshire]

The reason I am dumping F6 is the feigned medical emergancy. It's over the top. Deception can have its place in the game, but this is not a sportsmanlike act.

Now, if F6 just yelled "Watch Out" or something funny, we may or may not have obstruction but we won't have sportsmanship issues.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Rcichon

Hey Crowder, I LOVE it when fellow officials get personal to boost their own ego. Reminds me of how not to act. Thanks for the model...

BTW: Thanks Rich and no sarcasm intended.

No offense intended to you personally. I'd love to hear your explanation of how my comment was in ANY way personal.

To expand on my pet peeve (which by no means means anything personal to you! ) - it is bothersome that so many umpires use the phrase you used - "making a travesty of the game" to invent rulings to fit their own personal agendas. I train and schedule umpires, and I've both witnessed and heard about numerous instances of this - usually from the umpire's own explanation of his reasoning in a particularly odd situation.

That phrase appears EXACTLY once in the book, and it's meant to disallow runners running bases in reverse order for the purposes of making a travesty of the game. And that's ALL. It's absolutely not meant as a catch-all to allow umpires to inflict rulings upon teams where otherwise perfectly good rules exist.

Nothing personal.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by LMan

So, you are going to be retroactively nullifying the play by invoking something you didn't really call at the time, and everyone is going to know that...and you will carry that into your subsequent discussion with the offensive coach.

I think someone else answered this perfectly, but with all the FPSR and rob distractions, it may have been lost.

I think that YES, you can easily "retroactively" call timeout, and if the offensive coach comes out to complain, you can simply ask him - "Oh, this was intentional? So you told your fielder to commit verbal obstruction?" And if the lightbulb doesn't turn on for him... then by all means award bases on the verbal obstruction.

And if you don't think "retroactive" timeout is appropriate, surely the second you see something amiss, you can still call timeout at that point - before any actual damage is done ... or ignore the play and look after the seemingly stricken player - an implied dead ball similar to a PU brushing the plate without actually saying, "TIME!".

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

To expand on my pet peeve (which by no means means anything personal to you! ) - it is bothersome that so many umpires use the phrase you used - "making a travesty of the game" to invent rulings to fit their own personal agendas. I train and schedule umpires, and I've both witnessed and heard about numerous instances of this - usually from the umpire's own explanation of his reasoning in a particularly odd situation.

That phrase appears EXACTLY once in the book, and it's meant to disallow runners running bases in reverse order for the purposes of making a travesty of the game. And that's ALL. It's absolutely not meant as a catch-all to allow umpires to inflict rulings upon teams where otherwise perfectly good rules exist.

mcrowder's statement is exactly correct for games using OBR, but it is not true for Fed games. The Fed book also uses the phrase "travesty of the game" in reference to multiple appeals (8-2-6f).