The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Had to dump 3...or did I? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/36636-had-dump-3-did-i.html)

Tommy P Mon Jul 16, 2007 05:51pm

Had to dump 3...or did I?
 
Men's Wooden Bat League played under FED.

Sitch.

I got the dish.

Bottom 9, bases loaded, 0 outs, home team down 1.

B1 hits a ground ball to F5. Throw comes in to F2 for the force at home plate. The throw is short, so the catcher has to reach for it, bobbles it, but holds on with his foot still in contact with the plate. "Out", I say. As F2 raises up to throw to 1st, his right foot (pivot foot) comes up and into R3 who is in his final stride to touch the plate.

The contact spins the catcher around and to the ground (no throw was made) who is now lying on the ground in pain. As you know, here comes the coach. "That's interference". "How can you not call that, can't you see my catcher laying here hurt, you have to call that". "That's a FPSR". ETC...

Well, I explained why I judged it not to be interference, but to no avail.

As F2 is being looked after, a player comes in my face asking, "why didn't you call that, that's terrible". The coach gets in between us and attempts to push him away. The player tries to get around his coach and at me again, giving me this look as though he wanted to kick my azz. Bing, one gone!

Coach then asks me, "why did you just throw out my right fielder?" "Because your right fielder should be in right field, not coming up to me questioning a judgement call". Then he starts to rant and rave, I tell him that's enough, we are done with this conversation too. He continues, Bing, two gone!

Now, here comes the assistant coach. Looks at me and says, "that's ridiculous". Bing, three gone. Assistant coach then continues to come at me, I stand there, and he walks up and bumps me. This is the first time I have been bumped. My first impulse was to blast this knuckle head, but I just kinda smirked and walked away.

Play continues after coaches get out of site. Base hit, 2 score, game over 1 minute later.

Thoughts?

Tim C Mon Jul 16, 2007 06:02pm

Well,
 
I could use a little more information:

I am trying to picture where exactly F2 was located when the contact occurred.

I am trying to picture what the runner did at the plate . . . did he just run through the plate, did he slide, did he stop right on top of the plate?

I want to make sure that the game was played under National Federation rules.

If you can extrapolate just a little I can give you an opinion about the play.

Regards,

BigUmp56 Mon Jul 16, 2007 06:06pm

I hate to say this but it sounds to me like you had a FPSR violation and failed to make the call. I'm not sure how you felt the runner didn't alter the play here.

Also, I can understand the first two ejections. The third one was probably a little much though. Saying "that's ridiculous" shouldn't warrant an ejection.


Tim.

Tommy P Mon Jul 16, 2007 06:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
I could use a little more information:

I am trying to picture where exactly F2 was located when the contact occurred. [/QUOTE]

Right foot on plate, stretching down third base line.

[/QUOTE]I am trying to picture what the runner did at the plate . . . did he just run through the plate, did he slide, did he stop right on top of the plate? [/QUOTE]

Ran through the plate. If you can imagine when you plant your foot as you throw, your pivot foot comes up on the follow through. That is what the catcher did, without releasing the ball, as R3 was crossing the plate.

[/QUOTE]I want to make sure that the game was played under National Federation rules.

Yes, the league wanted the FPSR in effect.

Thanks!

SanDiegoSteve Mon Jul 16, 2007 06:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Also, I can understand the first two ejections. The third one was probably a little much though. Saying "that's ridiculous" shouldn't warrant an ejection.

Well, it did come from an assistant coach, who's only job is to say "atta-boy" and "turn left.";)

BigUmp56 Mon Jul 16, 2007 06:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy P
Right foot on plate, stretching down third base line.

Ran through the plate. If you can imagine when you plant your foot as you throw, your pivot foot comes up on the follow through. That is what the catcher did, without releasing the ball, as R3 was crossing the plate.


Yes, the league wanted the FPSR in effect.

Thanks!


Tommy,

The runner has two options when the FPSR is in effect. He must either execute a legal slide or get out of the way so as to not alter the play. Here the runner's actions altered the play and I think you missed the call.

Tim.

Tommy P Mon Jul 16, 2007 06:27pm

Sorry Tim C, I don't know how to use the quote and respond to it individually.

Can someone tell me how?:mad:

IMO, I treated it and saw it as a play at 1st base. F2/F3 is pulled off the bag, there is a little contact, everyone doing what they should be. Question is, would home and first be treated the same way since you can run through both in this situation?

UmpLarryJohnson Mon Jul 16, 2007 07:41pm

FPSR in EFFECT at SEC, THIRD BASES when the force is on, HOME plate also. FIRST base is a different beastie, cant comparee to others in this regard. A LITTLE DOG was VIOLATED here in this sich sorry to say.

Tim C Mon Jul 16, 2007 07:56pm

Tommy:
 
I want to be very careful here as all I can really do is read your words, make a mental picture in my mind and rule as I "think" I would do on the field.

"IMO, I treated it and saw it as a play at 1st base."

This is the first "problem." The play must be consiuder the same as a play at second or third in a force play situation.

"Ran through the plate."

At the plate this is the only thing he cannot do.

As BigUmp has noted he must slide or avoid . . . the instant he did not he is open for a FPSR violation.

The plate is even a little different that even 2nd and 3rd. With the plate flat to the ground the runner still cannot slide past the "base."

What really matters in your play is when the contact occurred . . . if it was in front of the plate (base) rather than at or past the plate (base) then you could have nuttin' -- HOWEVER -- if the contact occurred at the pate or past the plate and there was no attempt to avoid it would be FPSR>

From what you have posted -- an in my ivory tower -- I think you missed a Force Play Slide Rule violation.

BTW, speaking to your title of the thread . . . you would have still had the ejections . . . it just would have been players and rats from the offensive team.

Regards,

Tommy P Mon Jul 16, 2007 08:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
I want to be very careful here as all I can really do is read your words, make a mental picture in my mind and rule as I "think" I would do on the field.

"IMO, I treated it and saw it as a play at 1st base."

This is the first "problem." The play must be consiuder the same as a play at second or third in a force play situation.

"Ran through the plate."

At the plate this is the only thing he cannot do.

As BigUmp has noted he must slide or avoid . . . the instant he did not he is open for a FPSR violation.

The plate is even a little different that even 2nd and 3rd. With the plate flat to the ground the runner still cannot slide past the "base."

What really matters in your play is when the contact occurred . . . if it was in front of the plate (base) rather than at or past the plate (base) then you could have nuttin' -- HOWEVER -- if the contact occurred at the pate or past the plate and there was no attempt to avoid it would be FPSR>

From what you have posted -- an in my ivory tower -- I think you missed a Force Play Slide Rule violation.

BTW, speaking to your title of the thread . . . you would have still had the ejections . . . it just would have been players and rats from the offensive team.

Regards,

The contact was approx. 3-4 ft. on the 3rd base side of home plate.

Sorry, I tried to paint a mental picture. Let me try one more time.

As the catcher stretched for the throw, he held his foot on the plate after a slight bobble, pulling him up the line. As he came up, his pivot foot was straddling the line. As he went to throw to 1st, his pivot foot came up and R3ran into it spinning the catcher around with no throw.

I must admit, if the throw was made and was errant, I would have made the same call. I think:rolleyes:

Thanks all for your input!

Steven Tyler Mon Jul 16, 2007 09:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy P
The contact was approx. 3-4 ft. on the 3rd base side of home plate.

Sorry, I tried to paint a mental picture. Let me try one more time.

As the catcher stretched for the throw, he held his foot on the plate after a slight bobble, pulling him up the line. As he came up, his pivot foot was straddling the line. As he went to throw to 1st, his pivot foot came up and R3ran into it spinning the catcher around with no throw.

I must admit, if the throw was made and was errant, I would have made the same call. I think:rolleyes:

Thanks all for your input!

The runner cannot go in standing up and make contact. It doesn't matter where the catcher's pivot foot was.

UmpLarryJohnson Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler
The runner cannot go in standing up and make contact. It doesn't matter where the catcher's pivot foot was.


he ASKED for opinions but looks like his MIND was already SET :D

rei Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:12am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy P
The contact was approx. 3-4 ft. on the 3rd base side of home plate.

Sorry, I tried to paint a mental picture. Let me try one more time.

As the catcher stretched for the throw, he held his foot on the plate after a slight bobble, pulling him up the line. As he came up, his pivot foot was straddling the line. As he went to throw to 1st, his pivot foot came up and R3ran into it spinning the catcher around with no throw.

I must admit, if the throw was made and was errant, I would have made the same call. I think:rolleyes:

Thanks all for your input!

Okay, here is the problem based on how I am picturing the play.

The runner MUST either slide, or, move AWAY from the fielder in the force play slide rule, otherwise he is interfering with the player making the play.

In this case, had the runner slid, and made the contact before the base IN THE BASE PATH or on the base, the contact would be legal. If the contact was on either side or beyond the bag, it is interference. If he didn't slide, it doesn't matter WHERE he or the fielder is, if he makes contact, he has interfered with the play and he, and the next runner is out.

It is as simple as that really.

Steven Tyler Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21am

Instead of the next runner being out, shouldn't that be the batter/runner being ruled out on the interference?

rei Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy P
As F2 is being looked after, a player comes in my face asking, "why didn't you call that, that's terrible". The coach gets in between us and attempts to push him away. The player tries to get around his coach and at me again, giving me this look as though he wanted to kick my azz. Bing, one gone!

I would not have even waited for the coach to get between us. He left his position in the field to argue a call. He is gone gone gone!!!

Quote:

Coach then asks me, "why did you just throw out my right fielder?" "Because your right fielder should be in right field, not coming up to me questioning a judgement call". Then he starts to rant and rave, I tell him that's enough, we are done with this conversation too. He continues, Bing, two gone!
I wasn't there, so I have no idea what "He continues" means. At this point, I might have given him a second warning to end the argument before throwing him though. Hard to say if he deserved the ejection. He was probably livid that you missed the force play slide rule interference. I would have been livid! But, I have to be soft towards you on this. I have only had to make 1 force play slide rule interference call at home in 21 years, and luckily, I got it right! ;)

Quote:

Now, here comes the assistant coach. Looks at me and says, "that's ridiculous". Bing, three gone. Assistant coach then continues to come at me, I stand there, and he walks up and bumps me. This is the first time I have been bumped. My first impulse was to blast this knuckle head, but I just kinda smirked and walked away.
Hmmmm....So the new head coach makes an observation, which is starting to sort of appear to be spot on, and you toss him. ;) Well, I actually am not too surprised that he bumped you afterwards! Usually after an ejection, I turn and walk away and let my partner peel them off so as to avoid the bump! Bumps are serious, and I certainly don't want to bring one on. I was taught to turn away after an ejection. That is what you should have done. You have already pissed the guy off by:

1 - Getting the call wrong.
2 - Letting the right fielder stay in the game for a bit after his first comment towards you after he left his position to make it!
3 - Dumping the other coach who obviously knew the force play slide rule better than the umpire did!
4 - Dumping him for saying "That's ridiculous".

Quote:

Play continues after coaches get out of site. Base hit, 2 score, game over 1 minute later.

Thoughts?
Your wrongly applied ruling could have had the runner going into 3rd out too! Thus, the "hit" by the next batter might not have scored any runs!!!

I am assuming that the catcher was going to make a play on the batter/runner when he was interfered by R1, thus, there still would have been runners on 2nd and 3rd. In this case, your wrongly applied ruling would not have made much difference with the batter knocking in two runs to end the game.

BUT...........making a big double play with the bases loaded sure has a way of energizing a team and a pitcher. While it is impossible to say whether your decision either way would have effected the next play, only an idiot would say that it wouldn't make a difference eh? ;)

Live and learn I suppose. You may never have this happen again in your career. Hopefully it will so you can get it right next time.

Slow down on giving the heave ho. Look for ways to keep people in the game. I ref indoor soccer and was trained by a US Indoor national level instructor (he trains the pro guys) and he is fond of saying (concerning ejecting players) "Set the bar high. But by god if they go over it, BOOK 'EM!!!". :)

rei Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler
Instead of the next runner being out, shouldn't that be the batter/runner being ruled out on the interference?

Technically, it is whoever the next play was going to be made on. In this case, it appears it would be the batter/runner.

Sorry. My initial post is worded sort of funky. ;)

canadaump6 Tue Jul 17, 2007 03:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigUmp56
Saying "that's ridiculous" shouldn't warrant an ejection.
Tim.

It was a little bit quick of an ejection. Still, the player knew not to argue as the other coach had already been tossed for continuing to argue.

ozzy6900 Tue Jul 17, 2007 06:01am

Tommy P. - From your description (and as many others have told you), you had a FPSR violation!

We had the exact play last night! The PU Called interference and we had just the opposite -- the offense screaming but no one got bad enough to be ejected. F2 recovered after a brief halt to the game and we continued play without further incident.

bob jenkins Tue Jul 17, 2007 07:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rei
Technically, it is whoever the next play was going to be made on. In this case, it appears it would be the batter/runner.

Sorry. My initial post is worded sort of funky. ;)

If it was the FED FPSR, it's always the BR who is the second out; other runners return.

rei Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
If it was the FED FPSR, it's always the BR who is the second out; other runners return.

My rule book is buried somewhere in my work van, so I could not look up the rule.

BUT.........I found my 2007 casebook. Page 78 concerning rule 8.4.2, there is a "Comment":

Quote:

The umpire has the authority to declare two runners out when a runner or retired runner illegally interferes and prevents a double play In such circumstances, the runner who interferes is out and the other runner involved is also out. Also, when the batter-runner interfers, the umpire may declare two outs. The batter-runner is declared out and so is the runner who has advanced the nearest to home plate.
Somehow, I think that if it is a home to third double play attempt, and the runner coming into home interferes, I would be calling the runner going into 3rd out too.

If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this. ;)

mbyron Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rei
If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this. ;)

Rule 8-4-2b PENALTY:
Quote:

PENALTY: The runner is out, the ball is dead immediately, and interference is called. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder’s choice.
We go hunting for another out only when the BR interferes, and then pick the runner closest to home.

UmpJM Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:38am

rei,

Quote:

Originally Posted by rei
If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this.

From the FED rulebook "Penalty" following 8-4-2b:

Quote:

...On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. ...
The penalty you suggested above applies to intentional interference to break up a double play, or 8-4-2g infractions.

JM

Edited to add: Ah, I see Dr. Byron has beat me to the punch.

Tim C Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:41am

Hmmm,
 
Rei intoned:

"My rule book is buried somewhere in my work van, so I could not look up the rule.

"BUT.........I found my 2007 casebook. Page 78 concerning rule 8.4.2, there is a "Comment":

"Quote:

"The umpire has the authority to declare two runners out when a runner or retired runner illegally interferes and prevents a double play In such circumstances, the runner who interferes is out and the other runner involved is also out. Also, when the batter-runner interfers, the umpire may declare two outs. The batter-runner is declared out and so is the runner who has advanced the nearest to home plate."


"Somehow, I think that if it is a home to third double play attempt, and the runner coming into home interferes, I would be calling the runner going into 3rd out too.

"If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this."


Rei:

I referred to this exact Case Book play at a local Portland Baseball Umpire Association general meeting this year.

Two of our members took me to task and pointed out that if the "Batter" caused the issue then you can call out the runner nearest to home plate. In this play, and the play I was discussing at the meeting, the runner caused the issue.

Again, the NFHS has tried to handle two situations in one paragraph and just made it confusing.

Last year I would have agreed with your view of the play -- I am now on Bob Jenkin's side of the street.

Good luck at the Legion State Tourament.

Regards,

rei Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:52am

Well then, I stand corrected. :)

I was thinking too, that had the described play been called correctly, there would be runners on first and second only with now two outs. The "hit" to the outfield would have only scored 1 run to make a tie game. So, in this case, even based on the next batters actions, the outcome of the game really COULD have been altered!

rei Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachJM
rei,



From the FED rulebook "Penalty" following 8-4-2b:



The penalty you suggested above applies to intentional interference to break up a double play, or 8-4-2g infractions.

JM

Edited to add: Ah, I see Dr. Byron has beat me to the punch.

I have never seen an unintentional interference on a double play! ;)

bob jenkins Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rei
My rule book is buried somewhere in my work van, so I could not look up the rule.

BUT.........I found my 2007 casebook. Page 78 concerning rule 8.4.2, there is a "Comment":



Somehow, I think that if it is a home to third double play attempt, and the runner coming into home interferes, I would be calling the runner going into 3rd out too.

If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this. ;)

That's in reference to 8-4-2G (which contains similar or identical wording) -- interfering with a thrown ball or interfering with a fielder in his initial attempt to field a batted ball.

The ruling on a FPSR violation has already been posted -- and it's the BR who is out.

bossman72 Tue Jul 17, 2007 02:09pm

Tee or Bob,

If this game was played under OBR, would you have no infraction of any kind on this play?

jkumpire Tue Jul 17, 2007 02:10pm

Tommy,

I understand quite clearly what you are seeing, and what you are getting at. But whether it is accidental or not, R3 is the guy responsible from contact and/or altering the play of the fielder. The throw and how F2 picked it up did not alter his chance to get the guy at 1B, R3 did.

That is why it is a clear FPSR violation. And I am sure you would have had a big yelling match with the offense in this case, but sometimes accidents happen and people get in trouble for them. Tough break.

BigUmp56 Tue Jul 17, 2007 02:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossman72
Tee or Bob,

If this game was played under OBR, would you have no infraction of any kind on this play?

Well, I'm not Tee and I'm not Bob. At least today I'm not. But if I may I'll answer your question.

Under pure OBR, not even close to an infraction unless you deem the runner intentionally interfered.

Under modified OBR codes that have a "slide or attempt to avoid" provision, it's a HTBT, but from the description of the play it doesn't sound like INT.


Tim.

mbyron Tue Jul 17, 2007 03:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigUmp56
Under modified OBR codes that have a "slide or attempt to avoid" provision, it's a HTBT, but from the description of the play it doesn't sound like INT.

A lot of leagues around here have "slide or avoid," and I'm curious how you can justify not calling INT here. Assuming the contact occurs on the 3B side of the plate (I agree that this is HTBT, but F2 is stretched that way and turns to throw to 1B), we have no slide AND contact that affects the play. What does "slide or avoid contact" mean here?

I lean the other way: agree that it's HTBT (to judge where the contact occurs), but to me it sounds like INT under OBR w/ "slide or avoid contact".

BigUmp56 Tue Jul 17, 2007 09:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron
A lot of leagues around here have "slide or avoid," and I'm curious how you can justify not calling INT here. Assuming the contact occurs on the 3B side of the plate (I agree that this is HTBT, but F2 is stretched that way and turns to throw to 1B), we have no slide AND contact that affects the play. What does "slide or avoid contact" mean here?

I lean the other way: agree that it's HTBT (to judge where the contact occurs), but to me it sounds like INT under OBR w/ "slide or avoid contact".


I'm not aware of any rules set absent some local league rule that has a slide or avoid provision. The rules that I'm familiar with have a slide or attempt to avoid provision. Based on the description of this play it sounds to me like F2 swung his leg out over the plate where the contact occured as he attempted to throw the ball.


Tim.

DG Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:12pm

I have never seen a FPSR called at the plate. I know it's possible, but I have never seen it and would not call it in this case. Start and catchers will start leg whipping on the throw to get this call.

rei Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C

Good luck at the Legion State Tourament.

Regards,


Thanks Tim. I will try to represent us well! :)

Tommy P Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:55am

First, thank you all for your responses.

I talked to my Commish, and he heard that the catcher admitted to someone it was his fault the contact occurred. I also heard the HC told someone he tried to keep his brother (assistant coach) in the dugout, but to no avail.

Gives me a little confirmation, justification is probably a better word, but I am still questioning my judgement on this because of the feedback I got from some of my brethren.

I do agree that the FPSR could have been called here, and maybe should have been called here. Sometime it is HTBT, or one's sole judgement.

A possible Case Book play here?

I do remember seeing a McNeely interp on this in the BRD.

Found it, AO 43-320 pg. 200 Any relevance here?

Tim C Wed Jul 18, 2007 02:34pm

So,
 
Tommy, are you telling us STILL that you don't think this was a violation of the FPSR?

Really, becasue if you are you are doing exactly what I comment on:

Come in here and ask for opinions,

Get several opinions,

Tell us you were right and we are wrong.

Have I figured this out correctly?

(Psst, it was a classic violation of the FPSR and you erred by not calling it . . . that lead to multiple ejections . . . maybe one day you'll be wise enough to accept teaching.)

oyaisee Sat Nov 24, 2007 04:10pm

you guys kill me
 
He wasn't asking about the FPSR he was asking about his ejections!!!

I don't care if you get all your calls wrong.... that's up to you! but I'm glad you got rid of everyone you did!

Who cares about FPSR and if you got it right or wrong! and Someone that yells "That's redick in my face just after I boomed 2 other guys is done!"

Don't call them brothers because if you wanted to know about the FPSR you would have asked about that!!

You asked about the ejections Not FPSR

Rich Sat Nov 24, 2007 04:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by oyaisee
He wasn't asking about the FPSR he was asking about his ejections!!!

I don't care if you get all your calls wrong.... that's up to you! but I'm glad you got rid of everyone you did!

Who cares about FPSR and if you got it right or wrong! and Someone that yells "That's redick in my face just after I boomed 2 other guys is done!"

Don't call them brothers because if you wanted to know about the FPSR you would have asked about that!!

You asked about the ejections Not FPSR

I could say some things about a poster dredging up 4-month-old threads for no good reason, but what would be the point?

PeteBooth Sat Nov 24, 2007 07:00pm

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by oyaisee
He wasn't asking about the FPSR he was asking about his ejections!!!

I don't care if you get all your calls wrong.... that's up to you! but I'm glad you got rid of everyone you did!

Who cares about FPSR and if you got it right or wrong! and Someone that yells "That's redick in my face just after I boomed 2 other guys is done!"

Don't call them brothers because if you wanted to know about the FPSR you would have asked about that!!

You asked about the ejections Not FPSR


I do not have a problem with the ejections. Regardless of the call, people need to behave. It's ok for the manager / player to give their $.02 (provided no F Bomb or any derogattory statements made directly at the umpire) but after that it's time to play ball, however,

IMO, as others such as TEE, Bob et al have tried to explain in FED, from the OP it's a FPSR violation.

IMO, here's what you are missing:

If the FPSR was called initially perhaps none of the "other" stuff would have taken place which is the point the posters are trying to explain.

As mentioned, I do not agree with the behavior that was displayed but that is typical of mens adult leagues.

Also, what has me puzzled is that I have been umpiring mens adult wood bat leagues for years and none of them plays by FED rules.

Home plate is treated like any other base in FED. In fact there is case play on the play at the plate. We all were not there but from the strict reading of the OP it's a FPSR violation and if you are going to play by FED rules, then you need to understand them and make the call.

Pete Booth

canadaump6 Sat Nov 24, 2007 07:38pm

Upon reading the first couple pages of this thread, I was worried that UmpLarryJohnson was back and we would have to listen to his jibberish again. Then I saw that the thread is about 4 months old.:p

But like oyaisee was saying, the original poster was not asking for a rule interpretation. I thought his third ejection was a bit early, but I liked his first two. Any time a player gets in my face, or approaches me violently, he's tossed.

SanDiegoSteve Sat Nov 24, 2007 08:25pm

Oh, as opposed to your jibberish?:rolleyes:

I'll take Larry's, thank you.

RPatrino Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:53pm

I don't know about anyone else, but I find little value in discussing past ejections. So you ejected some participants, good for you. If you don't want to discuss the calls that precipitated those ejections, that is your business.
I personally find much more value in talking about how the rule was misapplied then in the meltdowns that followed.

Everyone makes their own decisions about when and whether to eject. Nothing we say here is going to change that.

BigUmp56 Sun Nov 25, 2007 01:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by oyaisee
He wasn't asking about the FPSR he was asking about his ejections!!!

I don't care if you get all your calls wrong.... that's up to you! but I'm glad you got rid of everyone you did!

Who cares about FPSR and if you got it right or wrong! and Someone that yells "That's redick in my face just after I boomed 2 other guys is done!"

Don't call them brothers because if you wanted to know about the FPSR you would have asked about that!!

You asked about the ejections Not FPSR


Sorry to disappoint you, but when I see that someone has a negligible understanding of a rule, I'm going to point it out so that he can learn from it. That's pretty much what this forum is supposed to be about. And dumping a coach for saying "that's ridiculous" is, well.............ridiculous!


Tim.

TxUmp Mon Nov 26, 2007 04:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rei
I have only had to make 1 force play slide rule interference call at home in 21 years, and luckily, I got it right! ;)

Since the FPSR only became part of the FED in 1998, I fail to see the significance of your statement.

UmpLarryJohnson Tue Nov 27, 2007 02:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadaump6
Upon reading the first couple pages of this thread, I was worried that UmpLarryJohnson was back and we would have to listen to his jibberish again. Then I saw that the thread is about 4 months old.:p

not goin any where kid. your gonna have to do beter than find old posts of mine for that. but we'll be here to laff at you as you mentally soil yourself so to say :rolleyes:

3appleshigh Tue Nov 27, 2007 05:04pm

Not that it matters, but with FPSR, does there need to be a Good chance for the Catcher to retire thre runner involved in the decision? Without a throw here, I wonder if the catcher choose not to throw? I'm just curious, as I don't currently deal with this rule, but could easily see having to in the future.

GarthB Tue Nov 27, 2007 05:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh
Not that it matters, but with FPSR, does there need to be a Good chance for the Catcher to retire thre runner involved in the decision? Without a throw here, I wonder if the catcher choose not to throw? I'm just curious, as I don't currently deal with this rule, but could easily see having to in the future.

I don't think you have a grasp on the Force Play Slide Rule. It has nothing to do with a throw from the catcher.

canadaump6 Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh
Not that it matters, but with FPSR, does there need to be a Good chance for the Catcher to retire thre runner involved in the decision? Without a throw here, I wonder if the catcher choose not to throw? I'm just curious, as I don't currently deal with this rule, but could easily see having to in the future.

I think you're talking about batter interference.

Forest Ump Wed Nov 28, 2007 01:25am

3 A H ,

This may provide you a better understanding of the FPSR http://www.umpire.org/writers/force.html


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1