Learned 2 New Things Last Night

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"OBR - Sorry, can't find it right now.

"PBUC - nothing listed."

I ask because I have seen MLB umpires twice this year award home on R1 running on a pitch and a long "ground rule double" that bounced over a fence.

Both awards drew a large (long) arguement but neither ended in an ejection or "reversal."

I contend here that under OBR the award is NOT from TOP.

Regards,

Could fan interference have taken place, or did the touch by the fielder cause the ball to go out of play?

[t-rex]

mlb umpires blow a call?

The link above is to a thread regarding a play where the second baseman originally touched the ball in fair territory (in and out of the glove twice) and then the ball bounds into the stands.

There is a citation in the thread to the PBUC manual that offers a different award based on the deflection by the fielder. I do not own a copy of the PBUC, nor the MLBUM, but I wondered at the time I originally read the previous thread if these two publications might offer different ways of handling this type of play.

Also of note is the announcer's explanation of the award. The announcer on the replay explains that the award is from R1's position at the time the ball enters the stands, but he does not expand on this enough for us to know if he was speaking this particular play, or if he believes this to be the case for every ball that bounces out of play. It does however give us a reasonable explanation for why a coach might believe that every ball bouncing and then entering DBT is a two base award from the time the ball enters DBT.

*edited to correct link

[bobbybanaduck]

post removed cuz everything i said was covered in the posts above

[BigUmp56]

Matt,

If you're an NUA member of Babe Ruth you should call your games using only the Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken rule books. It's not unusual to show up at a park and have a coach try to explain a bunch of half cocked league rules they're using. Just tell them that as a Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken umpire you will call the game by the rules provided by the national organization. If they don't agree.......leave. We've had to deal with this sort of thing many times through the years, and over time the leagues in our area have come around to our way of thinking.


Tim.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by mattmets

One serious, one not so much.

Cal Ripken league game, uses OBR with some modifications.

1) R1 and R3, pitcher in stretch. He comes straight up with the leg, then wheels and throws to his F6, who is playing at his position. I balk F1 for throwing to an unoccupied base. Apparently this has been an issue before, because defensive head coach comes out with rule in hand, where there is a rule comment that a pitcher may throw to an unoccupied base with R1 and R3, regardless of whether the runners are in motion. So I agree with the coach, but enforce the balk on the fact that F1 threw to F6 at his position, not at second base. Correct?

This comment doesn't exist in OBR, does it? I've never heard of the rule, and the only thing I can find is 8.05(d), which supports my call. The pitcher did not become a fielder, nor was R1 advancing at TOP.

2) R1 and R2, next batter hits a shot to right-center that one hops over the fence. I call a GRD, award second and third. Runners off with the pitch, and R1 had gotten past second by time the ball left the field of play. 1B coach couldn't believe that R1 was not awarded home. Tried for 3 innings to convince me that because the runner had passed second, he got home. Did it all civilly, and for some reason didn't understand the rule, so I didn't have to even raise my voice in talking to him, but I was shocked that this guy, who I've seen coaching for 3 years, didn't know a ground-rule double is 2 from TOP.

All of this in 100+ degree heat and 65% humidity, in the first inning. Easy game the rest of the way and the coaches weren't that bad, but man, it was the weirdest first inning I've ever seen.

Seems everyone is more intent on continuing other arguments than answering your question.

I don't know what ruling the coach may have showed you on the first one but I don't know of such a ruling. I thought you ruled correctly to begin with. Throwing to a fielder who isn't at the base is a feint which is only illegal at first. But in this case, there is no runner and no play at second so it is a balk since it is illegal to feint to an unoccupied base.

On the second, to be picky, it isn't a "ground rule" double for the reasons the others stated. It's a "book rule" double, more specifically, 7.05(g)

Rita

[Tim C]

Rita:

That is exactly why I have asked the question in the way I did.

For decades I was under an understanding that in OBR umpires were allowed to "place" runners at their discretion in a play that ended as a ground rule double.

I also was under an impression that by "use and tradition" that the award was always two bases from TOP. I watched many, many arguements that involved a runner that was far past second base when the ball went out of play and were only awarded third base.

Now this year I have seen twice and additional base awarded. That is why I ask for OBR (PBUC) documentation that said the award is TOP.

I mean I know things are "chagin'" at the MLB level (heck three years ago I saw Joe Brinkman change a shot down the left field line from foul to fair DURING THE PLAY) and wondered what is up here.

Regards,

[tibear]

Originally Posted by mattmets

One serious, one not so much.

Cal Ripken league game, uses OBR with some modifications.

1) R1 and R3, pitcher in stretch. He comes straight up with the leg, then wheels and throws to his F6, who is playing at his position. I balk F1 for throwing to an unoccupied base. Apparently this has been an issue before, because defensive head coach comes out with rule in hand, where there is a rule comment that a pitcher may throw to an unoccupied base with R1 and R3, regardless of whether the runners are in motion. So I agree with the coach, but enforce the balk on the fact that F1 threw to F6 at his position, not at second base. Correct?

This comment doesn't exist in OBR, does it? I've never heard of the rule, and the only thing I can find is 8.05(d), which supports my call. The pitcher did not become a fielder, nor was R1 advancing at TOP.

Found a website: http://www.macroweb.com/ibrules/bqpg0105.htm which has a similar situation along with their response:

Runner on second base; one out. The pitcher tries a pick-off, but no-one covers the bag. Rather than hold the ball, the pitcher throws to the shortstop, who is minding his own business at his regular fielding position. What is the correct ruling?
Your Answer: Balk. This is considered throwing to an unoccupied base
Correct Answer: Nothing. This is perfectly legal
Explanation: The pitcher is not required to throw to second base once he makes a step in that direction. Only to first base a throw to the bag is mandatory after stepping to that base. However, rule 8.05h may be invoked if the umpire judges that this act is done by the pitcher in order to delay the game. An umpire may call a balk for any unnecessary delay of the game by the pitcher.

It appears that according this website, if your throwing to a fielder that is not at a base it is perfectly legal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

It appears that according this website, if your throwing to a fielder that is not at a base it is perfectly legal.

You need not throw *DIRECTLY* at a base (except first -- and even there you can throw to the fielder if he is making a play). But, the throw is closer to one base than to any other, and that base must be occupied. In the web-site play, second was occupied -- so the throw is legal. In the OP, second is unpccupied, so the throw is illegal.

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by tibear

Found a website: http://www.macroweb.com/ibrules/bqpg0105.htm which has a similar situation along with their response:

Runner on second base; one out. The pitcher tries a pick-off, but no-one covers the bag. Rather than hold the ball, the pitcher throws to the shortstop, who is minding his own business at his regular fielding position. What is the correct ruling?
Your Answer: Balk. This is considered throwing to an unoccupied base
Correct Answer: Nothing. This is perfectly legal
Explanation: The pitcher is not required to throw to second base once he makes a step in that direction. Only to first base a throw to the bag is mandatory after stepping to that base. However, rule 8.05h may be invoked if the umpire judges that this act is done by the pitcher in order to delay the game. An umpire may call a balk for any unnecessary delay of the game by the pitcher.

It appears that according this website, if your throwing to a fielder that is not at a base it is perfectly legal.

some of those questions on the quizzes anger me. some of them don't give enough information, and some don't give enough options for answers. they need to be fixed.

[MarionTiger]

I can't find anything to counter this on the unoccupied base issue:

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern. However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:
(a) Straddling the pitcher’s rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk.
(b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base.

Am I missing something?

[bobbybanaduck]

what you are missing is that this comment is not meant to supercede the rest of the rule. you can't take a rule comment and read it like it is a rule. the comment you cite is at the end of the rule to add emphasis to the rest of the rule. comment (b) refers to 8.05d and is extra information. you have to read 8.05d first (which says he can't throw to an unoccupied base unless it's for the purpose of making a play) then move on to comment (b) which tells you that he can turn and throw to second without interruption (and now you have to think back to the other part and know that he can only do this if it is for the purpose of making a play.) confused yet?

[MarionTiger]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

what you are missing is that this comment is not meant to supercede the rest of the rule. you can't take a rule comment and read it like it is a rule. the comment you cite is at the end of the rule to add emphasis to the rest of the rule. comment (b) refers to 8.05d and is extra information. you have to read 8.05d first (which says he can't throw to an unoccupied base unless it's for the purpose of making a play) then move on to comment (b) which tells you that he can turn and throw to second without interruption (and now you have to think back to the other part and know that he can only do this if it is for the purpose of making a play.) confused yet?

then what is the purpose of comment 8.05(b), if not to quantify the previous rule (since it is at the bottom of 8.05)? is comment 8.05(b) not similar to an amendment to 8.05d? You are right, I am confused. To me, it clearly states that for this purpose, 2nd is not considered unoccupied. If it is not considered unoccupied, then 8.05d does not apply by definition, right?

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by MarionTiger

then what is the purpose of comment 8.05(b), if not to quantify the previous rule (since it is at the bottom of 8.05)? is comment 8.05(b) not similar to an amendment to 8.05d? You are right, I am confused. To me, it clearly states that for this purpose, 2nd is not considered unoccupied. If it is not considered unoccupied, then 8.05d does not apply by definition, right?

it is unoccupied, but, F1 is allowed to throw there (even though it is unoccupied) if it is for the purpose of making a play. the comment is saying that, if he is making a play, then he can turn and throw as long as said turn is uninterrupted. the entire rule has to be taken into consideration in order for any of it to make any sense. what, specifically, are you trying to figure out?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

it is unoccupied, but, F1 is allowed to throw there (even though it is unoccupied) if it is for the purpose of making a play. the comment is saying that, if he is making a play, then he can turn and throw as long as said turn is uninterrupted. the entire rule has to be taken into consideration in order for any of it to make any sense. what, specifically, are you trying to figure out?

Right: the point of (b) is to emphasize that F1 cannot start to throw to 1B, see that the runner has taken off, and then throw to 2B to get him. That would be a balk.

If he is throwing to 2B to make a play on an advancing runner, he must step and throw directly to 2B without interruption. This clause does not contravene any other provision of the balk rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MarionTiger

then what is the purpose of comment 8.05(b),

Without the comment, too many players, coaches and umpires would have teh "outside move" (counterclockwise) by a RH pitcher to second as a balk because the pitcher first turned "toward first" -- even though he didn't make any other motion to first.