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?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Tim,

From the MLBUM, 5.8:

I am nitpicking here, admittedly, as the rest of your source documentation is correct, but MLBUM 5.8 does not cover the situation in the OP--5.8 only covers balls deflected by fielders.

[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.

[mattmets]

Had a coach's interference call tonight, which led to the typical (crap)storm when I let play continue. Defensive coach comes up to me and says "I'm an umpire too, the ball is dead on coach's interference", to which I replied, "Then you should know the rule doesn't kill the ball." Honestly, I wasn't 100% positive, I was just focused on selling the call because I hadn't ever read coach's interference killing the play. 7.09(h) proscribes an out for the interference, but says nothing about killing the play. Did I screw up on a casebook play that I haven't seen, or did I get it right for some of the wrong reasons?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by mattmets

Had a coach's interference call tonight, which led to the typical (crap)storm when I let play continue. Defensive coach comes up to me and says "I'm an umpire too, the ball is dead on coach's interference", to which I replied, "Then you should know the rule doesn't kill the ball." Honestly, I wasn't 100% positive, I was just focused on selling the call because I hadn't ever read coach's interference killing the play. 7.09(h) proscribes an out for the interference, but says nothing about killing the play. Did I screw up on a casebook play that I haven't seen, or did I get it right for some of the wrong reasons?

Here's the interpretation you're looking for, Matt.

Professional Interpretation:

“Physically assisting” implies that the coach did something by touching the runner which improved that runner's chance of accomplishing his goal as a runner. In other words, touching alone does not constitute physically assisting. The umpire must be convinced that the runner is trying to get back to a base or is trying to advance with a sense of urgency. When a play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire should call "Time" and enforce the penalty. The runner is out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference (assistance). If no play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire shall signal that the runner is out and allow the ball to remain alive. This enforcement principle permits the defensive team to make plays on other runners if possible. It is also consistent with other enforcement principles in the Official Baseball Rules in which you have a "delayed dead ball": 7.06(b) - Obstruction with no play being made on the obstructed runner; and 7.08(h) - Runner declared out for passing a preceding runner.


Tim.

[mattmets]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Here's the interpretation you're looking for, Matt.

[i]Professional Interpretation:Tim.

Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for. With 2 runners standing on third base, R2 was headed back to second as the throw from F2 came to F5. 3BC then pushed R2 back to second as F5 ran R2 back towards second. Seems like I screwed up a play that I haven't seen in my 4 years of "real" umpiring.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by mattmets

Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for. With 2 runners standing on third base, R2 was headed back to second as the throw from F2 came to F5. 3BC then pushed R2 back to second as F5 ran R2 back towards second. Seems like I screwed up a play that I haven't seen in my 4 years of "real" umpiring.

Interesting. A play on two runners at the same time. I suppose the rat could have argued that they were playing on R3 rather than R2 who was the assisted runner, and the ball should have remained live. His argument wouldn't hold water, but it would be fun to listen to.


Tim.

[mattmets]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Interesting. A play on two runners at the same time. I suppose the rat could have argued that they were playing on R3 rather than R2 who was the assisted runner, and the ball should have remained live. His argument wouldn't hold water, but it would be fun to listen to.


Tim.

That's the argument he used, only for a different league rule about R3 being allowed to steal home. He knew R2 was out for being helped, but he made the argument you posed about R3 being allowed to score.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by mattmets

That's the argument he used, only for a different league rule about R3 being allowed to steal home. He knew R2 was out for being helped, but he made the argument you posed about R3 being allowed to score.

Did you use the three words that prove umpire omnipotence?


"In my judgment."


Tim.

[mattmets]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Did you use the three words that prove umpire omnipotence?


"In my judgment."


Tim.

I should have, but didn't have to because of the ground rule we agreed on before the game. Any judgment call went out the window because the play was the result of a batted ball, not a steal attempt. It was a long, convoluted rule that didn't affect the play despite my gaffe.

[BigUmp56]

Matt,

As I suggested to you before, if you're going to work Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken games you should really consider using the rule books intended for those leagues and refuse to put up with all the local league rules nonsense. There's an old saying that local rules are made by fools. They contribute greatly to may rules myths like "must slide."


Tim.

[DG]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Matt,

As I suggested to you before, if you're going to work Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken games you should really consider using the rule books intended for those leagues and refuse to put up with all the local league rules nonsense. There's an old saying that local rules are made by fools. They contribute greatly to may rules myths like "must slide."


Tim.

Two choices. Do as the employee directs or work somewhere else (or not at all). Most local leagues have some local rules. A time limit is perfect example. If I show up and they say we have a 2 hour time limit I'm not going to walk away stuttering "that's not in the book". Another example is intentional walks. If they want a league rule that says no pitches need to be thrown (ala FED) then go for it. Just explain what you want and I either take the assignment, or not. Can't recall a time where a local league rule scared me away.

[mattmets]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Matt,

As I suggested to you before, if you're going to work Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken games you should really consider using the rule books intended for those leagues and refuse to put up with all the local league rules nonsense. There's an old saying that local rules are made by fools. They contribute greatly to may rules myths like "must slide."


Tim.

One coach mentioned to me today "we have a lot of local rules, but we'll let you know if they come up what the rule is." I quickly asked him to explain everything to me. Most leagues I work have just FPSR modifications under OBR, or give one balk warning early in the season, but this was the one league that really gave me a lot of trouble. Luckily, their season ends this weekend so I'll be back to "Big Boy" ball early next week.