The Official Forum
Page 3 of 5 12 3 45
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Learned 2 New Things Last Night (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/45357-learned-2-new-things-last-night.html)

BigUmp56 Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:33pm
I guess belonging to an association that assigns certified umpires to six Babe Ruth leagues has it's perks. If they want quality officials at a fair price, rather than teenagers with no experience working their games, they allow us to insist on using the proper rules for the organization. Same goes for Legion and Mickey Mantle ball. I'm not knocking you for doing it to get the work in, Matt. I just didn't have to put up with local rules. If you look in the Babe Ruth rule book it spells out which "local: type rules a league may adopt. When they move outside of that, they're not being true to the organization they're supposed to represent. I'll get off my soap box..........

Tim.

PABlue Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:53am
That's what kills me about local rules!!! Our Babe Ruth /Cal Ripken has a rule allowing SUBSTITUTES to re enter the game even if there are no injuries. They have full re entry rights as well as starters. What KILLS me is that the local rule allows the starter to re enter the game and it does NOT have to be in the same place in the line up. I have made a pest of myself about this rule but the league will not change it.:eek:

Rita C Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattmets
This was in print, in a rule book for the league they play in. I was shocked to see it, but I couldn't rule against what was said in print in the book. I'd never ever heard of throwing to an unoccupied base NOT being a balk, but I'll be damned if this guy didn't have the rule book opened to the page by time I got to the mound to explain it to his pitcher.



We had actually discussed this at the plate meeting, which was the first time I've ever had it brought up. We said it would be two bases, unless the ball rolled under any holes in the fence, in which case I would use my judgment. This might clear up some of the confusion I caused by using "ground rule" vs "book rule".


UmpJM, thanks for the rule citations, which I wouldn't have gotten from the MLBUM and JEA. Tim, what do you use to justify saying that runners should get the extra base? I'm not trying to start a whizzing match, I'm just trying to understand where, other than two situations this year, you would get that interpretation from.
Tim said he saw MLB umpires do it. So he was wondering if it had changed.

On the balk call, what league?

Rita

tibear Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:42am
Quote:
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 Thu Jun 12, 2008 02:12pm
Quote:
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.

MarionTiger Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:35pm
mlb 8.05b - unoccupied base cont...
 
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 Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:29pm
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?

bobbybanaduck Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:32pm
Quote:
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 Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:56pm
purpose of clarification then?
 
Quote:
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 Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:00am
Quote:
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 Sun Jun 15, 2008 06:39am
Quote:
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 Sun Jun 15, 2008 09:04am
Quote:
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.

MarionTiger Mon Jun 16, 2008 07:02am
one continuous move
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
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.

I ask because a balk was called in this situation. With a runner just on first, the pitcher lifted his front leg normally to pitch, but turned and went to 2nd. The umpire called a balk, and the coach tried to site this particular comment. I can't see where the coach is incorrect. I'm assuming there is something that clarifies this further somewhere, because it sure seems it would happen more if it wasn't a balk.

After the game, the UIC commented that it was a judgement call pending if the runner was actually going to second or not. I do not see where that comes into play. I understand the point he was making, I just don't see anything in the ruling referring to judgement on the runner.

bob jenkins Mon Jun 16, 2008 08:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarionTiger
After the game, the UIC commented that it was a judgement call pending if the runner was actually going to second or not. I do not see where that comes into play. I understand the point he was making, I just don't see anything in the ruling referring to judgement on the runner.
The umpire is correct (at least as I view the play in my mind's eye). The rule says that F1 can't throw to an unoccuupied base except for the purpose of making a play. It's clarified in PBUC and MLBUM that "making a play" is umpire judgment, and that judgment is based on whether R1 is attempting to advance (it's a play -- thus legal) or feinting an advance (it's not a play -- thus a balk).

Rich Mon Jun 16, 2008 08:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
The umpire is correct (at least as I view the play in my mind's eye). The rule says that F1 can't throw to an unoccuupied base except for the purpose of making a play. It's clarified in PBUC and MLBUM that "making a play" is umpire judgment, and that judgment is based on whether R1 is attempting to advance (it's a play -- thus legal) or feinting an advance (it's not a play -- thus a balk).
The one thing that's not specifically mentioned is what happens if F1 decides not to throw at all. I assume that we'd treat it just like any other feint to 2B situation (he doesn't have to throw, but can) but the rule does say "throw."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20am.
Page 3 of 5 12 3 45
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1