Asking for Help - Page 4

DG · #46 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 14, 2009, 10:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Which one is it? Reasonable access, or just access?

You can't be serious. Obstinate comes to mind.

Matt · #47 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 14, 2009, 11:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG

You can't be serious. Obstinate comes to mind.

I am quite serious, since you have yet to say anything uncouched in vague terms. You have yet to address the enforceability issue that I raised. Do I need to be blunt? Here goes:

Define "reasonable access."

Define "part of the base the runner can use."

You very well be meaning the same interpretation that I have been taught, but you haven't said squat as to the specifics of it. As I envision what you are saying, your interpretation is easily abused by runners, because it relies on QED logic.

SanDiegoSteve · #48 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 01:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spence

Thanks, although I don't understand why you would consider it dumb to throw to first to try to pick off a runner.

Do you understand now?

David B · #49 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 03:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spence

2 man crew in a game I watched tonight.

R1

RHP picks off R1 but the base umpire calls him safe because he can't see that the runner's hand is not on the base. F3 dropped straight down with the knee and prevented the runner from touching the base.

I could see it because I was looking straight down the first base line so I assume the HP umpire could as well.

I completely understand how the field up didn't see it.

However, what would prevent that umpire from asking the home plate ump if the runner touched the base?

Someone else stated it, but I will add, as PU, I'm not watching the pickoff at first. That's none of my business.

Game tonight and coach wants me to appeal a pulled foot by F3. "No coach we are not asking for help". I was in great position and could see the foot on the bag anyway, but coaches today want us to ask for help on everything. BTW, there was R2 and R3 on the play and PU is watching them anyway not a play at first.

It's getting pretty silly almost now to watch.

Thanks
David

ozzy6900 · #50 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 06:51am

[quote=LDUB;596019
I would have said that the PU's would be responsible for F1's step and after that be responsible for the ball on a pickoff at first base. What set of mechanics are you using where the PU on pickoffs watches R2?[/quote]
If we were in this position as players, I as R2 would be off on F1's move to 1st. Being in a secondary and my speed, I would now be on 3rd (I was faster in my youth). This was a standard move on a "throw behind".

Now I understand as an umpire you holding to CCA mechanics but now we have a situation where the CCA does not cover the problem. You know that F3 is going to try to nail me going to 3rd and anything under NCAA is probably going to end up as an overthrow. So while the BU is covering the pickoff at 1st, who is going to handle the action at 3rd? Your BU is not going to be able to cover this.

Of course, if you are working Summer leagues or sub-varsity, R2 problable will have bought a ticket to the action and will never have left 2nd base. So then your job will be easy. Come to think of it, never mind the above scenario becaues no one plays ball like we used to, anymore. I hardly see any agressive playing anymore so my actions as a former professional player problably are only avilable on 16mm instant replay!

Good arguing with you again LDUB (aka LubDub)!

bob jenkins · #51 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 06:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG

Hogwash. If F3 does not give reasonable access he is guilty of obstruction and I can enforce. If he does not want to get called for it then he needs to give accesss.

DG --

That is clearly NOT the FED interp. There's a specific case play or interp where Rx tries to go for one part of the base, Fx blocks that part but leaves the opposite part open, then catches the ball and makes the tag. The ruling is that this is legal -- the ruling is that Fx must provide "some" access to the base, even if it's not the part that the runner wants.

mbyron · #52 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 07:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

DG --

That is clearly NOT the FED interp. There's a specific case play or interp where Rx tries to go for one part of the base, Fx blocks that part but leaves the opposite part open, then catches the ball and makes the tag. The ruling is that this is legal -- the ruling is that Fx must provide "some" access to the base, even if it's not the part that the runner wants.

That's my understanding of the interp as well. "Reasonable access" does not appear anywhere in the rules, cases, interps, etc.

DG · #53 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 07:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

DG --

That is clearly NOT the FED interp. There's a specific case play or interp where Rx tries to go for one part of the base, Fx blocks that part but leaves the opposite part open, then catches the ball and makes the tag. The ruling is that this is legal -- the ruling is that Fx must provide "some" access to the base, even if it's not the part that the runner wants.

That is not the interp given at our meeting. What is the case play? I would like to study it.

celebur · #54 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 08:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDUB

What is dumb about that? They picked off the runner.

Actually, in the OP, the runner was called safe, so they DIDN'T pick off the runner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDUB

I think any manager would rather have R2 with 1 out over R2 & R1 with 0 out.

Off course they would. But you're not presenting the other, more probable outcomes:
-runner at 3B with 1 out (pick-off successful).
-runners at 1B and 3B with 0 out (pick-off not successful).

bob jenkins · #55 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 08:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg

that is not the interp given at our meeting. What is the case play? I would like to study it.

8.3.2l

mbyron · #56 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

8.3.2l

For those of you who are checking, that's an 'L', not an 'I'.

DG · #57 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 05:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

8.3.2l

Thanks. That is NOT how it was explained at our state meeting.

PS. I have yet to see OBS called on a runner diving back to 1B on a pickoff, but then, the fielders are not blocking either.

ozzy6900 · #58 (**permalink**) Thu Apr 16, 2009, 07:17am

I must bow to the fact that I was wrong in my answer to the OP. After discussing this with another Senior member of my association and using a white board, he proved to me that I was wrong in my answer.

The BU will cover the pickoff and take any play on R2 going to 3rd. The PU (who signaled that he was staying home) will drop back and watch the action at 1st and be available for obstruction and the pulled foot, should help be needed by the BU's request. PU will also turn and watch any subsequent action at 3rd and be prepared for R2 to round and come home. This is also in keeping with the CCA manual.

Again, my apologies....... I blew it!

Durham · #59 (**permalink**) Thu Apr 16, 2009, 10:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I must bow to the fact that I was wrong in my answer to the OP. After discussing this with another Senior member of my association and using a white board, he proved to me that I was wrong in my answer.

The BU will cover the pickoff and take any play on R2 going to 3rd. The PU (who signaled that he was staying home) will drop back and watch the action at 1st and be available for obstruction and the pulled foot, should help be needed by the BU's request. PU will also turn and watch any subsequent action at 3rd and be prepared for R2 to round and come home. This is also in keeping with the CCA manual.

Again, my apologies....... I blew it!

I didn't want to say anything. I figured that you just had a brain cramp like we all do from time to time.