|
|||
Old Ground, New situation
Hi folks, need your assistance. Please note, cross-posted on Umpire-Empire.
Midwestern college wood bat league, pretty good quality of play. R1, 1 out, count doesn't matter. LH batter swings at inside pitch, gets a piece, F2 comes up in my view and blocks me out, and the next time I see the ball it's rolling down the 1B line a pretty good clip. I look the batter, he gives no sign or expression of the ball hitting his foot on leg. He takes 2 steps up the line, stops, and the manager in the 3B box starts yelling "it hit him, foul ball". I didn't blink, but I had no view of the play. I let the play end, killed the ball and went to my partner immediately. I asked him "Did you see the ball hit the batter's foot?" His answer was in essence, "No I didn't". I turned around called the out, and got an earful from the offense HC, which was expected. They were winning 6-0 at the time, and won 7-0, but I am troubled by the play. My question: If you are blocked and can't see the ball hit the ground, obviously you look to see what the batter does, but if he gives nothing away do you call it foul based only on the reaction of the ball? I ask because the dirt immediately around the plate was soft, as opposed to the rest of the dirt circle around the rest of the plate, so a ball could act like it hit a foot, but it didn't. I had no foul ball, my partner had no foul ball, we have an out. What say you? and ask for any other information about it I can give you. |
|
|||
Quote:
I had the exact same situation last week, only I was the BU. I didn't see the ball hit the batter. After hitting the ball, the batter began running down the line like nothing happened. PU and I got together and both agreed that we didn't see the ball hit the batter. The OC taught his batter a lesson: If it hits you, act like it hit you -- it's easier for them to make the call. I wouldn't admit it to a coach, but some of these calls are based on the actions of the players. An additional one is the pitch that may or may not have hit the dirt on strike three. The actions of the catcher will sometimes determine whether we think it hit the ground or not. |
|
|||
This is just as bad as reversing your call. No matter what happens you end up looking bad in someone's mind. Usually, when a player takes off for first it because he realizes the ball was fair and he better get moving. Usually. depending upon the level of ball.
I think it was Derek Jeter that faked getting hit by the ball last year and got on base. I used to tell players all the time, hop around or act like your in pain if you get hit but, don't start running because I am assuming you thought it was fair and are trying to beat it out. Just about anyway you rule on something you don't see though, makes you look bad. Thats comes with the job. |
|
|||
Perhaps the toughest call we make. Frequently missed (either way) in MLB. And coaches, if they were being honest about this, would admit that they can't tell sometimes either and just argue whichever side supports their team.
I've often thought that the rule should change so that it's NOT a foul ball -- the ball remains in play and becomes fair or foul based on what happens next. |
|
|||
Ah, if umpires wrote the rules...
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Another, less negative response to consider: "I already did, coach."
__________________
Cheers, mb |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
on the ground shot | mutantducky | Basketball | 15 | Wed Apr 14, 2010 06:07pm |
Ground Rule | Big Kahuna | Softball | 12 | Thu Feb 25, 2010 04:41pm |
ground rules | JJCpops | Softball | 8 | Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:50pm |
ground up by ground rules | refjef40 | Softball | 4 | Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:43am |
HR or Ground rule dbl?? | Thane Yennie | Baseball | 2 | Fri Apr 06, 2001 11:09pm |