Call at First

[scottk_61]

I know a lot of the people on this board and have been around plenty long enough to know the difference between real umpires, arrogant umpires, concerned coaches and a$$hole coaches.
I have seen many trolls and many arrogant parents, players and umpire wannabe's.
This guy rates as a troll, a coach with an axe to grind trying to prove his "superior knowledge" or a player who wants to get even for a percieved slight in a call.
Either way, argueing with him is like trying to wrestle with a pig.
You both get dirty but he likes it.

Walk away
If he proves to be someone who isn't full of himself, he will decide to listen and ask legitimate questions.
With that comes legitimate responses on his part.

At best this is some clown that is a wannabe and hasn't figured out that rule myths he carries around in his head aren't real.

In other words guys, turn around and call your game. Ignore the idiot on the other side of the fence.

[Badamk]

Originally Posted by scottk_61

I know a lot of the people on this board and have been around plenty long enough to know the difference between real umpires, arrogant umpires, concerned coaches and a$$hole coaches.
I have seen many trolls and many arrogant parents, players and umpire wannabe's.
This guy rates as a troll, a coach with an axe to grind trying to prove his "superior knowledge" or a player who wants to get even for a percieved slight in a call.
Either way, argueing with him is like trying to wrestle with a pig.
You both get dirty but he likes it.

Walk away
If he proves to be someone who isn't full of himself, he will decide to listen and ask legitimate questions.
With that comes legitimate responses on his part.

At best this is some clown that is a wannabe and hasn't figured out that rule myths he carries around in his head aren't real.

In other words guys, turn around and call your game. Ignore the idiot on the other side of the fence.

Many of you continue to call me names... shows your maturity. If you really have a problem go back and read all of my posts in this thread. I admitted I that I wasn't clear and was looking for clarity, I came on here asking a question. Your beloved Steve might be the smartest, greatest ump on the planet. Truth is he called me a "boy" and said I needed to reconsider being on the field. I called him an "old man" as a response.

Keep calling me a troll, idiot, rat or whatever and I hope it helps you feel better about yourself. Glad to help.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Badamk

...i'm done asking questions on this board....

Promises, promises.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Promises, promises.

Well....technically....that last comment wasn't a "question."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Badamk

Many of you continue to call me names... shows your maturity. If you really have a problem go back and read all of my posts in this thread. I admitted I that I wasn't clear and was looking for clarity, I came on here asking a question. Your beloved Steve might be the smartest, greatest ump on the planet. Truth is he called me a "boy"

As I reread the post, IMJ, he did no such thing. Lie #1

and said I needed to reconsider being on the field.

He did not such thing. Lie #2

I called him an "old man" as a response.

That is true.

Keep calling me a troll, idiot, rat or whatever and I hope it helps you feel better about yourself. Glad to help.

I don't need to call anyone anything and I really don't give a damn if you think you know better, you don't.

As suggested above, I went back and read the thread. No one attacked you until you went smart-***. In fact, you got more than enough answers to your question, but you didn't want to let it go. You received your clarification, yet continued to post arguments on the subject. As demonstrated above, you actually went looking for trouble by selecting two instances where a generic figure of speech was used and adopted that as a personal attack, on your own accord, not by someone's direction.

You may have been referred to as a troll because you acted the part, not because someone here thought it was a manly thing to do.

[mdntranger]

Yes, I know it's a big 'ole troll sandwich, but I was a little bored and it was interesting to recreate the thread and include just Badamk's statements (as requested by Badamk).....

Originally Posted by Badamk

4/29 10:53a Batter/Runner hits the ball to second baseman. Throw to first is dropped by first baseman near the foul line in the path of the batter/runner. Batter/runner steps into fair territory around the first baseman tags the base and falls about three feet towards second base off of first base. First baseman turns and tags the runner off the bag.

The call?

Originally Posted by Badamk

4/29 10:59a The runner was saying they didn't make an attempt towards second base. There was no contact between F3 and the runner.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

4/29 11:26a That is why there is no call on a tag.

ASA Rule 4-I 'After overrunning first base, the runner ATTEMPTS to continue to second base. (emphasis mine)

Although you didn't get a citation, you received your definitive answer here...you continued, though...

Originally Posted by Badamk

4/29 11:58a She side stepped F3 touched the bag and fell off it.
Out in my opinion. Am I wrong.

Irish then clarified the position and the proper ruling:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

4/29 1:28p Really? Define "overrun"? Where does the book say the runner must run through the base? Where does it state a runner must remain on their feet? The runner can do cartwheels, somersaults and back flips after touching 1B if they want as long as the umpire doesn't judge she made an attempt to advance.

The ONLY way this runner is called out is if the runner literally stopped while in contact with the base and then, in a completely separate action unaffected and unrelated to those attaining 1B, the player loses contact with the base and then is tagged with the ball while off base.

Call it however you want, but the correct call is nothing without the runner making an attempt toward 2b.

After this, everything went south...and from what I'm seeing, instigated by you...

Originally Posted by Badamk

4/29 1:55p Where does the book say that the runner has to literally stop on the base and fall off of it? Maybe it does say that. I'm just asking where.

At this point, this thread took on a life of it's own, with swallows, obstruction, other people jumping in, etc. You reply the next day with:

Originally Posted by Badamk

4/30 8:40a She in no way was attempting to overrun first base. Her intentions were clearly to stop on the bag. She placed one foot on the base and fell off it.

As has been clarified before, the only thing that matters is 'was the runner attempting to go to 2nd base'? As posted, I see this a continuation of the play at 1st base. Now, if all play stopped, everyone's resetting for the next batter (i.e. there's a discernable break in play), then the runner falls down/off the bag...yes, they're now in jeapordy. It doesn't matter that the runner wasn't attempting to overrun the base...only that they WERE NOT attempting to go to 2nd.

Originally Posted by Badamk

I can see both ways. Obstruction could have been called but there was plenty of base to touch.

All the "you must be an idiot" type comments show your arrogance and unwarranted ego. Just give your opinion.

These are more inflammatory statements usually attributed to those who are looking to 'pick a fight' with others...

Irish once again tried to clarify:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

4/30 2:10p It doesn't make any difference what you think her intentions were......

At not time is a BR is required to stop and remain on 1B. Really don't care what the deal is at 2nd & 3rd as that is irrelevant to a BR at 1st.

"Overrunning" is a generic term undefined by ASA or any other rule set of which I am aware. There are no requirements stating the BR MUST be on his/her feet before, after or while contacting 1B.

Your reply...

Originally Posted by Badamk

4/30 6:40p You know who needs to reconsider being on the field? Guys like you who think they are the ultimate judge and better than everyone else. I dealt with umps like you when I was a coach. Never wanted to explain a thing because you feel like everyone should be as "smart" as you. It is a forum for helping people; not a place for you to get your therapy.

All of your subsequent posts are a variation of the above with nothing constructive or related to your OP.

As I read all this, you asked a question and had it answered by multiple people with the same answer. For whatever reason, you didn't like this answer and tried to justify your interpretation. Absent any additional info from your original post, I agree with the others that there was no attempt made to continue to 2nd and therefore the runner is able to return to 1st base without liability to be put out.

To answer your latest post:

Originally Posted by Badamk

Many of you continue to call me names... shows your maturity. If you really have a problem go back and read all of my posts in this thread. I admitted I that I wasn't clear and was looking for clarity, I came on here asking a question. Your beloved Steve might be the smartest, greatest ump on the planet. Truth is he called me a "boy" and said I needed to reconsider being on the field. I called him an "old man" as a response.

Keep calling me a troll, idiot, rat or whatever and I hope it helps you feel better about yourself. Glad to help.

Nowhere did you state that you weren't clear, and you didn't accept the clarity that was provided to you.

[bkbjones]

Damn. I could have used your help back when I was trying to understand long division.

[Badamk]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

As I reread the post, IMJ, he did no such thing. Lie #1
Lie #2

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If you (not addressed to vcblue, the generic "you") can't figure out how she is protected on this play, you might want to reconsider why you are out there.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If you think my responses aren't appropriate, boy, just hang around this forum some more.

Yeah... you're right... I just made that up.

[wadeintothem]

what a snivel fest.

Get over it coach.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Badamk

Yeah... you're right... I just made that up.

Not that I really care what you think, but ever consider that maybe he wasn't addressing you as "boy?" Substitute the word "gee" for "boy," and I think you'll read what Steve ACTUALLY meant.

Steve's got more class than that.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Badamk

Yeah... you're right... I just made that up.

Thanks for the quotes and yes, it is now obvious that you made that up.

Both of the words on which you are hanging your offended hat are generic figures of speech and it is even noted in the one AND NOT EVEN TOWARD YOU!

Don't we have a reading comprehension expert on this board? Yo, Greymule, got a minu......er, week to straighten this out?

[wadeintothem]

easily offended people around here, including the ones pming me demanding this or that really need to get some thicker skins and get over themselves a little.

[Welpe]

Badmk, you wouldn't happen to coach a traveling team from say...Napa, or perhaps Reno, would you?

I'm getting flashbacks back to a local Memorial Day snivel fest...err tournament from 2001-2002.

[vcblue]

Badmk

Are you a private or public high school supporter?

[FullCount]

By now it's pretty clear Badamk is the coach of a team that was on defense that didn't get the out call they wanted at 1B. Or perhaps the parent of, say, the first base man of that team. He's been pushin and pushing to get someone on here to agree the BR should be called out. He's so adamnat that it is increasingly transparent.