R3 blocks thrown ball from F2-F5

[OCASA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Youre mixing rules. A pitch has nothing to do with this so stick to the rules at hand.

Calling your catcher beaning a runner "a runner intentionally standing in a path" is shading it. How could this runner know where your catcher would throw it? Now if this runner, seeing the throw, moved into a path of a thrown ball and blocked it - that would probably be an act of interference. Failure to dodge a throw is not an act. There is no requirement to dodge a pick off attempt.

I don't think he is mixing the rules, I believe he is pointing out the rule books position of different scenarios. All of which hold the the runner (or batter) accountable. And if this runner saw the catcher starting to throw the ball and turn her back to the catcher and allowed her self to block the F5, then there could be a questionable call. I don't believe anyone here has the cahunas(SP?) to make such a call. Perhaps the reason they took the word "intentionally" out of the rule was because to many people were pulling off a good "acting" job. Without the word "intentional" you are forced to watch your P's and Q's.

But it does leave it wide open to start hitting runners, as well as runners blocking a baseman by casually walking back to a base with a slight lean to the left or right.

my two cents.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by OCASA

I don't think he is mixing the rules, I believe he is pointing out the rule books position of different scenarios. All of which hold the the runner (or batter) accountable. And if this runner saw the catcher starting to throw the ball and turn her back to the catcher and allowed her self to block the F5, then there could be a questionable call. I don't believe anyone here has the cahunas(SP?) to make such a call. Perhaps the reason they took the word "intentionally" out of the rule was because to many people were pulling off a good "acting" job. Without the word "intentional" you are forced to watch your P's and Q's.

But it does leave it wide open to start hitting runners, as well as runners blocking a baseman by casually walking back to a base with a slight lean to the left or right.

my two cents.

First, as a Spanish-speaker, it's cojones.

Second, I believe the reason for getting rid of "intentionally" in the INT rules is because, frankly, none of us are mind readers.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by OCASA

I don't think he is mixing the rules, I believe he is pointing out the rule books position of different scenarios. All of which hold the the runner (or batter) accountable. And if this runner saw the catcher starting to throw the ball and turn her back to the catcher and allowed her self to block the F5, then there could be a questionable call. I don't believe anyone here has the cahunas(SP?) to make such a call. Perhaps the reason they took the word "intentionally" out of the rule was because to many people were pulling off a good "acting" job. Without the word "intentional" you are forced to watch your P's and Q's.

But it does leave it wide open to start hitting runners, as well as runners blocking a baseman by casually walking back to a base with a slight lean to the left or right.

my two cents.

If we are going to stray from the rule being discussed and discuss extraneous issues and nonapplicable rules and even you would admit this is a judgement issue -

Tell my why I want to protect a catcher with control problems and skill issues attempting improbable waste of time pick offs at 3B where a runner is literally in the process of returning to 3B when they should be just returning the ball to the pitcher?

This is dumb move catcher -- so why am I looking to help that? Why should my judgment and cajones favor a call in that?

My mind is saying "wow that catcher sure was dumb".

Why should it say "Runner is out for interfering"?

If we can get to the heart of that, the judgement of the play - maybe we can get a better understanding of the thought process that determines whether the runner committed an act of INT or the catcher was just commiting a dumb play.

[ronald]

cojones/cajones

Urban Dictionary: cajones

For an extensive treatment of uses of cojones in Spanish:

http://www.rincondechistes.com/nacio...s/cojones.html

[OCASA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

If we are going to stray from the rule being discussed and discuss extraneous issues and nonapplicable rules and even you would admit this is a judgement issue -

Tell my why I want to protect a catcher with control problems and skill issues attempting improbable waste of time pick offs at 3B where a runner is literally in the process of returning to 3B when they should be just returning the ball to the pitcher?

This is dumb move catcher -- so why am I looking to help that? Why should my judgment and cajones favor a call in that?

My mind is saying "wow that catcher sure was dumb".

Why should it say "Runner is out for interfering"?

If we can get to the heart of that, the judgement of the play - maybe we can get a better understanding of the thought process that determines whether the runner committed an act of INT or the catcher was just commiting a dumb play.

The original poster made it clear this catcher was picking runners off third base the entire game, so your attacks on the catchers skills are not necessary.

The poster has already conceded to agree with a "no call" early in this thread (and if I understand correctly, is in his favor since this was his runner), and already stated it would have to be a judgment call.

I can see how this could turn up into an interference call. And possibly a brawl on the field. If it was my runner I would say something to them and let know they walked a fine line, and took a big chance.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by OCASA

The original poster made it clear this catcher was picking runners off third base the entire game, so your attacks on the catchers skills are not necessary.

The poster has already conceded to agree with a "no call" early in this thread (and if I understand correctly, is in his favor since this was his runner), and already stated it would have to be a judgment call.

I can see how this could turn up into an interference call. And possibly a brawl on the field. If it was my runner I would say something to them and let know they walked a fine line, and took a big chance.

That doesnt answer the question.

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMC (dumb move catcher) in a judgement call?

[OCASA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

That doesnt answer the question.

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMC (dumb move catcher) in a judgement call?

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMR (dumb move runner) in a judgment call?
What business does an umpire have protecting anybody?
Call it like you see it. Saying "DMC" is presumptuous. Maybe it wasn't, maybe the runner saw the catcher release the ball and deliberately turn there back to it. We don't know. The general consensus is look for the obvious intent. Canary made an evaluation against his own player, and felt s/he deliberately blocked the play.

As already stated "Judgment Call"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by OCASA

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMR (dumb move runner) in a judgment call?
What business does an umpire have protecting anybody?
Call it like you see it. Saying "DMC" is presumptuous. Maybe it wasn't, maybe the runner saw the catcher release the ball and deliberately turn there back to it. We don't know. The general consensus is look for the obvious intent. Canary made an evaluation against his own player, and felt s/he deliberately blocked the play.

As already stated "Judgment Call"

What is dumb is the ridiculous actions of runners on 3rd when they run toward the plate.

IMO, the OP indicates the runner was turned away from the plate, so I doubt there was any INT on behalf of the runner.

BTW, the runner determines their path and if it happens to be in the catcher's perceived throwing lane, the catcher better find another lane or don't throw the ball.

Yeah, it was DMC.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by OCASA

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMR (dumb move runner) in a judgment call?
What business does an umpire have protecting anybody?

You may not have familiarity with rules and I understand that, but believe me, there are MANY calls made to protect someone on a given play. Interference, OBS & Delayed dead ball, and infield fly rule are a few examples you could begin to learn about and we could help.

Call it like you see it. Saying "DMC" is presumptuous. Maybe it wasn't, maybe the runner saw the catcher release the ball and deliberately turn there back to it. We don't know. The general consensus is look for the obvious intent. Canary made an evaluation against his own player, and felt s/he deliberately blocked the play.

As already stated "Judgment Call"

An umpire determining a runner deliberately blocked a thrown ball would be INT. Thats been stated as well.

As presented in the OP, it is dumb move catcher.

[OCASA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

You may not have familiarity with rules and I understand that, but believe me, there are MANY calls made to protect someone on a given play. Interference, OBS & Delayed dead ball, and infield fly rule are a few examples you could begin to learn about and we could help.

I understand you may not be very experienced, but after 40+ years of baseball and softball, I know the rules (and our job) are to protect the game, not the players.

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

An umpire determining a runner deliberately blocked a thrown ball would be INT. Thats been stated as well.

"Deliberate" is the general consensus to avoid a call. *not* a rule. As already determined, it does not have to be intentional. Per the rules.

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

As presented in the OP, it is dumb move catcher.

Your injecting your evaluation of a player into the rules. Weather it was DMC or not, does not dismiss INT, especially *IF* the runner saw the throw coming in. Maybe she did ... maybe she didn't. OP indicates the runner turned back before the throw. INT per the rule book?....weeeelllll .... yeah. Will we call it? Heck No. Chalk it up as a bad throw. But it is an interference. I guess I would have to actually watch the eye of the runner to tell if they were looking at the catcher when the ball was released, only then could I say she knew where the ball was, and she had the opportunity to dive back low to avoid contact with the ball.

But lets look at it backwards. Let say the runner did see the throw coming in. And the runner evaded the throw(and injury), but it caused the runner to go out of path and/or miss the base. Would it be OBS? I think so. The runner is awarded the base.

So..

• if the runner sees the throw coming in and takes a hit, its interference.
• if the runner sees the throw coming in and avoids INT, and as a result misses the base, it OBS.
• if the runner dose not see throw coming in and takes a hit, attempted base awarded.

Delayed dead ball.

[marvin]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

You may not have familiarity with rules and I understand that, but believe me, there are MANY calls made to protect someone on a given play. Interference, OBS & Delayed dead ball, and infield fly rule are a few examples you could begin to learn about and we could help.

An umpire determining a runner deliberately blocked a thrown ball would be INT. Thats been stated as well.

As presented in the OP, it is dumb move catcher.

The call is to enforce the rule. The rule is to "protect" the players. In the some of cases you cite (interference and obstruction) the rule provides a remedy for an illegal action that has already occurred. Even in the case of delayed dead ball calls (obstruction and illegal pitch) the illegal action has already happened and the rule provides the remedy. The way you used "protect" was not in the spirit of the rules, it was meant as sarcasm to denigrate an action that you criticized as "dumb" and unworthy of your "protection". The rules provide protection for the offended team without regard to your opinion of the illegal act.

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Youre very new here but DMC, DMR, DMP, etc are all very commonly used terms to describe dumb plays by players.. and yes DMU for .. you guessed it! Dumb Move Umpire.

Whether I'm new or not I feel that using terms like this paints all umpires as unprofessional. The umpires job isn't to decide the value, worth or even "dumbness level" of the players and coaches actions, but whether or not they comply with the rules.

[marvin]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMC (dumb move catcher) in a judgement call?

The umpires should only provide the protection of proper enforcement of the rules.

Calling anyone or their actions dumb is a bit overboard. The same language directed at you, when umpiring, would probably earn a player or manager an ejection.

Your agreement with, assessment of, or evaluation of the players strategies should have no bearing on enforcing the rules.

While players don't have eyes in the back of the head, they do have eyes in the front and someone (who is in front of them) will have to catch the throw that is coming from behind them.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by marvin

The umpires should only provide the protection of proper enforcement of the rules.

Calling anyone or their actions dumb is a bit overboard. The same language directed at you, when umpiring, would probably earn a player or manager an ejection.

Your agreement with, assessment of, or evaluation of the players strategies should have no bearing on enforcing the rules.

While players don't have eyes in the back of the head, they do have eyes in the front and someone (who is in front of them) will have to catch the throw that is coming from behind them.

Youre very new here but DMC, DMR, DMP, etc are all very commonly used terms to describe dumb plays by players.. and yes DMU for .. you guessed it! Dumb Move Umpire.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I got nothing on this play.

This in not int. The runner is not obligated to move.

its OOO to try to sell anything on this play.

Let the catcher learn how to do a pick.

That excellent answer was post #4 in the thread. We are now on page 3. I love the interwebs.

Originally Posted by marvin

Calling anyone or their actions dumb is a bit overboard. The same language directed at you, when umpiring, would probably earn a player or manager an ejection.

Your agreement with, assessment of, or evaluation of the players strategies should have no bearing on enforcing the rules.

Take it easy. F2's coach is probably not thrilled with that throw either. F2's job is to keep runners from scoring and throwing the ball in a place where a teammate can't catch it is not the smartest move. Wade's description fits just fine.

In my games I've seen dumb moves by catchers, pitchers, batters, runners, coaches, even--yes--umpires.

Originally Posted by marvin

While players don't have eyes in the back of the head, they do have eyes in the front and someone (who is in front of them) will have to catch the throw that is coming from behind them.

Say what?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

That excellent answer was post #4 in the thread. We are now on page 3. I love the interwebs.


Take it easy. F2's coach is probably not thrilled with that throw either. F2's job is to keep runners from scoring and throwing the ball in a place where a teammate can't catch it is not the smartest move. Wade's description fits just fine.

In my games I've seen dumb moves by catchers, pitchers, batters, runners, coaches, even--yes--umpires.



Say what?

Seth:

Last week, in a boys' H.S. varsity game I saw Team H's F2 make the most dumbest play I had ever seen a H.S. player make. I am in the C, runner on 2nd with zero outs and a 3-1 count on the batter. Next pitch is ball 4, the B/R takes off for 1st, while F2 immediately turns around and starts complaining to my partner (the PU) about the pitch being called ball 4. Guess where the runners were by the time F2's coach reminded him that the ball was still live? You guessed it, 2nd and 3rd. Would you believe that Team V did not score that inning after that bonehead play by H's F2.

MTD, Sr.