The beer thread
 

Okay, in all fairness, I thought that I would start a beer thread that can be hijacked by actual umpire business. :D

I was at a grocery store today and was shocked, shocked I tell you, to find sixers of Bridgeport IPA. I did not know that Bridgeport was distributed this far east! Anyway, I picked some up. It has been years since I last had some, and then it was on tap.

Anyone up for an OBS debate?

I claim full responsibility for hijacking the last thread. Mentioning beer in this forum is like throwing chum in shark infested waters.

Dave, I do have obstruction on this play but am only protecting the runner to second.

Glad we solved that. Now, pilsner or pale ale?

He!! I've got a score - or in words Big Slick understands - dessert!
that's always a good thing.

OK fine...score the runner. :D

I'm enjoying a Session Lager right now, very tasty!

There are only 2 classifications of beer: lager and ale. Every other beer is a subcategory of those. Porter is an ale and pilsner is a lager, for example.

Had a play tonight in the State 14U Championship game.

Runners on 1st & 2nd, B4 strikes out and in disgust swings the bat downward striking the ball which was dropped by F2. Runners advanced one base and B4 headed to the dugout.

As one of the three umpires involved in the meeting after coach questions "play", what are you thinking and saying?

OK, I'll take a stab (w/o the books which are still in the car) to get the conversation/debate rolling:

I'm assuming by the description of the sitch, that B4 did not swing at the 3rd strike and that it was a called 3rd strike by the PU.

I don't see how the runners can be allowed to advance. Offensive player (B4) did something wrong in "striking the ball which was dropped by F2."

At the very least, dead ball and the runners return to 2B and 1B.

However, as the ball that F2 dropped was a live ball, and B4 stuck it with her bat AFTER she was called out, do we not have interference on B4 after being put out, and as such, the runner nearest home is also called out?

Irish, interesting sitch to be sure. Curious to hear everyone else's opinion and the definitive correct ruling.

The batter could not be called out before hittiing the ball as it was an U3K, so "stuck it with her bat AFTER she was called out" is not the case.
I think I would have ruled batter-runner interference, dead ball, BR out, no runners advance.

If runners advance, not two outs; and first base was occupied. So batter is out, never became a batter-runner.

Based on the description in the OP, I took it as AtlUmp Steve did...that it was not a dropped 3K sitch.

Yeah, the OP doesn't say outs, so "B4 headed to dugout" is ambiguous. But does "Runners advanced" mean legally?
If not 2 outs, B4 is out on the K. But did she interfere with the catcher getting another out?
If INT, then KJump's "interference on B4 after being put out, and as such, the runner nearest home is also called out" would apply.
But then is B4 treated as a retired runner?

Looks like a good reason for 3 umpires. :)

I'm thinking I need a beer.

My thoughts, exactly! :)

Having my thread beer jacked was far better than others ways it could have been jacked.

Jes sayin..........

Correct as usual, King Friday!

But, what makes an ale an ale, and what makes a lager a lager?

The manner in which they are fermented.

Ales are brewed at warmer temperatures with top-fermenting yeasts. Lagers are brewed at cooler temperatures with bottom-fermenting yeasts... unless you live in one of the states that mandates a labeling of "Ale" based on alcohol strength.

Fixed it for ya!

You may also have noted, "B4" was the batter with two runners on :D

As stated, the batter is out. Doesn't make any difference if she was swinging or not. The batter is not eligible to advance to 1B since it was occupied at the time of the pitch.

You cannot rule that the BR interfered with a D3K since neither existed in this case.

Best case scenario, rule the ball dead as a blocked ball and return the runners if, IYJ, there was no play to be had by the catcher.

Worst case scenario, enforce 8.7.P and call the runner closest to home out (rule only requires the possibility of a play, not an out) and return the trailing runner to the base last touched at the time of the interference.

We're doing dinner and a movie at the Alamo draft house. I just ordered a St. Arnold, will report back after I've tried it.

Which St. Arnold? They have several brews.

Seems like the only important question here is who is buying the beer.

I like the cut of your jib!

Irish,
Both scenarios make sense.
Curious....how did the three of you rule in that 14U game where this play occurred....the best case scenario or the worst case scenario?

Myself, I'm a Sam Adams Cherry Wheat fan.

Sorry...Amber Ale. Honestly, I was a little disappointed.

The umpires on the field just killed the ball, and "sold" the runners would have had the base made, so they allowed them to stay.

This type of ruling occurs too often as umpires try to be "fair" and use that to justify a ruling without regards to the actual rule.

Did the catcher have a play? Can't tell since the ball was hit with the bat as she reached for it. That act there kills ANYTHING and if the runners did not have the base by that point (they did not), the minimum is going back to the previous base.

Umpires need to remember there are two teams on the field and they deserve equal treatment. The offense is the team that caused the problem, so I cannot see "rewarding" them with a free base.

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;683403]The umpires on the field just killed the ball, and "sold" the runners would have had the base made, so they allowed them to stay.

This type of ruling occurs too often as umpires try to be "fair" and use that to justify a ruling without regards to the actual rule.

Did the catcher have a play? Can't tell since the ball was hit with the bat as she reached for it. That act there kills ANYTHING and if the runners did not have the base by that point (they did not), the minimum is going back to the previous base.

Umpires need to remember there are two teams on the field and they deserve equal treatment. The offense is the team that caused the problem, so I cannot see "rewarding" them with a free base.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree with you more. Offense causes the problem and ends up with two runners in scoring position in a championship game.
Good sitch to post...(one of those 'weird stuff' happens sitches)...and to learn from.

The next beer is on my tab.

Yeah. I am not a fan of the Amber Ale. A little on the sweet side. Otherwise, sort of lifeless. There aren't many St. Arnold's beers that I drink, though I will drink them if there is nothing else available. Their Oktoberfest is pretty good.

Tried it as an entrant in our annual family reunion beer-tasting. It was ruled "cough syrup" and scored low.

Maybe that's why I haven't had a cold in years! ;)

Never tried the Cherry Wheat. It has two things going against it. I am not a fan of fruit beers (including true lambics), nor fruit in beer (just for the record). Also, I am not real big on wheat beers, though there are some I like enough to drink once in a while. (See previous reference to Erdinger's Dunkelweiss.)

I guess this should be in the little ball forum, but after the Dos Equis comments, I had to share this:

http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploa...ented-mule.jpg

http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploa...ented-mule.jpg