Beach Games Wed.

OL over Bayside 17-5,

HR's by Morimando and Bryant.

Tyler Clements pitched a great game and was ahead 13-1 after 4 innings before being relieved. OL then emptied the bench with multiple substitutions..

im an ocean lakes baseball alumni...

glad to see their off to a 3-0 start...

whats up with the run production this year? i see they have scored 13, 13, and now 17...lot of bats this year?

My son said this was the first time FC has ever beat Cox at home??? Can anyone confirm?

quote:

Originally posted by no way:
FC OVER COX 4-3. ONce again John Bowman pitched a great game. Both teams left bases loaded a couple of times, but managed to get out of it. John Bowman
also hit a 2 run HR and if he keeps it up.....PLAYER OF THE YEAR?????.
Ryan Cook got the save.
Great game!!!!!!

FC beat Cox at Cox at least twice from 2001 thru 2004...I believe the exact years were 2002 and 2003.

ok, thanks. Maybe he was referring to Stubbes coaching era.

ok thanks...maybe he meant Stubbes coaching era.

Come on, No Way,

You are well aware that FC has beaten Cox at their homefield. But, I will let you suck me into your web. I always enjoy bringing the past back!!! Especially when it is sooooo good!
On a cloudy day in the spring of 2006, FC not only beat Cox, they 10 runned them. This display of greatness by FC included, but was not limited to,
TWO GRAND SLAMS BY FRANK BERRY IN THE SECOND INNING.

quote:

Originally posted by no way:
FC OVER COX 4-3. ONce again John Bowman pitched a great game. Both teams left bases loaded a couple of times, but managed to get out of it. John Bowman
also hit a 2 run HR and if he keeps it up.....PLAYER OF THE YEAR?????.
Ryan Cook got the save.
Great game!!!!!!

Yeah, it was a pretty good game. I wouldn’t give the save to Cook though, I’d have to give it to the 1st base umpire (McGuiness?). Absolutely one of the strangest calls I’ve ever seen in the bottom of the 7th. This is how I saw it . Maybe someone saw something I did not and can explain it to me because I am at a loss. Bases loaded, no outs and FC has the IF in with a 1 run lead. Batter hits a hard ground ball up the middle and Costen does a good job to knock it down, but does not field it clean so there is no play at home. Instead he crawls/dives to the 2b bag and tags it with his glove ahead of the runner who coasts into the bag. No contact that I saw. Umpire calls interference on the runner for not sliding? Costen’s got a great arm but there was no chance at getting the runner at first and no attempt. Costen was still on his knees and had he tried to make an ill advised attempt from that position, the winning run may have scored. Interference for not sliding?? If that is the correct interpretation of the rule, then something has to change. Heck, if the runner had slid hard into the bag, Costen had more of a chance at getting injured. Anyway, umpire brings the runner that scored the tieing run back to 3rd and the runner on 3rd back to 2nd and now Cox has two outs and still down by one, instead of a tie game with runners on first and third with one out.

No way- How’d it look from the 1st base side of the field? Did I miss something? You probably had a similar angle as the 1st base ump. Can you shed some light on the play?

Good Lord, if that's what went down then FC got away with one.

Base Jones, are you out there? Maybe there is an interpretation for this?

High School Federation rules are different than MLB rules. My understanding of this particular rule is that runners must slide to the bag but not past it or once put out give them selves up by getting out of the line of the throw. A slide "over" the bag is illegal as is stopping, standing or continuing to run in the line of a throw or possible throw.

Safety is the motivating reason for these rules so that SS and 2B are not "rolled" at the bag or taught to "throw it through his face and he'll get down".

Honest people can talk about safety vs old school all day and both have valid points. In the end though Umpires actually have liability insurance for safety purposes so that tells you it's 2010 not 1970 anymore.

Obviously I did not see the play but umpires are not allowed to interpret what might be only what is. Sort of like the block/charge call in basketball.

Clear as mud.

No way,

Just saw the box score. FC had less hits and more errors than Cox, but still won. Must have been that great coaching by Stubbe!!!! Good job Coach Stubbe.

(I know you tell people you don't read this, but we all know you do)

Great job Bowman, gets the win and helps himself!

Lynn Metheny

I thought Costen was at 3rd. Did he move to 2nd during the switch when Cook went in to pitch? If so I missed that part.Sounds like if rule states you must slide no matter what than it was the right call.I have to say I thought sitting down between 1st and second was the strangest ending I ever saw, but I now have a new one. Both Involving Cox losses.

quote:

Originally posted by lmubb08:
im an ocean lakes baseball alumni...

glad to see their off to a 3-0 start...

whats up with the run production this year? i see they have scored 13, 13, and now 17...lot of bats this year?

lmubb08... yes they are hitting the ball really well now as a team.. top to bottom are getting the job done.

The play was very confussing! I spoke to the umpire crew after the game, just happen to be parked next to them. Sounds like luv baseball has it right. The umpire said that the cox runner has to slide directly into second base. According to the umpire he did not therefore he is out,(out # 1), and it is now interference, batter running to first is now out (out #2). and finally since it is interference the play is dead, runner that scored from 3rd base must go back to 3rd base and runner that advanced from 2nd to 3rd must go back to 2nd base. Situation now 2 outs runners on 2nd and 3rd, batter Ks, game over FC wins 4-3.
the umpire said that the runner that caused the interference could have slid into the bag or just stop running and get out of the way. Either would have resulted in a tie game with one out and runners on the corners. The umpire said he did not believe the runner was intentially trying to prevent the fc player from making a play, just made a bad decision at a bad time
Good game fun to watch, great job by both starting pitchers, both teams played clean and hard.

Chris,
Sounds more like interpretation rather "interference" to me... Some of the best calls are no calls. The best umpiring jobs in games are the ones that go unnoticed...

quote:

The umpire said he did not believe the runner was intentially trying to prevent the fc player from making a play, just made a bad decision at a bad time

Isn't that the reasoning for the slide rule to begin with (intentional interference). Yet the umpire didn't believe the runner was intentionally trying to prevent the play from being made. I'm certainly no Cox homer, but hmmmm.....blown call.

quote:

Originally posted by grasscutter:
Isn't that the reasoning for the slide rule to begin with (intentional interference). Yet the umpire didn't believe the runner was intentionally trying to prevent the play from being made. I'm certainly no Cox homer, but hmmmm.....blown call.

That is one of the craziest interpretations I have heard. So...on a pick off...the player must slide directly into the bag?!? On a steal, he must slide directly into the bag? No hook slides? Sounds like someone trying to make a "hero call".

Well considering there were 3 UMPIRES there and 2 interference calls I didnt see it.They were calling strikes at the ankles and maybe they were all new???? Was already headed to the car. I was confused as I watched the scoreboard not knowing what was happening.
Bad calls went both ways in my opinion.....
And 1943, get off your high horse. I simply asked a question from which I was told by my kid. I only wanted an answer

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Taylor:

quote:

Originally posted by no way:
FC OVER COX 4-3. ONce again John Bowman pitched a great game. Both teams left bases loaded a couple of times, but managed to get out of it. John Bowman
also hit a 2 run HR and if he keeps it up.....PLAYER OF THE YEAR?????.
Ryan Cook got the save.
Great game!!!!!!

Yeah, it was a pretty good game. I wouldn’t give the save to Cook though, I’d have to give it to the 1st base umpire (McGuiness?). Absolutely one of the strangest calls I’ve ever seen in the bottom of the 7th. This is how I saw it . Maybe someone saw something I did not and can explain it to me because I am at a loss. Bases loaded, no outs and FC has the IF in with a 1 run lead. Batter hits a hard ground ball up the middle and Costen does a good job to knock it down, but does not field it clean so there is no play at home. Instead he crawls/dives to the 2b bag and tags it with his glove ahead of the runner who coasts into the bag. No contact that I saw. Umpire calls interference on the runner for not sliding? Costen’s got a great arm but there was no chance at getting the runner at first and no attempt. Costen was still on his knees and had he tried to make an ill advised attempt from that position, the winning run may have scored. Interference for not sliding?? If that is the correct interpretation of the rule, then something has to change. Heck, if the runner had slid hard into the bag, Costen had more of a chance at getting injured. Anyway, umpire brings the runner that scored the tieing run back to 3rd and the runner on 3rd back to 2nd and now Cox has two outs and still down by one, instead of a tie game with runners on first and third with one out.

No way- How’d it look from the 1st base side of the field? Did I miss something? You probably had a similar angle as the 1st base ump. Can you shed some light on the play?

We all know the home team turns in the stats. So he interprets what he wants......

quote:

Originally posted by 1943 yankees:
No way,

Just saw the box score. FC had less hits and more errors than Cox, but still won. Must have been that great coaching by Stubbe!!!! Good job Coach Stubbe.

(I know you tell people you don't read this, but we all know you do)

Great job Bowman, gets the win and helps himself!

Lynn Metheny

I've got no skin in this game but there seems to be one thing not being hit here which is why unnecessarily give the Umpire the opportunity to make a call.

Kids are (or should be) taught to know the rules. Not claiming to be Joe Torre but did coach travel ball teams over the past 6 years. We spent entire practices on baserunning including knowing what is legal and illegal around 2nd on DP. These kids are taught to "get down" or out of the line from the time they are 8 or 9. No exceptions ..no excuses were accepted even from 9 year olds. If you cost the team by making a bad baserunning play it was as viewed like any other mistake. Being somewhat familiar with Cox I know for a fact a number of those players were taught this basic element of the game.

If the baserunner didn't do his job and gave the blue a chance to make a call that's on him or the coach for not getting it into his head. Same as getting caught looking a strike 3. Complain about the blue if you want but give him a chance to make a call and it will go against you sometimes.

In a one run ball game there are any number of plays that go one way or the other that determine the outcome. An error in the 3rd inning is just as big a play as one in the bottom of the 7th. Problem is everyone has forgotten the play in the 3rd but remembers the play in the 7th.

In my opinion over 42 outs only the players and coaches determine the winners and losers of games.

quote:

Originally posted by luv baseball:
I've got no skin in this game but there seems to be one thing not being hit here which is why unnecessarily give the Umpire the opportunity to make a call.

I agree with you COMPLETELY! That was actually my first thought. It sounds to me like the runner was avoiding a tag. If I am reading it correctly, the SS was inside and the runner slid outside.

Little things win/lose games.

Redbird

Tag plays are differnt than DP so the rules are different. Hook slides or going to the back of the bag are perfectly legal. But SS and 2B are defenseless and must be on the bag on DP so rules have evolved focused on player safety 1st and outcomes...oh well. Americans might not be as tough as we used to be.

I have a son that just started HS ball and I picked up the NHF rules just to see the differnce between the MLB rules. There are at probably 20 places where the rules are not the same. It was amazing. This is overstated but other than the bases being 90 feet apart, 4 balls is a walk, 3 stikes is an out and 3 outs in an inning it's barely the same game.

Like anything that starts ut with good intentions such as player safety the DP rules at second have become so twisted over time that any relation old fashioned baseball have disappeared.

Yes, I agree but it didn't sound like a DP was even possible, therefore, there is nothing to interfere with.

Bingo ! sounds like the best the SS could do was tag second base with a dive/crawl to get an out ? Doesn't sound like he was trying to turn two ? What is the runner interefering with there ?
I do however, 100% agree with Luv's comments that "one play" did not win or lose this game. These two teams will be interesting to watch down the road.... good game fellas !!!

Based on the way it was described can't argue with that point. With all the talk (maybe by me!) I kind of want to see it for myself.

Sort of what's the difference beween a girl that's a 6 or a 10?

5 beers.

I certainly don't know the rules as well as most of you posting, so I am finding everyone's comments educational.
What is interesting is in watching the play the fielder was on his knees,so from a fans perspective "not in position to make a double play". So first quesition is from a rules perspective are the rules this "specfic" or is this really interpretation?

Adding a bit of speculation to the play...Is it possible/logical the runner to second did not slide because he thought he was already out. Sounds like this was a big mistake but certainly a common event for a player who is already out to give himself up, thinking to himself "no reason to slide,I'm already out". And given the defensive player making the play is on his hands in knees, is it logical the runner did not think he was interfering with the fielders chance to throw to first. I think by this time the batter was in the outfield turning around going back to the bag.

When the umpire explained the call it sounded like there was no interpretation, but what i am learning from this dialogue is there is a difference between a DP and a tag play. So what about a dp and a "force play".

I guess bottom line is the umpire interepreted the play that the fielder who was scrambling on his hands and knees to tag 2nd base was interfered with by the runner that did not slide even though the runner likely had given himself up by running through the bag past second, i guess on his way to the dugout, that the runner prevented a defender from turning a double play even though the batter was past first base and turning around to come back to the bag. Do I have this right?

No way,

No high horse here, guess it just seemed logical that while your son was a freshman(I think), he may have remembered the varsity 10 running Cox. It was a huge game and had equal controversy with "hit" batters and plenty of tempers flaring. Heck, I can remember games that I don't even know any of the players.
Maybe at some point, you can just relax and enjoy your son's senior year, and appreciate Coach Stubbe's baseball knowledge. Instead of shooting him down by suggesting that the stats are inaccurate.

I simply asked a question which someone kindly answered earlier. I stated it was a statement my son made. I never referenced Coach Stubbe and stats. Especially , since he has done nothing but GOOD things for my son .........
Heck 7 years ago ,my kid was on 3 teams. Sorry I didnt know the FC Varsity whooping on Cox I am relaxed and glad we are off to a good start.......

Pirates 21

The rules on the DP are fairly specific. It is the most frequent play that can create the most violent contact between opposing players. From speaking to coaches and umpires it has changed dramatically over the years.

As far as the rule book goes there are very few places where intent is a factor in any play. Malicious contact and throwing at batters are the two most discussed area's IMO.

Ultimately the rule book tries to outline facts for rules but there in no escaping the judgement aspect of the people calling the game. The best example I can think of is the strike zone. The definition is there for everybody to see but find me two guys that call it the same and I'll buy lunch!

BTW Clemente was TREMENDOUS.

The 2nd baseman on that play, Rienerth, made an attempt to throw to first base, maybe there was no way of getting the runner, but he made the throw, thus, interference. But again, i agree with the fact that both teams had many opportunities to break the game open, 1 play didnt win or lose it on this day. These are 2 very good teams, Cox can flat out hit, F.c has got a horse in Bowman, great game.

Really? Guess I missed that completely. So the SS has knocked the ball down, tagged the base and then somehow tossed it to the 2b to make a throw to 1b when the iF was in...all before the runner arrived?? There was obviously a lot more to the play than I saw. Can we get your description?

This is what happened on the play (I saw the whole sequence):

It was a hard grounder to the 2nd baseman Michael Reinerth. Michael knocked the ball down and was on his knees when he got to the base.

The runner slid partially but popped up and chicken-winged Reinerth as he was attempting to make the throw to first. It was not malicious but did affect Reinerth's throw. Reinerth would not have gotten the runner out but it did not make a difference.

The way I saw it the umpire got the call exactly right. The runner should have slid and avoided the 2nd baseman instead of popping up and attempting to affect the throw.

The shortstop TJ Costen was not involved in the play.

It was a shame the game ended the way it did. It was a great game by two very competitive teams. The kids left everything on the field. The next meeting should be another great game.

quote:

Good Lord, if that's what went down then FC got away with one.

Base Jones, are you out there? Maybe there is an interpretation for this?

I'm out here but in CA for the winter due to work. Not seeing the play, I can only give the basics of the "Force Play Slide Rule".

On a force play, if a runner slides, he must do so legally. But, what I read is that the runner did not slide. A runner does not have to slide, but if he chooses not too, he can not interfere in with the fielder in any way. So, if he goes in standing up and will “clearly” be out (which I believe was the case) he should peel away from the fielder. There is no caveat about the fielder having a play at 1st or making an attempt.

So, if the fielder was making the out at 2nd (force out) and the runner went in standing up, and in doing so prevented the fielder from making a pay at 1st, then it’s a violation of the Force Play Slide Rule. The interfering runner is out, along with the batter-runner, and all other runner return to their base at the time of pitch.

As one poster stated, it is a safety rule. And it has a harsh punishment.

Randy

quote:

The runner slid partially but popped up and chicken-winged Reinerth as he was attempting to make the throw to first. It was not malicious but did affect Reinerth's throw. Reinerth would not have gotten the runner out but it did not make a difference.

From what VB Baseball saw, a pop-up slide is definded as an illegal slide in HS. So, if he did that, interference. What is funny is that several people saw the same play, but they all saw it differently.

The NCAA and HS had the same rule concerning "Force Play Slide Rule" until a couple of years ago. NCAA has relaxed the rule to allow the runner to pop-up, provided he does nothing additional (like a chicken wing) and allows the runner to slide through the bag and make contact with the fielder behind the bag. The thought there was the fielder can go either left or right to clear the bag, so the runner has in front and behind the bag.

Randy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HUGE FAN:
I thought Costen was at 3rd. Did he move to 2nd during the switch when Cook went in to pitch? If so I missed that part.Sounds like if rule states you must slide no matter what than it was the right call.I have to say I thought sitting down between 1st and second was the strangest ending I ever saw, but I now have a new one. Both Involving Cox losses.[/QUOTE
Costen moved to Shortstop when Cook went into pitch. Reinerth made the play at 2nd base.
]

Thanks Base. Looks like several people saw different versions of what actually happened so we will never know for sure whether the runner had an intent to interfere or if the fielder made an attempt to throw to first (although I can't imagine how that could be missed).

I stand corrected...its not the 1st time and won't be the last. I guess its time to start wearing those reading glasses full time.

So the way I understand it now, 2b knocks the ball down, tags the bag from his knees and then made a throw to 1st. I must've looked away thinking the play was over because I never saw the throw. Did he get up first or try and throw from his knees? In either case, with the IF in, I have a hard time envisioning any sort of play at 1st. I'm guessing the late throw attempt surprised the runner as much as anyone and that is the likely reason he was caught in a bad position.

Thanks for the clarification. I can at least understand the umpire's position a little better now...although I tend to agree with those that stated that a no call would've been the better option. I hardly think there would've been much reaction from the FC side about not getting a DP in that situation

Ok...this is WAAAAY different than originally stated. If that's they way it went down, then the call sounds correct. Intent has nothing to do with it.

There were two interference calls against Cox in the game . Thats rare. Did the same first base ump make both calls??? No one complained about the first call.....

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Taylor:
I stand corrected...its not the 1st time and won't be the last. I guess its time to start wearing those reading glasses full time.

So the way I understand it now, 2b knocks the ball down, tags the bag from his knees and then made a throw to 1st. I must've looked away thinking the play was over because I never saw the throw. Did he get up first or try and throw from his knees? In either case, with the IF in, I have a hard time envisioning any sort of play at 1st. I'm guessing the late throw attempt surprised the runner as much as anyone and that is the likely reason he was caught in a bad position.

Thanks for the clarification. I can at least understand the umpire's position a little better now...although I tend to agree with those that stated that a no call would've been the better option. I hardly think there would've been much reaction from the FC side about not getting a DP in that situation