Great Call

Good point. I thought he was safe in real time as well. It really took the slo-mo replay to see him pull the hand back. From one of the side angles, I thought he might have done that, but didn't know for sure until saw the line shot.

It really pains me to have to say that about Angel. lol

You gotta give them credit where credit is due

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
You gotta give them credit where credit is due

The announcers don't believe in that. After replay showed that Hernandez was correct, instead of giving him credit, they berated him for balk calls made earlier in the season.

Posted October 19, 2010 10:10 AM Hide Post
Since this is a thread on MLB umpiring I have to comment on the great position 1B ump was last night on the Gardner slide at 1B. Even on the first look I swore he got the bag and beat the throw but on further even slower motion you can see where he missed the bag with his hand. This call was made splt second-fast action and included a small collision as well but the ump was right there perfectly positioned on one knee and had a great view. Unfortunately this isn't as heralded as when they miss a call, just the way it goes.

I made a very similar post yesterday on the sublject tag Quality of ML umpiring. I felt they gave him a lot of vredit for getting it right

My question is right along these lines.... If while running to first, a runner misses the base....is a step or two beyond the base...and the ball then reaches the first basemen who is still on the base waiting for the force out.... Is the runner safe or out?
The question arises only because a runner is assumed to have touched a base once he passes it. An umpire can only call that runner out on an appeal, right?

Runner on first...no out... ball hit to right field. Baserunner goes from first to third but steps over second. Ball is thrown to cutoff, who is standing on second. No appeal is made or requested. Safe or out?

quote:

Originally posted by dpf29:
My question is right along these lines.... If while running to first, a runner misses the base....is a step or two beyond the base...and the ball then reaches the first basemen who is still on the base waiting for the force out.... Is the runner safe or out?
The question arises only because a runner is assumed to have touched a base once he passes it. An umpire can only call that runner out on an appeal, right?

Runner on first...no out... ball hit to right field. Baserunner goes from first to third but steps over second. Ball is thrown to cutoff, who is standing on second. No appeal is made or requested. Safe or out?

1. safe until appeal
2. safe until appeal... There is no accidental appeal... there was an accidental appeal a few years ago in HS (Fed), but they changed it. The fielder must state what they are appealing.

quote:

Originally posted by dpf29:
My question is right along these lines.... If while running to first, a runner misses the base....is a step or two beyond the base...and the ball then reaches the first basemen who is still on the base waiting for the force out.... Is the runner safe or out?
The question arises only because a runner is assumed to have touched a base once he passes it. An umpire can only call that runner out on an appeal, right?

Runner on first...no out... ball hit to right field. Baserunner goes from first to third but steps over second. Ball is thrown to cutoff, who is standing on second. No appeal is made or requested. Safe or out?

The runner is safe in both cases. Until the defense lets the umpire know an appeal is being made(verbally or physically), the runner is not out during the normal course of the play(except in SC where they use the old FED rule of an umpire automatically calls a runner out if he misses a base and advances to the next one).

If the defense steps on 2B intentionally and then looks at the umpire or the 1B man runs over to the runner to tag him and does so or comes back to 1B and touches it, then those physical acts indicate an appeal is being made.

In FED, none of this has to happen. A coach can just yell out that he missed the base and then the umpire rings him up. I do not like that b/c it takes something away from the game. Such as a possible error which allows a run to score.

But, those are the rules of the game.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Umpire:
In FED, none of this has to happen. A coach can just yell out that he missed the base and then the umpire rings him up. I do not like that b/c it takes something away from the game. Such as a possible error which allows a run to score.

Verbal appeals can only occur during a dead ball:

1-5 Penalty: For failure to touch a base (advancing and returning), or failure to tag up as soon as the ball is touched on a caught fly ball, the runner may be called out if an appeal is made by the defensive team. The defense may appeal during a live ball immediately following the play and before a pitch (legal or illegal), granting an intentional base on balls, or before the next play or attempted play. If the offensive team initiates a play before the next pitch, the defensive team does not lose the right to appeal. A live-ball appeal may be made by a defensive player with the ball in his possession by tagging the runner or touching the base that was missed or left too early. A dead-ball appeal may be made by a coach or any defensive player with or without the ball by verbally stating that the runner missed the base or left the base too early. (it continues)

Therefore, the appeal can't take anything "away from the game," as the ball is dead.

I believe what he meant was the deadball appeal takes away from the game as it allows an appeal during a deadball, rather than requiring an OBR type of appeal in which anything can happen.

My personal opinion is that this is exactly why FED changed the rule. Remember, FED rules and changes are primarily made by coaches.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
I believe what he meant was the deadball appeal takes away from the game as it allows an appeal during a deadball, rather than requiring an OBR type of appeal in which anything can happen.

You're probably right. Re-reading his post, it makes sense.

quote:

My question is right along these lines.... If while running to first, a runner misses the base....is a step or two beyond the base...and the ball then reaches the first basemen who is still on the base waiting for the force out.... Is the runner safe or out?
The question arises only because a runner is assumed to have touched a base once he passes it. An umpire can only call that runner out on an appeal, right

why wouldn't the runner be called out when the ball arrives to first? it was there before the runner touched first. isn't it still a force play?

quote:

Originally posted by 20dad:

quote:

My question is right along these lines.... If while running to first, a runner misses the base....is a step or two beyond the base...and the ball then reaches the first basemen who is still on the base waiting for the force out.... Is the runner safe or out?
The question arises only because a runner is assumed to have touched a base once he passes it. An umpire can only call that runner out on an appeal, right

why wouldn't the runner be called out when the ball arrives to first? it was there before the runner touched first. isn't it still a force play?

Read the definition of "Force Play" in rule 2.00

The play described is a running error and no different than any other: It's an appeal play. The fielder has to make an obvious action or comment to appeal the runner. If he does so before the runner returns to the bag, runner is out. If he doesn't, runner is safe.

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
I believe what he meant was the deadball appeal takes away from the game as it allows an appeal during a deadball, rather than requiring an OBR type of appeal in which anything can happen.

You're probably right. Re-reading his post, it makes sense.

I did mean the FED type appeal does take away from the game as Jimmy pointed out. However, since I don't do FED, I did not know the ball had to be "dead" before this type of appeal can be made. Still, it does prevent things from occurring in the course of the game after the ball is put back into play b/c now, after the "dead" ball verbal appeal, the defense doesn't have to throw the ball. Thus, eliminating the possibility of a runner advancing during the appeal.

Which is why I don't like FED. In that case, then a coach can just call "Time" after the play is over and make the call. I hope to never truly do FED rules but it may happen someday and I will have to learn that.

I do not like the "dead-ball appeal" in Fed rules for the reasons stated above...

I also don't like the automatic walk that a coach can use in Fed. As we saw in the MLB playoffs throwing 4 straight pitch-outs is not as easy as it sounds. They say it is a speed up rule... which I don't believe it speed up anything... it just takes away another aspect of the game where the defense can screw up...

I will once again be the defender of Fed rules. Put the CR, DH and other specialty rules that takes aspect away from the game.
Fed passes rules for four reasons,safety,participation,sportmanship and what I call LCD. LCD stands for lowest common denominator.
The dead ball appeal and CR are examples of LCD rules. There is no reason for a pitcher to ever need a courtesy runner. The catcher CR is a speed up and I am fine with. The dead ball appeal was Fed's verson of adding a HS live appeal. It was preceeded by the umpire simply calling runners out for missing bases or leaving early on a tag up. Originally players or coaches could ask for an appeal with a live ball but during relaxed play. Then they could also ask for a dead ball appeal. The second year it was changed to the coach having to appeal during a dead ball only. The rule was written this way to make it as close to the old rule as possible, include an actual appeal but make it idiot proof for both umpires and managers.
The DH is a participation rule.
I don't always agree with their rules but I understand the thought process behind them.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I will once again be the defender of Fed rules.

Probably one of few.

My issue with FED is their continuing and frustrating belief that things can't get better.

In 1997, FED was presented with a near cost free proposal that would, over a five year period build a nationwide unidoem training and certification program for high school umpires. Having claimed over the years that the lack of uniform training and certification was the reason for LCD, it was hoped they would jump at this.

Nope. FED no longer gets a pass for LCD.

LCD is sometimes for the coaches as well as the umpires. The appeal rule is a prime example. They wanted it to be as close to the old rule but make the team actually appeal so they made it as easy as possible so there weren't missed appeals for procedural reasons. Right or wrong,to accomadate this if I have a coach ask for an appeal with the ball live, I will call time and ask what he said. That way the appeal will be valid.
As to being a defender of Fed rules, I have complained over the years as much as anybody but as a rules interpreter I have come to understand why they do some of the things they do. I still don't agree with all of them but at least there is an understanding.
What you have to remember is they consider the players student atheletes first and the field or court an extention of the classroom. This is why the obstruction rule is the way it is, they want it to be a straight punative penalty so you always get a base. The delayed dead ball portion is LCD. OBR has two types, one punative, the other to fix the problem.
I wish there was a national training plan and would be really interested in being a part of that but in the mean time they do a very good job of supplying a casebook that is lacking in other organizations.

Michael, I have been training umpires FED rules for many years. (I do not use their mechaincs) I have served as an interpeter and clinician. I understand the whys of their rules and agree with most of them.

That said, I still find their unwillingness to work to improve the performance of the officials on which their clients rely to be unforgiveable.

Years ago, NCAA had the same issues, but the recognized the value of addressing it. I see no downside of assuring a national standard of highschool officiating in any sport.

I completely agree with like having a national training programs. I also do not use Fed mechanics, we teach NCAA mechanics. I have never even seen a Fed mechanic manual.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I completely agree with like having a national training programs. I also do not use Fed mechanics, we teach NCAA mechanics. I have never even seen a Fed mechanic manual.

Count me in as well........I would love to go through such a program and would embrace it wholeheartedy for use in my chapter....I have always wanted a consistent curriculum to use for my students....

(we teach CCA mechanics as well)

We use the mechanics in the NFHS Baseball Umpires Manual. It's published every two years. The last one was for the 2009-2010 seasons.

Have to say though that a national standard of training would be a tremendous help.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
We use the mechanics in the NFHS Baseball Umpires Manual. It's published every two years. The last one was for the 2009-2010 seasons.

Have to say though that a national standard of training would be a tremendous help.

Since you use FED mechanics, I will edit your statement just a little.

"Have to say though that a [logical] national standard of training would be a tremendous help."

Mr Umpire,

Is there a particular reason you felt the need to "edit" my statement?

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
Mr Umpire,

Is there a particular reason you felt the need to "edit" my statement?

A starting point: FED refers to a runner at 3B as R1 and a runner at 1B as R3 if bases are loaded. From an umpire's standpoint and many others on so many other forums, that is confusing. I have also heard of some of their rotations which are not logical though I don't have any examples currently since I have only heard them in passing.

Not to mention, many of the rules in the rule book. There are many reasons why FED is called Calvinball. They may have their reasons for it (some worthy while others ridiculous) but FED rules are written more confusing and worse than any Calculus book I have ever looked at. And, I barely passed CalcIII years ago.

Fed has some weird mechanics, most I don't remember right now because I have never actually seen a Fed mechanic book. However, one example would be having the PU cover third on a clean triple. What possible reason could there be to run the PU up the line when an overthrow would require him to beat feet back to the plate.

Mr Umpire,

I see. You wanted to express an opinion.

No need to edit my statement. Simply do it on your own.

Lots of things in the Fed rule book and case book and Umps Manual could be improved upon. Certainly no argument there. All I said is that's what we use in our Chapter. I never said it was the most logical; although I can't say any of the rotations are illogical.

quote:

What possible reason could there be to run the PU up the line when an overthrow would require him to beat feet back to the plate.

He doesn't beat feet back, U2 covers the plate in that situation.

I'm not saying this is the best way. It's simply the Fed mechanic. Truthfully, I talk with my partner before the game to see what he wants to do. If he wants, as U2, to take the runner all the way to 3rd I'm fine with that. If he wants me to come up the line with him covering the back door that's OK also. I just make it point in my pre-game discussion with him.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:

quote:

What possible reason could there be to run the PU up the line when an overthrow would require him to beat feet back to the plate.

He doesn't beat feet back, U2 covers the plate in that situation.

I'm not saying this is the best way. It's simply the Fed mechanic. Truthfully, I talk with my partner before the game to see what he wants to do. If he wants, as U2, to take the runner all the way to 3rd I'm fine with that. If he wants me to come up the line with him covering the back door that's OK also. I just make it point in my pre-game discussion with him.

Since, with PU covering 3rd on a bases empty triple, BU would have to take the runner to second, either one covering home would have to "beat feet" to call a play there.

Anyway you look at it, sending BU to third in this situation is dumb.

The only thing dunber than sending the PU to third on a triple is having the BU cover home on a overthrow.
I understand that is what is taught in your group so you have to do it that way. That is the purpose of mechanics, to know where your partner is in any given situation. Our point is simply that since we teach our respective groups we can teach what we want and we prefer CCA mechanics. I do it for two reasons, one they are good mechanics and two, we have enough guys working college it is easier for them to not switch back and forth.
We used to teach pro mechanics but the only place the guys use them was the guys working minor league fill-in.

Michael,

Same reasoning applies for us. We're more rural here than where you, piaa and some others are.
Only one ump (not me) in our Chapter works college ball. Teaching/using the Fed mechanics has been a long standing thing here and it works OK for us.

As far as what's dumb or dumber on the aforementioned coverage; I'm OK with either coverage as long as we both know who is doing what.

quote:

In 1997, FED was presented with a near cost free proposal that would, over a five year period build a nationwide unidoem training and certification program for high school umpires. Having claimed over the years that the lack of uniform training and certification was the reason for LCD, it was hoped they would jump at this.

Jimmy,

Could you tell me a bit about this "near cost free proposal"? You have piqued my interest.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:

quote:

In 1997, FED was presented with a near cost free proposal that would, over a five year period build a nationwide unidoem training and certification program for high school umpires. Having claimed over the years that the lack of uniform training and certification was the reason for LCD, it was hoped they would jump at this.

Jimmy,

Could you tell me a bit about this "near cost free proposal"? You have piqued my interest.

I don't know about anyone else but we are pretty rural. Our HS group covers three counties but that is only nine public schools and a hand full of private schools. College wise we have two D1,two D3 and two D1 community colleges within an 1 1/2 hr range. Anything else we have to travel 2 hrs or better. We have maybe 10 guys working the various levels. Most do the D3 and CC but only a couple work D1. We also have a few that work MiLB replacement. We have an Orioles affiliate in town.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:

quote:

In 1997, FED was presented with a near cost free proposal that would, over a five year period build a nationwide unidoem training and certification program for high school umpires. Having claimed over the years that the lack of uniform training and certification was the reason for LCD, it was hoped they would jump at this.

Jimmy,

Could you tell me a bit about this "near cost free proposal"? You have piqued my interest.

"Near cost free" is in reference to FED.

Experienced college and former MiLB umpires approached FED with a propsal that took the NCAA national clinics approach used to reach conference umpires and magnified it greatly and applied it to High School umpires.

Initially, several teams of instructors would fan out and hold regional clinics for lead umpires chosen by state organizations, who would in turn hold state clinics. Their estimation was that over a 5 year period of time, they would produce a national body of umpires trained much more uniformly in rules and mechanics and more consistently competent.

They also predicted that if participation at a clinic became required for post season assignment, as it is NCAA, after five years it could also be requred for local varsity assignment.

Edited to add: It isn't that this proposal isn't in place that draws my criticism. Rather it's that no procedure is in place, this or another.

FED has acknowledged that lack of uniformity in performance and consistent competence are problems, and choose to design rules around them rather than address them.

The problem with a national training is not every state complies with all rules changes. I believe SC doesn't use the appeal rule, instead requires the umpire to makje the out call per the old rule. RI or somewhere in New England doesn't use Fed rules at all. I believe there may be another stater but I don't know which one. I believe Illinois doesn't use all of the balk changes that were put in a few years ago. Some states use CRs, others don't. The same for mercy rules and other speedup rules. I think it's ND that doesn't even play baseball during the school year but in the summer instead.
You could have standard mechanics but the rules are too different state to state.