Rulebook wording “if in contact with its intended place on the person” or something like that. If you dive head first and your helmet is the only thing on the base, that’s fine.So the helmet is not part of the body, but the glove and cleats are?
Rulebook wording “if in contact with its intended place on the person” or something like that. If you dive head first and your helmet is the only thing on the base, that’s fine.So the helmet is not part of the body, but the glove and cleats are?
As an umpire you are not to alert the manager (like in football where you’re asked if you want to accept or decline the penalty), but if the manager comes outs and says pretty much anything (e.g. “do we have to lose that run?”), then we help him with the rule and let him know he has a choice. In other words, the manager does not need to explicitly tell us “hey I want to use the option of declining the interference and taking the result of the play”, but we also don’t call time and say “hey, coach, do you want to take the penalty or not.”So, that play is subject to a very heavy debate by umpires, as I understand it. The debate is over whether or not to alert the manager that he has a choice. Somewhere in some officials forums or internet thing, there was a very active debate, with the prevailing view being that because of the language of the rule or comment, it is up to the manager to know the rule. So the umpire enforces the catchers' interference and then needs to wait to see what the manager wants to do. Others take the view that in situations where the manager may prefer to decline. The MLB comment gives two examples -- sac fly and sac bunt.
Do you know how the ump handled in the reds pads game?
Yeah. From Definitions of Terms:Rulebook wording “if in contact with its intended place on the person” or something like that. If you dive head first and your helmet is the only thing on the base, that’s fine.
I laughed picturing the guy diving in head first with his hands by his side, and helmet touching the bag.Rulebook wording “if in contact with its intended place on the person” or something like that. If you dive head first and your helmet is the only thing on the base, that’s fine.
So, was this rule applied incorrectly last Fall?Yeah. From Definitions of Terms:
TOUCH. To touch a player or umpire is to touch any part of his body, or any uniform or equipment worn by him (but not any jewelry (e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.) worn by a player).(Touch) Comment: Equipment shall be considered worn by a player or umpire if it is in contact with its intended place on his person.
That's a great question. At first the obvious answer seems like it should be no--the glove's "intended place" is on the hand, not in the pocket.So, was this rule applied incorrectly last Fall?
https://youtube.com/shorts/v5wB3bnQynI?si=nakEZ3XvrW6OP7TS
Tagged the batting glove hanging out of the pocket
I've seen T-ball players execute a better run-down.Rafael Devers' cousin Jose won a game for Lake County (Guardians Hi-A) in a run-down walk-off as part of a 9-2-5-2-5, E-5. The batter was Justin Boyd – the garbage player they traded Will Benson for.
That was Mel Hall:Who was it that would intentionally leave his batting gloves hanging out of his back pocket so they could wave goodbye to the first baseman when he was stealing second? It sounds like Rickey, but I don't think it was him.
I hadn't heard about the awful and disturbing turn his story took a few years ago:The thing I really remember about Hall was his habit of stuffing a bunch of extra batting gloves in his rear pocket with the fingers dangling out. The idea was that when he was running around the bases, the gloves would be waving bye-bye to the infielders.
Now we can all wave bye-bye to Hall. On Wednesday he got a 45-year sentence for raping a 12-year-old girl, a player on a basketball team he coached. There was testimony from other women who said he molested or raped them as minors; some of this activity is said to have occurred during his playing days. He's been charged in at least one of those cases too.
Hall is 48 now; he won't be eligible for parole for 22 1/2 years, so he figures to be 70 or more when he gets out. If he ever gets out.
That was the first thing I thought too. Man, that was awful.I've seen T-ball players execute a better run-down.
After seeing this, I went surfing and found thisRafael Devers' cousin Jose won a game for Lake County (Guardians Hi-A) in a run-down walk-off as part of a 9-2-5-2-5, E-5. The batter was Justin Boyd – the garbage player they traded Will Benson for.
Yikes. I hope the prosecutors stuffed their back pockets with batting gloves when the verdict came in.That was Mel Hall:
https://fpbaseballoutsider.blogspot.com/2009/06/bye-bye-mel-hall.html
I hadn't heard about the awful and disturbing turn his story took a few years ago:
According to this article from 2014, his prom date was 15 years old. What an awful human being.Mel Hall was sort of like R Kelly. He had these rumors circulating about him for years. I think there was even a (Yankees?) yearbook photo with his 16 year old girlfriend at her prom one year....
And who from the Yankees thought using that picture was a good idea?According to this article from 2014, his prom date was 15 years old. What an awful human being.
https://www.sbnation.com/2014/7/15/5883593/the-many-crimes-of-mel-hall
Seems like she (and her parents) were around the team all the time. This was not a secret relationship. Oof.And who from the Yankees thought using that picture was a good idea?
Holy crap, good thing the 1B didn't cut that off
Oh my god here comes Manny with the lead glove!Holy crap, good thing the 1B didn't cut that off
Except for, apparently, her parents. WTF.I think even back then most would have thought this was not ok
There were some "famous" catchers who had yips to the pitcher...Mackey Sasser, Mike Ivie and others.https://x.com/Brewers/status/1792707006123651481
Would you consider this unusual? Stealing home on a throw back to the pitcher?
Wow. I mean, holy shit.I don't think Willie done it this way…
The rule says that it’s OK if he’s in the process of throwing a pitch or throwing to the base.Figured this might be a good place to ask a rules question (couldn't find another thread that looked better, but feel free to move if so) that came up in a league around here - I was helping as a volunteer umpire and hadn't seen the situation come up this way before, and would like to get it right going forward.
With a runner on first, a pitcher out of the stretch has a delivery in which they take the ball out of their glove, separating their hands fully and reaching back with their throwing arm, begin their motion towards the plate, and then as part of loading up to throw home put the ball back entirely into the glove (keeping it gripped in the throwing hand) before separating again mid-stride. Is this a legal delivery? I have seen MLB players in videos where they adjust the ball within their glove and do a tap in the delivery motion, but nothing where the hands are fully separated. The pitcher was doing this on some but not all pitches; for some others the ball stayed within the glove as he began his delivery and was only taken out a single time, as he prepared to throw. If it matters, this separation would be visible from the point of view of the runner on first base.
The relevant rule here is 8.05 (j):
8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—
(j): The pitcher, after coming to a legal pitching position, removes one hand from the ball other than in an actual pitch, or in throwing to a base;
So If he does this and then comes set again or does this as the initial move in his delivery to the plate but then tries to throw to first instead, it's clearly a balk. But the question is whether he can remove one hand from the ball multiple times in course of the same delivery as long as that delivery ends in the ball being throw to home plate and there is otherwise no pause.
Easily 50% NYY fans in the park. We brought 2 with us, so we take the blame
You can watch the replay on your phone but if he did this intentionally (brilliant if so, plus he got DJ an undeserved hit), he was incredibly smooth about it.Now Rizzo took a groundball off the leg as a baserunner to avoid a double play.
They didn't show that play or the other interference play on the big screens at the parkYou can watch the replay on your phone but if he did this intentionally (brilliant if so, plus he got DJ an undeserved hit), he was incredibly smooth about it.
Good call? It's the only call.Honestly, Sox fans - do you think that was a good call? What the hell is Soto supposed to do?
He MAY not have tried to get hit intentionally. But he sure as hell didn't try to not get hit. No break in stride, no evasive maneuvers. Definitely smooth.You can watch the replay on your phone but if he did this intentionally (brilliant if so, plus he got DJ an undeserved hit), he was incredibly smooth about it.
You're assigning all kinds of intent that is just not there. He's going back to the bag slowly because he has time, but also so that he has the ability to avoid the fielder. It's not his fault that the fielder misjudged the pop-up and at the absolute last moment lunges backwards to make the catch and slams into Soto. On top of that, Soto was on the base and the rule says that he has to intentionally make contact to be called out in that situation. He absolutely does not do that. It's a terrible rule and a terrible call.Good call? It's the only call.
What could he do? Where to begin... He put himself in the position of having to lunge for the bag because he walked back to the base, only having any sense of urgency as the catch is about to be made. The play, including the shortstop getting in position to make the catch, is literally mere feet in front of him the whole time. There are any number of things he could have done to avoid colliding with the shortstop. Hustle back to the bag more quickly. Go around to the back side of the bag. Go to the ground with a hand tag and spin his body away from the shortstop.
But sure, once he walked back to the bag and was in danger of being doubled up because of his laziness, at that point his only option was to lay a hip check on the shortstop.
"If [a] runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders [a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball], he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out."You're assigning all kinds of intent that is just not there. He's going back to the bag slowly because he has time, but also so that he has the ability to avoid the fielder. It's not his fault that the fielder misjudged the pop-up and at the absolute last moment lunges backwards to make the catch and slams into Soto. On top of that, Soto was on the base and the rule says that he has to intentionally make contact to be called out in that situation. He absolutely does not do that. It's a terrible rule and a terrible call.
That's a bad angle, Soto had come to a stop on the base and the fielder flopped backwards over his leg. It was probably the right call by the book but MLB needs to tweak the rule to include common sense judgments by the ump.Yah, based on this look, it is 100% correct. Soto was lunging for the bag when the contact occurred. He wasn't standing there and have the SS bump into him:
View attachment 83360
Imo. This is reminiscent of the early days of the rule change in which a runner could be off the bag for a half second and would be called out by the ump/replay.That's a bad angle, Soto had come to a stop on the base and the fielder flopped backwards over his leg. It was probably the right call by the book but MLB needs to tweak the rule to include common sense judgments by the ump.
I have no dog in this pony show, so I won't drag it any further,,, but I feel you have a very...interesting take om what actually happened.That's a bad angle, Soto had come to a stop on the base and the fielder flopped backwards over his leg. It was probably the right call by the book but MLB needs to tweak the rule to include common sense judgments by the ump.
The league apologized for the previous call like this, at least this was the first inning, not to end the game.Imo. This is reminiscent of the early days of the rule change in which a runner could be off the bag for a half second and would be called out by the ump/replay.
Feels like players will learn to adjust