Active Community: Message List

Re: Fly ball - appeal?

guest — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:00:20 GMT

Kyle, re-read the OP. My team was playing defense, so there's nothing to appeal since BU awarded the DP. That is also why my conversation with BU was more of an inquiry after the inning. It seemed obvious that F6 just happened to make contact with the bag and wasn't even aware of where the runners were, and kept moving casually after the catch without any acknowledgement at all of what had happened. So I asked quietly if he saw it the same way, and he did... so I asked the question and he told me that it didn't matter...

I'm just glad he's no longer working our league.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:23:09 GMT

Mark, are you sure you've seen the play in question? A - he was not camped, but was still going back... and I'm not saying that it wasn't ordinary effort, although I question that to some degree. B - That first throw is a LOT longer than the one in a 5-4-3, which at most is only 90', and usually a little less. The ball landed 225' from home, so at best (if it were down the LF line), you're talking about a 135' throw to F5(who probably wasn't covering 3B).

All that being said, would you wait until the ball was 20' from the ground before you'd call it?

In one of the articles posted about the play, there was a stat posted about dropped/missed IFF balls, the longest one about somewhere around 190' from home.

Fly ball - appeal?

guest — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:57:24 GMT

Rich, I wish it were that simple. Although this umpire was bad(haven't seen him this year), at least he was young enough that he could get around the field and at least be in position to make his bad calls. We have at least two that are well over 70, and however noble it is of them to be umpiring, the frustration caused by it takes so much away from the game - for the kids and the fans. I am planning to at least ask one of the board members who to talk to regarding the umps.

I'm guessing this particular ump has gone to yet another park/organization. He ejected me for a single comment after he rung up a couple of kids on ankle high pitches, and one of the parents said they had been ejected by the same guy at a different park the year before. When you have a quick trigger in ejecting parents, and those parents have to take the rest of the family out of the field complex while the game finishes, it makes for an interesting discussion with the president of the league. I have 4 kids, and all of them were with me, so we all headed to the parking lot. Once the game was over, I headed back to get the one that was playing, and then sought out the on duty board member, which happened to be the president.

Fly ball - appeal?

guest — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:09:00 GMT

So I discussed the fact that it's an appeal play, and BU disagreed. I tried to explain, but gave up when it became clear that he simply doesn't understand the concept of a continuous action appeal. He maintained that any contact with the base, however incidental, was good enough.

I also got the same feeling when discussing what appeared to me to be INT by R1 on F3 on a popup right behind 1B. Thankfully my daughter raced over from F4 and made an over the should catch, much to my amazement (she's usually not a very aggressive fielder, and usually runs like she's in a field of tulips, sorta tiptoeing). So I casually discussed the play with him, and he didn't seem to understand the concept of a protected fielder. Oh yeah, and he blew the call when my daughter made the throw to try and double the runner up, but there was nothing to dicuss about that call.

Fly ball - appeal?

guest — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:38:28 GMT

Sitch - R2, 1 out. Fly ball towards 2B. F6, in the act of catching the ball, inadvertantly steps on 2B as they catch the ball. R2 was somewhat oblivious, as was F6. I'm yelling for F6 to tag 2B, and R2 realizes they should be on the bag. F6 lunges back to tag the bag, just after R2 slides back in.

I discussed this with BU later, but I'd like your comments before we go into what he had to say.

The ultimate cloud of dust play!

guest — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:57:18 GMT

True, using a play at the plate takes so many other considerations out of the equation. Let's say you have 2 out, bases loaded in the bottom of the last inning in a tie game, and the pitcher throws to first in an attempted pick-off. The throw takes 1B into the baseline preventing the runner from getting back to the bag, but he muffs the throw. And like the OP, eventually the fielder figures out where the ball is and tags the running. If you're going to call that OBS, it sure fits the definition of type A - ballgame over. But in LL rules, play relaxes, time is called, and the runner is safe at first. Fan of the visiting team are screaming, as is any home team fan that knows OBR, once you mention that OBS was called.

I can see scenarios where I'm guessing this is supposed to teach players that there are penalties for not executing properly. The main problem I have with that line of thinking is that by the time that becomes effective, those players will NOT be playing by LL rules. I can also see issues with the judgement aspect of determining when you become "in the act of receiving." However, I can't see addressing that problem by creating a rule that bastardizes every other ruleset out there, and applying it to a group of players that are more likely to find themselves in this situation than most other groups(age and ability wise). And then you have to deal with parents/fans that don't even understand real OBS, much less something like this.

I can't count the number of times I've seen type B in my daughter's softball games, and nobody else even sees the obstruction besides me and the umps, and the other parents certainly never notice the ump holding his fist out. So they're going to be really confused if what I described above were to happen.

The ultimate cloud of dust play!

guest — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:39:59 GMT

Define "possession" in the case of receiving a throw. As I understand it, possession would indicate having caught the ball and having control. So with the current wording, if the throw takes him into the baseline, but he muffs it, it's obstruction. Am I missing something here?

The ultimate cloud of dust play!

guest — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:31:53 GMT

"Of course, if the throw takes the fielder into the path of the runner then all bets are off - trainwrecks happen."

But the wording they've included seems to trump the trainwreck concept - If the fielder doesn't clearly have possession, he's obstructing. Especially since they removed the part that about "in the act of receiving" as that's what allowed trainwrecks without either side being penalized.

The ultimate cloud of dust play!

guest — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:05:31 GMT

Wow, LL really screwed this rule up... So they took a play that would actually be type A and made it type B, while at the same time handicapping the defense by making it obstruction to be in proper position but not receiving the throw cleanly... very nice.

Define "clearly without possession of the ball." If I'm wearing a blue suit and the ball beats the runner, I can't imagine calling OBS unless the catcher continues to block the runner after he muffed the throw... and in that case it'd be pretty obvious.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:21:55 GMT

There's not a chance in hades that the defense turns a DP on a ball that's hit 100' beyond the baselines, unless the baserunners are napping or legally handicapped.