I guess my first problem with this rule is trying to figure out what problem it is attempting to fix.

This garbage is the result of the kind of idiotic thinking that led to the abominations of the DH and Interleague play.

Now, get off my lawn!

(07-14-2019 06:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Reading the Atlantic League site and the MSN recitation, those cannot the the rules.

Quote:Any pitch on any count not caught in flight will be considered a live ball, and a batter may run to first base, similar to a dropped third strike.

This means a wild pitch on any 3-x count, the batter can be tagged before taking first, to which he is entitled as the 4th ball. The rule *cannot* be 'on any count' since that would directly conflict with the 4th ball 'opening' up first base for the batter.

Edited to add:

The NJ article probably recites the rule. "The catcher fails to catch any pitch and the batter immediately chooses to
become a runner." In the case of a ball 4, the batter going to first is never deemed to be a runner.

What do you mean? I don't see any conflict between the experimental rule and the ball-four rule.
- A better most definitely IS a runner on ball four -- he can try to circle the bases if he wants to. Multiple times have I seen a wild ball-four sail to the backstop and the batter sprint to first and try for second. The experimental rule doesn't change that. Did you think "ball four" was a dead ball somehow?
- On ball four, the batter-runner is NOT liable to be put out at first base. This experimental rule doesn't change that either.

The experimental rule has a redundancy with the ball-four rule, in that it allows the batter to run to first base if ball four is dropped -- which of course, he has always been allowed to do, dropped or not. But it is not inconsistent with the ball-four rule.

(07-14-2019 06:41 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Sounds like right-handed batters . . . start their run to 1st farther away than a left handed batter.

That's always been the case.

(07-14-2019 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:The batter shall be deemed to have chosen to become a
runner under this rule if (i) both of the batter’s feet leave the batter’s box,
and (ii) the batter, in the umpire’s judgment, demonstrates or otherwise
creates an impression of his intent to advance to first base.

So one is objective, and the other subjective to determine if he attempts.

Looks like batters better not step out of the batter box *at all* in the case of a wild pitch. Would love to see an astute catcher retrieve the ball and tag out the guy who steps completely out of the box and checks his cup after a WP.

Another situation happens on a WP I just thought about. Say a runner is on second and a WP. Almost *all* of the time as the catcher races to grab the pitch, the runner at least 'jumps around wildly' or goes like a banshee. At the same time the batters almost always race *out* of the batter's box so they cannot be called for interfering with any throw from the catcher.

What I usually see is that the batter stands still. Since doesn't really know which way the catcher is going to go, the best way too avoid committing interference is to stand still.

(07-14-2019 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A smart catcher will pump the ball to chase the runner back, then amble over and tag the batter who has jumped away from the box to steer clear of interfering. Or, simply hold the ball threatening to throw and walk over and tag the guy who has correctly jumped out of the batters box to stay out of an interference issue.
Seems like a smart catcher can really cause the umpires some headaches with this rule.

I disagree. I don't think it will be hard at all for umpires to determine whether the batter made an attempt to run. They already make those kinds of determinations: did an infielder intentionally drop a line drive; did a baserunner (typically a batter on a third strike) abandon his attempt to advance; did a batter offer at a pitch. I don't see this one as any harder, or any more frequent.

(07-14-2019 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The rule is clear, the batter takes both feet out of the box, he is deemed to have an intent to steal first. Kind of hard to argue the crystal clear language there.

Remember, we haven't seen the text of the rule; all we have seen is sound-bite reports and press releases. (As far as I can tell, NO ONE has thought to publish the actual rule, which seems weird.). My hunch is that:
- the rule really says "takes two feet out of the batter box in an attempt toward first base", or something like that;
- there are official interpretations that give further guidance, such as: "an obvious dive or jump to avoid being hit by a pitch should not be interpreted as an attempt toward first base".

(07-14-2019 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If I were a manager I would tell my catchers to tag every batter after every wild pitch in light of the first portion of the rule.

While the wouldn't hurt the fielding time, I don't think it would be advantageous either. The approved interpretations almost certainly instruct the umpires not to make it a "gotcha" play. If the batter has barely moved, or has moved away first base, they won't give the catcher an out for tagging him.

(07-15-2019 12:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess my first problem with this rule is trying to figure out what problem it is attempting to fix.

We can see how the experiment plays out, but my sense is that this rule will create interesting plays in rare situations, and otherwise will have no appreciable effect. So why not?

(07-15-2019 05:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 12:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess my first problem with this rule is trying to figure out what problem it is attempting to fix.

We can see how the experiment plays out, but my sense is that this rule will create interesting plays in rare situations, and otherwise will have no appreciable effect. So why not?

I can see lots of interesting plays after coaches learn what to have their players do.

Man on third, one out. Ball goes to backstop, runner heads for first. Runner at third bluffs coming in. Should the catcher hold the ball to keep the run from scoring? Or fire to first and try for a double play? Or fire to 3rd and try and get the lead runner in a run down?

Then Batter heads to second. Now what is the proper play?

This could turn into a circus.

(07-15-2019 05:16 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:The batter shall be deemed to have chosen to become a
runner under this rule if (i) both of the batter’s feet leave the batter’s box,
and (ii) the batter, in the umpire’s judgment, demonstrates or otherwise
creates an impression of his intent to advance to first base.

So one is objective, and the other subjective to determine if he attempts.

Looks like batters better not step out of the batter box *at all* in the case of a wild pitch. Would love to see an astute catcher retrieve the ball and tag out the guy who steps completely out of the box and checks his cup after a WP.

Another situation happens on a WP I just thought about. Say a runner is on second and a WP. Almost *all* of the time as the catcher races to grab the pitch, the runner at least 'jumps around wildly' or goes like a banshee. At the same time the batters almost always race *out* of the batter's box so they cannot be called for interfering with any throw from the catcher.

What I usually see is that the batter stands still. Since doesn't really know which way the catcher is going to go, the best way too avoid committing interference is to stand still.

(07-14-2019 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A smart catcher will pump the ball to chase the runner back, then amble over and tag the batter who has jumped away from the box to steer clear of interfering. Or, simply hold the ball threatening to throw and walk over and tag the guy who has correctly jumped out of the batters box to stay out of an interference issue.
Seems like a smart catcher can really cause the umpires some headaches with this rule.

I disagree. I don't think it will be hard at all for umpires to determine whether the batter made an attempt to run. They already make those kinds of determinations: did an infielder intentionally drop a line drive; did a baserunner (typically a batter on a third strike) abandon his attempt to advance; did a batter offer at a pitch. I don't see this one as any harder, or any more frequent.

(07-14-2019 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The rule is clear, the batter takes both feet out of the box, he is deemed to have an intent to steal first. Kind of hard to argue the crystal clear language there.

Remember, we haven't seen the text of the rule; all we have seen is sound-bite reports and press releases. (As far as I can tell, NO ONE has thought to publish the actual rule, which seems weird.). My hunch is that:
- the rule really says "takes two feet out of the batter box in an attempt toward first base", or something like that;
- there are official interpretations that give further guidance, such as: "an obvious dive or jump to avoid being hit by a pitch should not be interpreted as an attempt toward first base".

(07-14-2019 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If I were a manager I would tell my catchers to tag every batter after every wild pitch in light of the first portion of the rule.

While the wouldn't hurt the fielding time, I don't think it would be advantageous either. The approved interpretations almost certainly instruct the umpires not to make it a "gotcha" play. If the batter has barely moved, or has moved away first base, they won't give the catcher an out for tagging him.

I think you are most correct when you say the actual language of the rule should be ascertained. I am using the only source I could see --- which is the bare objective 'two feet leave the batters box language'.

(07-15-2019 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 12:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess my first problem with this rule is trying to figure out what problem it is attempting to fix.

We can see how the experiment plays out, but my sense is that this rule will create interesting plays in rare situations, and otherwise will have no appreciable effect. So why not?

I can see lots of interesting plays after coaches learn what to have their players do.

Man on third, one out. Ball goes to backstop, runner heads for first. Runner at third bluffs coming in. Should the catcher hold the ball to keep the run from scoring? Or fire to first and try for a double play? Or fire to 3rd and try and get the lead runner in a run down?

Then Batter heads to second. Now what is the proper play?

This could turn into a circus.

That sounds like an interesting play, not a circus.

In general, plays that involve decision-making are interesting. It is not bad to have more of them.

(07-16-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think you are most correct when you say the actual language of the rule should be ascertained. I am using the only source I could see --- which is the bare objective 'two feet leave the batters box language'.

I've also seen a Washington Post article (which I can longer find) that said "the batter takes both feet out of the batter's box toward first base". I don't know what to believe!

I'm surprised (bordering astonished) that no one seems to have published the actual rule.

(07-16-2019 05:44 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think you are most correct when you say the actual language of the rule should be ascertained. I am using the only source I could see --- which is the bare objective 'two feet leave the batters box language'.

I've also seen a Washington Post article (which I can longer find) that said "the batter takes both feet out of the batter's box toward first base". I don't know what to believe!

I'm surprised (bordering astonished) that no one seems to have published the actual rule.

Seems pretty bad that there is no readily accessible published rule. Makes the lawyer here cringe and fidget....

(07-16-2019 06:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 05:44 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think you are most correct when you say the actual language of the rule should be ascertained. I am using the only source I could see --- which is the bare objective 'two feet leave the batters box language'.

I've also seen a Washington Post article (which I can longer find) that said "the batter takes both feet out of the batter's box toward first base". I don't know what to believe!

I'm surprised (bordering astonished) that no one seems to have published the actual rule.

Seems pretty bad that there is no readily accessible published rule. Makes the lawyer here cringe and fidget....

Probably letting discussions like this one identify the issues and potential options.

(07-16-2019 06:09 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 06:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 05:44 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think you are most correct when you say the actual language of the rule should be ascertained. I am using the only source I could see --- which is the bare objective 'two feet leave the batters box language'.

I've also seen a Washington Post article (which I can longer find) that said "the batter takes both feet out of the batter's box toward first base". I don't know what to believe!

I'm surprised (bordering astonished) that no one seems to have published the actual rule.

Seems pretty bad that there is no readily accessible published rule. Makes the lawyer here cringe and fidget....

Probably letting discussions like this one identify the issues and potential options.

That would mean that lawyers are making a useful contribution to baseball, and hence to society - which would be the most revolutionary change of all!

(07-16-2019 04:45 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 12:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess my first problem with this rule is trying to figure out what problem it is attempting to fix.

We can see how the experiment plays out, but my sense is that this rule will create interesting plays in rare situations, and otherwise will have no appreciable effect. So why not?

I can see lots of interesting plays after coaches learn what to have their players do.

Man on third, one out. Ball goes to backstop, runner heads for first. Runner at third bluffs coming in. Should the catcher hold the ball to keep the run from scoring? Or fire to first and try for a double play? Or fire to 3rd and try and get the lead runner in a run down?

Then Batter heads to second. Now what is the proper play?

This could turn into a circus.

That sounds like an interesting play, not a circus.

In general, plays that involve decision-making are interesting. It is not bad to have more of them.

i said it could turn into a circus, not that it was one. What I was thinking of was that could devolve into a LL type of multiple throws to multiple base, with the ball ending up in the outfield.

Decisions are what fuels the endless discussions - when to pull the picher, when to steal, etc - and those are interesting.

I'm guessing if this became a rule it would be unwise to throw Myles Straw a curve ball in the dirt.

(07-16-2019 07:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm guessing if this became a rule it would be unwise to throw Myles Straw a curve ball in the dirt.

I think the wp has to be a a ball not caught 'in flight'.

I wonder why the differentiatiaon between a ball in the dirt type wp and an on-the-fly wp for this......

(07-16-2019 09:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 07:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm guessing if this became a rule it would be unwise to throw Myles Straw a curve ball in the dirt.

I think the wp has to be a a ball not caught 'in flight'.
I wonder why the differentiatiaon between a ball in the dirt type wp and an on-the-fly wp for this......

Either way, it's those curve balls in the dirt that have a habit of getting by the catcher. I think it's a stupid rule, and I don't think it will go anywhere, but I can see where it would create more opportunities for guys with Straw's skill set, and I really like him as a player, so I guess that would be my silver lining if this ever came to pass.

(07-16-2019 09:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 07:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm guessing if this became a rule it would be unwise to throw Myles Straw a curve ball in the dirt.

I think the wp has to be a a ball not caught 'in flight'.

I wonder why the differentiatiaon between a ball in the dirt type wp and an on-the-fly wp for this......

I don't think there is a differentiation. If a pitch hits the dirt, by definition it is "not caught in flight", right?

doh!

(07-15-2019 03:40 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  This garbage is the result of the kind of idiotic thinking that led to the abominations of the DH and Interleague play.

Now, get off my lawn!

Ya know? Forget baseball. We all just need to go back to playing cricket!!!