I agree, and I am both the Horse and Beater in this thread.
I don't know why I am still talking about this.
We don't all have to agree.
Controversy at state softball
- Thread starter kaz36
- Start date
I don't know why I am still talking about this.
We don't all have to agree.
Oh you do have to agree, or you are terrible human and should not be around children! 😝
Seems like a stupid rule to me. If an umpire sees someone miss a base I would think he would be able to call them out. I think in most sports if an official sees a violation it’s their job to call it. Maybe I am missing something.
As a former baseball player I like the rule the way it is. Makes the players and coaches responsible for knowing how to properly appeal a play and also ensures that infielders make sure base runners touch the bases and don’t leave early when tagging up.
Plus you don’t want to have a play called dead. Let’s say there is one out with runners on 1st and 2nd. The ball is hit into left field, the left fielder throws the runner out at 3rd for the second out. The base runner going home misses third base. An appeal is made at third and that runner is called out. Inning over. If you automatically call the runner out at 3rd, what do you do with the runner that was on first? Does the runner go back to 2nd base or is the runner awarded third base? Remember the play is dead because you automatically called the runner from 2nd out because they missed 3rd base.
Last edited:
Not a "gamble". Stealing a base is a "gamble". This is cheating. It's also illegal. Poor enforcement does not equal "legal". Getting away with a crime is not the same as obeying the law.
I couldn't agree more! It is one of the things that makes baseball different. It requires attention to details.
If this rule was worded differently, it would cause less heartburn. For example, "Base runners are permitted to miss a base at the risk of the missed base being appealed to a field official. If a field umpire confirms the missed base, the result is the base runner is ruled out. If the field umpire confirms the base was in fact touched, the base runner is ruled safe". This wording implies strategy rather than underhandedness. The rule stays exactly as it is but sounds different.
I wonder how many people that are so upset about this event can honestly say that they knew this rule even existed.
Tagging up and leaving early is also technically illegal, but people gamble and do it.
Bottom line is appeal the play, get the out call.
You see the strategy because you understand the game and specifically this rule. I see it the same as you.
Good post and comparison.
After all of this discussion the thing that amazes me the most is the fact that a lot of people don’t understand the rules.
Actually the RULES are quite clear. What some have expressed surprise at, is the lunacy of the enforcement. The RULES forbid not touching the bases in correct order. Intentionally breaking the RULES is cheating.
someone please shot me for reading this all, and tell me how to kill this entire dead in the water thread ; )
The rule is crystal clear, appeal the play and the runner will be called out. Without an appeal the runner will not be called out for missing a bag. It's not hard to understand.
I respect your opinion here. You understand that rule, and don't like it.
You aren't missing anything. There is nothing wrong with disliking a rule.
Here is a question I have - is this different than a "trick" play? For example, runner on 2nd, pitcher fakes a pick-off attempt to 2nd - everyone acts like the ball has been thrown away, the pitcher still has it hoping that the runner takes off to get them out. It's not illegal by any means but would this get called cheating?
That is a great question.
I personally would not consider it cheating, but if you have read through this thread...I am not the guy to be asking! 😆
My favorite is the hidden ball trick play. Base runner safe at 1st. 1st baseman walks to the pitcher and ACTS like he has given the pitcher the ball, but keeps it. Pitcher clearly stays away from the rubber, 1st baseman walks over to his position, and tags the base runner if the base runner isn't paying attention. There is a rule that protects this base runner, but they MUST pay attention.
You seem to have trouble grasping the difference between legality and enforcement. The rule does NOT in any sense, say that it is ok to skip bases. Even easier to understand, I think.
Nope. A tag is a tag, is a tag. Is a corked bat or illegal substance illegal? No umpire in the majors will check those on his own. Doesn't mean it's legal.
I am not having any trouble with anything. I honestly believe that you are though. I have played baseball and been around baseball my entire life. I know that you must touch each bag. What you don’t seem to understand is that there is an appeal process that must be followed when someone misses a bag. It’s real simple, step off the rubber and throw to 3rd base. It’s not hard!
As you well know, this is a situation in which many people that have now become aware of this rule...don't like the rule. They don't like the fact that Malcolm was able to execute this play and the Umpires couldn't simply call an out.
I think people on here want baseball/softball to be officiated like football or basketball. When a violation occurs, you need to enforce it immediately. That doesn’t always happen in baseball/softball.
That's great you're a baseball expert! Nobody else knows anything about the game. In fact, most have never even seen a game played! Seriously? Everybody understands the appeal process. None of that makes cheating "legal". Period. To argue otherwise is just plain stupid and assinine.
That's very true. In fact, you could make the argument that they are the only sports where the victims of cheating or even inadvertent breaking of the rules, has to prove their own cases.
Good luck with your crusade. To bad that Neumann didn’t appeal to third base. Runner would have been called out.
Bingo! That's the point. That's a beauty of the game! That makes baseball/softball different. That beauty takes the game from Checkers to Chess.
Are they victims if they have the opportunity to prove their own case? Not if they understand the rules and pay attention.
No argument need be made Coach, it's a fact. No other sports are like Baseball/Softball.
That's very true. In fact, you could make the argument that they are the only sports where the victims of cheating or even inadvertent breaking of the rules, has to prove their own cases.
Crusade already completed. Dude cheated. Trained his girls to cheat. Got fired. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes. I could care less if Wahoo appealed or not. But, according to some, they did something legal, so appealing, according to that babble, would have done zero good.
The idea of teaching and telling players to miss a base intentionally and round your way home isn’t the same as leaving early, even teaching players to leave right as the ball is going into the glove.
The frequency of each isn’t even close to the same. Defending this idea and working hard to make the actions acceptable, man coaching isn’t moving in the Right direction to being anything more than Al Davis, just win a baby.
The frequency of each isn’t even close to the same. Defending this idea and working hard to make the actions acceptable, man coaching isn’t moving in the Right direction to being anything more than Al Davis, just win a baby.
The rule book says what the rule book says. Some don't like some rules. Some believe that there is no point in complaining about the rules, just know them and understand them.
If Bishop Neumann had just known and understood the rules, it was an easy out for the taking.
The fact that I would never use this play is irrelevant. The reality is that my opponent is permitted to use this play, and I better be ready when/if they do.
What part of my comment that you responded to has you all worked up? Seriously, there's nothing controversial and I clearly stated that I'd not use the play.
Not worked up, just silly that you cannot see disagreement with you. The question about being worked up could be asked about you.
I made my statements about this play and why it’s wrong to teach, an intentional act and why it’s bush league to do. About why the coach made it clear it was intentional and the wrong things the teach to players. You obviously don’t agree but can’t let it go when someone disagrees with you and the view your staying. It’s okay.
Enjoy your weekend.
I made my statements about this play and why it’s wrong to teach, an intentional act and why it’s bush league to do. About why the coach made it clear it was intentional and the wrong things the teach to players. You obviously don’t agree but can’t let it go when someone disagrees with you and the view your staying. It’s okay.
Enjoy your weekend.
Simple response to this whole thing. Was what the Malcolm coach taught cheating- yes
Did he know the rule that it was up to the other team to call him on the cheating - yes
Did the umpres call the play correctly - yes
Did he get let go because he blatantly coached his players to cheat - yes
You can argue all you want about whether it was technically cheating or not. There is a rule against it. The administration of the rule is odd. It is cheating, 100%. If you don't think it is, you have serious moral issues. And your argument will be missing a base inadvertently which isn't event the same thing
Are all your bullet points on point - yes
Did you miss a significant part of the reasoning he was let go - yes
Was it due to a poor showing on social media, which leads to cancel culture consequences - yes
Yes, there is a rule against it. The opposing team needs to enforce that rule.
I know that people are tired of listening to me rant about this play. I know I'm beating a dead horse. I get all of that.
What I don't understand is this: the enforcement of this rule is dependent upon the opposing team asking for the rule to be enforced (appeal). Why are onlookers not holding the opponent (Bishop Neumann) accountable rather than blaming the Malcolm coach? Why are so many people just hell bent on finding anyone or anything to blame here rather than blaming the Bishop Neumann coaches for allowing this to happen to their team?
They were the ones that could have prevented this, but they didn't. Many would rather cry foul than hold someone accountable.
No, by all means keep going. You seem to think that if you're the last one talking that it will vindicate your stupid hair-splitting support of this cheater. I said earlier that if you think this play was okay you probably shouldn't be coaching either. Let me remove the probably and say you definitely shouldn't be coaching if you can't understand that not getting caught isn't the same thing as not cheating. I don't care how many people are annoyed by this thread, you keep talking and I'll keep telling you your stance is ridiculous.
I'm not defending the coach that called the play. I'm defending the rule book and the appeal process.
Like anything full accountability is longer acceptable, I agree it is not a good practice at all, but I also agree it is not worth the length of this post at all either
Last edited:
Personally, I thought he was done a long time ago. But, you, are exactly right. It's cheating. Pure and simple. This moral relativism, this "got away with it, so it's not wrong" attitude, is terrifying to me. Worst aspect of todays "culture" in my mind, and when we say "worst" that is saying something.
There's nothing in the rules that say this thread can't continue. So no matter how much it pisses people off and just seems wrong, some people with no sense of right or wrong or good judgement will choose to continue it. Because technically it's ok. If no one appeals it to the moderators, there's nothing they can do about it.