Jimurray

Must have been an actual balk? Twitch, no step after taking the rubber, some kind glitch while dissengaging? Because there is (was ?) no balk for a fielder in foul territory after the ball is made live or while it is live to back up an appeal play. And there is no balk for a fielder in foul territory when you make the ball live as you require him to go fair before you do. Or maybe that's why the interp exists now. Also there might have been an indentation problem with the Balk penalty in the rulebook which caused umpires to think it applied in other than an intentional walk.

Isn't U2 at the edge of the grass in LF in order to cover 3B if U3 goes out? As far as I can tell CCA and PBUC have U1 take the BR to 2B if the PU is staying home with an R3.

I don't think some mechanics do this--- "No. U2 stays at second, U1 stays at first." With U3 going out U2 would be headed to 3B on a fly ball and U1 would take the BR to 2B if the ball was uncaught. But maybe on a base hit like the OP where U3 went out for fair foul and/or Spec. Int. that would be what would be what would happen.

There are more than a couple of different ways to handle U3 going out with R3. Which is why the mechanic should be briefed and the rotation signaled. Some mechanics have PU staying home always with RISP. Some have PU cover 3B with two out. But if PU is staying home both U2 and U1 will be coming in and sliding depending on what happens with the ball. U1 might rim instead of coming in.

What about R3 only?

You typed too quick.

Off topic: That PU probably has not attended any reputable training or clinics. Mask in right hand and 1BX for play at plate.

The "initiate contact" in the rule would support no violation. But they only contemplate legal contact resulting from a legal foot first or head first slide which would require ground contact before contact with the catcher. Would a failed hurdle be considered illegal?

If so, since PONY uses OBR would the collision rule 6.01(i) [7.13] not allow for hurdling if the catcher has the ball unless no contact is achieved?

I'm guessing that someone at the professional level and @Guest Curious thought the rule wording, "to avoid being tagged", required an outstretched arm. Was there a play in the previous year that migh have engendered the interp? Edited to answer my own question: Maybe this one? https://www.mlb.com/video/harrison-shows-moves-in-rundown/c-1037988783

I wouldn't have though so either. I'm too lazy to quote the whole thing but @Umpire in Chiefs reference to "play" is also referenced in the interp.

MLBUM added interp #30 this year. ".........i.e. the fielder is moving to tag the runner, no physical tag attempt is required to call a runner out for leaving the basepath."

Did Hoberg quit his tobacco addiction in the minors only to resume it in the majors? Or is the "Tobacco Ban" not really enforced in MiLB?

I know your using CCA but PBUC, at least a few years ago, does it differently. PU has F1, F5 to his right, any infielder charging on the grass. U3 has F6, F5 in or to his left and F4 and F3 diving to their right. U1 has F4 and F3 otherwise. They also say that dividing the responsibilty is complex, requires eye contact, and all catch no catch sits in the infield should be covered by the CC with his crew and rebriefed if a new umpire joins the crew.

What's your beef with FED, other than most of our common quibbles? You never responded in another thread about a common mechanics issue that was common to all codes? I've encountered many non FED fields without the lane, none at levels above FED and very few at FED levels in my area?

Tripped or tangled up while coming in, took play off, thought it was a no sht fair base hit that U3 would not go out on for fair foul or Spec INT?

From their rule: "Please 
note
–
This
 is
 not 
the
 NCAA
 designated
 hitter
 rule.


 "

No this just where they perceive you coming up to start your call before the ball gets there on a safe. But now every 1B touch needs a safe because PBUC/MLBUM wants a no call for a miss at 1B

Pretty easy safe at first. Coach: "you called that before the ball got there"

It appears the offense asked U2 and he went to the booth with the PU. It appears the play stood either because it was reviewable and R2 didn't retouch or because it wasn't reviewable. It wasn't clear which happened. I won't comment on how much the announcers enhanced my understanding of the events. But given many instances of "what happened" baseball prefers, even at the MLB level, to keep the hoi poloi guessing.

LL NW Regional, available on ESPN 3, about 1:34, top 4, bases loaded, no outs. Fly to F8 caught. R2 gets a lead and returns to the vicinity of 2B as the ball is caught and then "tags" to 3B. Video is inconclusive of his retouch. But the defense appeared to think he did not and properly appealed by throwing to 3B where F5 tagged R2 and he was declared out by, I think, U2. U3 then told him he was out. In any case an umpire and the defense thought that he did not retouch correctly. 2 outs. Then an appeal on R3 scoring goatrope happened. When it finally was done correctly R3 was declared safe. Another appeal throw to 2B was not ruled on since that runner had already been declared out on appeal. The announcers did not understand that R2 was properly appealed during a live ball by the defense tagging him at 3B. They did show a split screen which shows R2 attempting a retouch during the catch but it doesn't show the actual base touch.

More than likely. As your post seems frantic and lacks any reference to an inning or time or actual game reference, one might think you missed something. We are all not watching the, I'm guessing, the LL NW Regional tonite. But a screw up might have happened. Narrow it down.

I'm of the opinion that he established legal running in the lane and exited legally. But it's an interesting question that the same throw could be called two different ways on a throw that crossed the foul line. Of course, on a normal inside to inside play, the action of where the runner ran makes a difference using current interps.

You would agree that would be legal had the BR been established running in the lane and only exited to touch 1B?

When the throw crosses the foul line we normally wouldn't call RLI when the runner was out of the running lane but also out of the actual throwing lane: "2004 Interps SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception)" But the OP has the runner so close to 1B so you would have to judge whether it was an errant throw that hit the runner or a catchable throw.