LRZ

I've always been a proponent of stating what I saw as objective fact. For example, "He beat the throw," rather than "I saw him get to the bag before the throw" or "In my judgment, he beat the throw." If a coach responds, "No, he didn't," I'll reply, along the same lines as was noted above, "OK. Now let's play ball."

FWIW, I'm a "strictly business" umpire, and, in my 70s, I find it awkward to tell a teenager he can call me by my first name. Pretty much the only things I'll say to a catcher during warm-ups pitches is "hello" and "does he have any pitches I should know about?" I learned to ask that after being surprised by a 16 y/o's knuckleball.

Why would they not? As long as the brace is not distracting--and I'd find that hard to credit--what rule would be violated?

Well, if you're too obvious, you may risk a 7.03(a)(2) forfeiture. I hate those situations where both teams are making a travesty of the game, one by stalling and the other by rushing.

By local custom and usage, we don't have managers, just head coaches and assistant coaches. With that semantic distinction, I agree with Mike that I'll only talk to the HC, and ACs, like children--an apt comparison!--are to be seen, not heard.

Several years ago, while refereeing soccer, I had an argument with a coach--I admit I contributed to the problem, see maven's (b) and (c)--when I said to the coach, "OK, you can have the last word." He was apparently so stunned, he was speechless. End of argument, game continued.

No. How batters are retired is defined in OBR 5.09(a), and "conceding an out" is not one of them. And teams can be deemed to have forfeited for "[Employing] tactics palpably designed to delay or shorten the game." OBR 7.03(a)(2).

OK, I could live with this, but I think, speaking technically, it's inaccurate. If the runner is out when he begins his headfirst slide and is seen by the official, to take the LL version, there is never a moment when he is "safe." Nor do I see any reason to make this a delayed call, considering the the ball remains live and other runners can do their thing. Furthermore, why complicate the scenario with a "safe!" followed by an "out for sliding headfirst"? As I said above, "'Head first! He's out!'" Keep it simple.

If you are asking seriously, the convention, whether NFHS, NCAA or OBR, is R1 = the runner on first, R2 = the runner on second, and R3 = the runner on third.

The problem began with a violation of Rule 10-1-4 by the defensive coach: "Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as whether a hit is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final." This was the BU's judgment call. The problem was magnified by a further violation of 10-1-4 by the coach and the HP, when the coach apparently asked and the HP complied in overruling the BU, despite the general prohibition against one umpire overruling another. NFHS 10-1-4: "No umpire shall criticize or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked by the one making it." IMO, this could have been the basis for a successful appeal--the HP's misapplication of the rule. The OBR version is 8.02(b)-(c). R2's tag-up was the BU's call. If I were the BU and the DC came out to ask if I could get help, I'd tell him, "No, it's my call, I had it all the way." That is, don't go shopping. If BU had any doubts, he might have gone to the HP for any helpful information--which is doubtful in the circumstance, as the HP should have been watching R3's tag-up--but it was still the BU's call to either affirm or reverse. But, with a few exceptions, umpires shouldn't ask for help on most judgment calls, and coaches should not ask them to get help.

Pick-off attempts, foul balls, conferences--why doesn't Manfred just institute a "no new inning after" rule? Or better yet, a "drop dead" rule?

Why assume there was no tag? Why assume the HP made it up or guessed? Am I missing something in the OP? But I'm going to operate on the assumption that a tag was made. When the OHC presumably asked the HP umpire "to get help"--and, IMO, this is where the mess begins--the proper answer should have been, "Coach, I had a good look, I had a tag, it's my call." Furthermore, how do we know who was right, the HP or the BU? The BU might have missed it. If I were the HP, I'd not get help on that. And, of course, once the HP made his call, the BU cannot reverse his partner; all he could do is offer his partner what he had, and then the HP decides to reverse his call or not. I'm not sure if our guest is questioning the procedure--how the call was reversed--or once that happened, allowing the runner to score. If the former, my answer is no, that was not the right call, for the reasons I stated above. If the latter, I'd probably weigh the facts, as beerguy55 said, and rule accordingly.

This is not an appropriate reaction. The admonition Ignore-Acknowledge-Warn-Eject does not include "Respond." See my above comment and responding. FWIW, I don't like wordy warnings. I'd shorten SeeingEyeDog's warning down to this: "Coach, that's enough. If you continue, you will be ejected" or even "Coach, that's enough." The consequences are implicit. But YMMV.

Well, I'd still like to know if agdz59 has asked local umpires about this. Is his an isolated interpretation or is there an entire region subject to this?

The pitcher has the ball, on the mound but not on the rubber (OBR). You call "play." The pitcher fires to first and the throw goes out of play. What is your ruling? Regardless of the merits, I ask a third time: have you talked this over with local experts? beerguy55, see my post, #9, regarding a player asking for time and the umpire granting or denying the request.

After you improperly make the ball live, if the pitcher tries to pick off a baserunner and throws the ball into the dugout, do you move runners up? If you improperly make the ball live, do you allow runners to steal? I asked this above, but will ask again: have you run this scenario by your local association or talked with experienced and trustworthy umpires in your area?

Nigel, here is something I posted four years ago when another cricket question was asked: You might try asking your question in these sites: http://nompere.proboards.com/ http://cricketumpires.proboards.com/ http://www.bigcricket.com/community/

In #2, why would you bring the BR, who hit a fair ball, back to the plate? I'm not conversant with FED rules, but it would seem that the BR either gets third (8-1-1, "a batter becomes a runner when....") or, at least, first (8-1-2). In the 2d scenario under OBR, the batter/BR would be awarded third. Rule 5.06(b)(4)(B): "Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance: Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril...."

BR is out when F3 steps on first. This removes the force on R1, who can remain at first safely. Because we always complicate things here, I add these scenarios: If F3 tags R1 first, then steps on the bag before BR got there, you would then have two outs. If F3 drops the ball intentionally, the ball is dead, the BR is out, and R1 returns to first.

Guest turbo, the code matters, as noumpere said. Under OBR, if the pitcher has legally disengaged the rubber, he need not throw to first (or third), as he has become an infielder. If, in your scenario, the pitcher has not disengaged, I would balk for feinting to third without a throw, so I would not even reach the question you ask about a feint to first. OBR, Rule 6.02(a)(2): "The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to complete the throw...." Rule 6.02(a)(3) Comment: "It is a balk if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher steps toward third and does not throw, merely to bluff the runner back to third; then seeing the runner on first start for second, turn and step toward and throw to first base." Rule 5.07(3): "If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher’s plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder...." I don't work high school (HS/NFHS/FED), so I may be wrong, but the HS ruling there may be different, as the feint to third is legal, I think. If, in feinting to third, the pitcher disengages then turns to first, that is legal--I think!

The predicate for virtually everything in baseball is a live ball, and there are several preconditions that must be met before a dead ball can be made live--properly. You are ignoring them. Are you a member of an association where you can bring this issue up? Have you talked about this with other umpires in your area? You don't have to "apologize for getting it wrong." But you might want to apologize for not seeking input from local umpires whose opinions you trust and respect.

IMO, you are taking this too personally and overstepping the umpire's role as neutral. The league's response after your ejection of the coach is beyond your authority. If the coach is an habitual offender, your assigner/association should refuse to staff his games, but that is an institutional response, not a personal one. File a criminal complaint, if you see this as an assault on you. Under PA law, the coach's conduct might be considered harassment, terroristic threats, disorderly conduct, possibly simple assault.

Often, we must read several rules jointly; this situation is one of them. You are wrong, agdz59, because you looked at the balk rule independently of the live ball/dead ball rules. By the way, guest Danny B, players don't call "time." They request it, and the umpire calls it (or not, as the circumstances dictate). In your game, did the umpire call "time"? If not, then the ball did indeed remain alive, you would have had an out, and the offensive team would have learned a valuable lesson. But you have provided insufficient facts for us to opine about a balk: where was the pitcher when F5 tagged the runner?

Not my concern. Who wins and who loses--not my concern.

That's a lot of bites of the apple!!! If I ignore anything, it's that directive. Is this an umpire association that is so forgiving?