Register or Sign In to remove these ads


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Neutral

About johnpatrick

  • Birthday 12/31/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern California

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Referred a member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,219 profile views
  1. The whole issue is whether or not Jim is a legal sub. If not, as TD you MUST step in and not allow Jim to enter the game as it is a protestable situation and it's your job to prevent protests. If Jim is a legal sub, he's just an unannounced sub for Abel. Once he takes a pitch, I, as TD, usually ask the umpire to call time and bring the OM to the screen to formally enter his sub. If this is brought to your attention by the DM you tell him it's an unannounced sub, now you would bring the OM to the screen and have him enter his sub.
  2. No way there is any formal or correct interpretation as to how this should be handled. You had a valid argument. TD did as well. All that you had to do is protest it all the way up to the tournament committee of your organization and let them make the final decision.
  3. I suspect they get it wrong less than you think. The tag of R3 belongs to the PU.
  4. As others have said stay on the catcher's runner side hip pocket. If he moves into foul territory, you do as well. If he moves up the line, the play is no longer going to be at the plate so you move up the line as well. You learned a valuable lesson. The fair territory side of 3BLE is not always the place to be. Read the catcher. This is an excellent video describing the process:
  5. I envision the fielder immediately in the process of fielding the ball (not even close to a step and a reach away) and then getting hit by the runner. If that's the case, that's interference. I don't believe in "incidental contact" on a batted ball. "That's nothing" is usually the only wrong answer between interference and obstruction.
  6. The batter coming to bat IS allowed to swing a bat prior to the start of an inning in Little League. There is no limitation of "timing" the pitcher. That's what they are supposed to do.
  7. Pay the BU!
  8. I don't believe it. I'm sure in the end they called the batter out and sent the runner back. I think this was clueless announcers apply rules incorrectly...imagine that!
  9. It's called a post pitch step. It puts you in a better position for back-picks by the catcher
  10. Exactly the same reaction as I was reading the article..."you're really writing about this?"
  11. I just feel (and maybe I'm wrong) that you're getting hung up on the "no other fielder had an opportunity to play the ball" part of the rule you continue to quote. That part works against your premise to not call the runner out. The runner is out, unless the ball went through or by the fielder (judgment call), but even then he might by out if another fielder had a play on the ball. I'd have an issue with you if I'm the BU and I ruled that the ball did not go through or by (in the OP if it was well outside the dive of the fielder) and I called the runner out and you come out suggesting that I mis-applied a rule. I'm sorry I forgot to record who wrote it, but someone on here summed up a runner hit by a batted ball perfectly: The whole OBR logic: A) A runner is out if hit by a (non-deflected, non-IFF) batted ball. The runner is out, period. End of story. B) Except, that isn't fair to a runner if he could reasonably expect that a fielder would have made a play. So, the "through or immediately past a fielder and hits a runner immediately behind the fielder" exception is added. C) Except, that isn't fair to the defense, if another fielder could have made a play -- maybe the first fielder let it go on purpose because the second fielder had a better chance. So, add the exception to the exception.
  12. Then we are in agreement on the OP. "The umpire must be convinced..." makes it clear that through or by is a judgment call.
  13. I'll say it again UmpJeff, it doesn't matter that "no one else had a shot at it" if it didn't go through or by the fielder (as noumpere said). You have fallen into a misconception held by many umpires by a literal reading of the rule. I'm talking OBR now, other codes may be different. Here's the classic PBUC play that illustrates this concept. By the way, "a runner hit by a batted ball is expected to be called out" is a direct quote from professional umpire training...maybe they were wrong. Play 5: Runners on first and second, both runners stealing. Batter shows bunt, the first and third basemen move in, and the shortstop moves to cover third. The batter swings at the last minute and hits a ground ball in the direction of the shortstop position. However, the shortstop has moved to cover third base, and no one is in position to field the ball. The ground ball strikes the runner advancing from second base. Ruling 5: Runner from second is declared out for being struck by a batted ball. The batter-runner is placed at first base. The ball is not considered to have gone through or by an infielder in this play.
  14. I believe this is a judgement call, at least in OBR. The fact that no other fielder had a play on it doesn't really matter. The judgement is whether the ball went through or by (within a dive) a fielder and the runner had a reasonable expectation of that fielder making a play. This is why it's a judgement call. In OBR a runner hit by a batted ball is expected to be called OUT, unless the ball went immediately through or by a fielder, and even then he might be out of another fielder had a play on the ball.