All Activity

I would say if the fielder has the ball, the onus is on the runner to slide, avoid or give themselves up. An illegal slide could be an option. Sometime you just have to umpire.

I know this one has been sitting here a few days, but just to clarify: The umpire should have called "time" - "interference" on the initial hinderance of F6 fielding the ball. Interference is an immediate dead ball, not delayed. Then you have R2 out for interference, BR gets 1B, and R3 back to 3B. Just as @Tborze concluded. However, I think it's worth mentioning that if, in the umpires judgement it prevented additional outs from being made, that could change the penalty. That being said, with no force outs available, I'm inclined to agree with no additional outs.

OBR eliminated the only practical difference but the other 2 codes do have a difference in when the batter is out at 1B and a runner is out at a forced base.

In the future, I'll be sure to not call BR running to first the "F" word. I have a clicker that I use to just count my semantic missteps...

Naw, naw. Just wanted to fully understand it. I think it's interesting that it's not technically a force. Good to know that practically speaking, there's no difference when the BR is out if a defensive player, with the ball, touches first base. Same for BR missing first, if appealed, means no runs count if it's the third out. I was aware that all aspects of batter running to first aren't identical to another runner forced to another base. Like in FED, the catcher doesn't interfere with the batter, they obstruct. The nuances of that action and enforcement matter way more than the term. I don't bother correcting folks when they call it interference. Toggy

There is definitely no INT for the runner...I'd like to see the argument for/against OBS...because I'm thinking that it is, simply because F1 is not making a play on the runner. That is, does the simple status of possessing the ball absolve a fielder of obstruction for any act that happens while he holds said ball?

No call. Give a safe signal for "that's nothing" and see who gets up first

The batter/runner is indeed forced to advance to first - they are also obligated, required, mandated, obliged, and compelled to do so. You might even say charged, ordered, decreed, commanded or dictated. It is expected, and they are committed to do so. They cannot stay in the batter's box - the next batter would have an objection - and the pitcher may not pitch to the next batter if the b/r is simply standing between home and first. He MUST advance. It's just not a "force play" - which only applies to runners, due to the batter becoming a runner. Apparently if a B/R touches first, and then retreats towards home he must be tagged out...unlike runners where the force would be re-applied.

Not sure your background and how deep into the game you've been in the past so forgive me if some of this doesn't apply. Yes, kind of. The MiLB manual (hick is almost impossible to find), Jake Roder Rules of Professional Baseball (you can email him), and other that are hard to find are out there though you may find them harder to digest than the rulebook itself. There is a "Baseball Rules" app that may I've heard is helpful for those newer to the game - and experienced of course but it seems like a good entry point. Were the situations on specific topics, e.g. obstruction? balks? This site is great resource. Try searching and, if you can't find what you need, ask the question and we'll answer and/or point to older threads. Look forward to having you on the field with us (metaphorically speaking). Keep working.

A few practical differences: With a forced runner, if they remain on the base FROM which they are forced, they can be tagged for an out standing on the base. Not true for the BR, as there's no base from which he's forced. A force play ends when the forced runner reaches his advance base, or when a trailing runner is retired. None of that is true for the BR. A force play triggers the FPSR for codes that have that provision. Not true of the BR at 1B. When people refer to the play at 1B before the BR touches as a force play, it shows that they don't know the definition. This lack of knowledge can lead to confusion, for instance in thinking that a retouch appeal is a force play. It's the rule. There might be more. But what's the motivation for the question? Is it merely that you still want to call this a force play, when it isn't one? Inertia? Can't be arsed to use the correct terminology? Speaking of which...I wish a mod would fix the title of this thread...just sayin.

Regarding NOT using the word force when referring to the BR going to first: Is there a practical difference between a BR going to first and a forced runner going to another base? The BR isn't "forced" simply because no other runner is behind them, pushing them? Toggy

Sometimes I think you need to be a lawyer in order to be a good umpire. You have to know all of the proper definitions. This is why I normally stay out of the rule areas.

Grammer is not important if the people who wrote the rules and interpret them are not grammarians and have left numerous errors in their rules. Do you allow a pitcher to lift his pivot foot slightly to reposition to a sideways delivery in spite of this rule: "He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot." The people who wrote the rules and interpret the rules do not think that one delivery is legal which i think is correct by some application of past practice. They did not say it violated the rule you are quoting because that would be a rabbit hole.

I'm contemplating it . . .

Grammar is important. " . . . continue the motion without interruption or alteration." " . . . in a continuous motion . . . " It is not, as some umpires mistakenly believe it to be, any continuous motion. So, any stops, random direction changes, twerking, repeating motions, lollygagging, repeating motions, or freaking out, man is a violation. He is not "fine because he kept moving."

Come on, @wolfe_man, did you even see how eye black the kid had on? It obviously greased up his head and his helmet keeps slipping off! That eye black is dangerous stuff. As for the parts of your post I edited out for brevity, see my previous post. You shouldn't just be a Hunter Wendelstadt ("You're probably right . . . "), but there is good reason to enforce this if it is a concern.

Goofus: "Coach, you tell that pitcher with the little-bitty head that he better take some Barry Bonds supplements or get a hat that fits him! That's your warning under 10.2.3!" Gallant: "Hey coach, we can't have this. The kid's going to get hurt chasing after his hat instead of watching a line drive coming back at him. Besides, if the batter dribbles one back into his hat, we have an automatic triple." I have a solution: Well, I had a solution. Seriously though, here is why it is an issue: It's been a year or two, but I had one and called it out. Safety is the issue. Every pitch he was grabbing at his cap or chasing it; either way, he was not paying attention once he released the ball. Coach agreed after I explained that.

HP Umpire Mike Estabrook ejected White Sox RF Gavin Sheets and manager Pedro Grifol (strike three call to Sheets; QOCY) in the bottom of the 8th inning of the #WhiteSox-#Twins game. With two out and one on, White Sox batter Sheets took a 3-2 changeup from Twins pitcher Ronny Henriquez for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located over the outer edge of home plate and knee-high (px -0.77, pz 1.55 [sz_bot 1.74 / RAD 1.62 / MOE 1.54]), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejections, the Twins were leading, 7-0. The Twins ultimately won the contest, 7-0. These are Mike Estabrook (83)'s 1st and 2nd ejections of 2024.*This pitch was located 0.12 vertical inches from being deemed incorrect. These are the 24th and 25th ejection reports of the 2024 MLB regular season.This is the 9th player ejection of 2024. Prior to ejection, Sheets was 1-4 (2 SO) in the contest.This is the 12th manager ejection of 2024. Ejection Tally: 12 Managers, 4 Coaches, 9 Players.This is Chicago's 2/3rd ejection of 2024, 1st in the AL Central (CWS 3; MIN 1; CLE, DET, KC 0).This is Gavin Sheets' 1st ejection since May 18, 2023 (Dan Iassogna; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).This is Pedro Grifol's 1st ejection since August 5, 2023 (Mark Wegner; QOC = U [Fighting]).This is Mike Estabrook's 1st ejection since June 23, 2023 (Bryce Harper; QOC = Y [Check Swing]). Wrap: Chicago White Sox vs Minnesota Twins, 4/22/24 | Video as follows: Alternate Link: Estabrook tosses Sheets and Grifol for arguing strikeout during inning breakView the full article

FIFY.

"provided, however, that the grass line of the outer boundary of the infield dirt shall be a 95-foot radius from the center of the pitcher’s plate." We have "infield dirt" that is not in the "infield"

HP Umpire Hunter Wendelstedt ejected Yankees manager Aaron Boone (check swing HBP call by 1B Umpire John Tumpane; ejected because Hunter mistook a fan's voice for Boone's; QOCN) in the top of the 1st inning of the #Athletics-#Yankees game. With none out and none on, A's batter Esteury Ruiz attempted to check his swing on a 1-2 slider from Yankees pitcher Carlos Rodón, ruled a hit-by-pitch by HP Umpire Wendelstedt and affirmed on appeal as no swing by 1B Umpire Tumpane. After ensuing batter Tyler Nevin took a first-pitch strike, HP Umpire Wendelstedt warned Boone, ejecting him shortly thereafter. Replays indicate that after being warned Boone did not say or gesture toward the umpire; instead, a fan above New York's dugout yelled at Wendelstedt and the umpire ejected Boone for the actions of this fan, the call was incorrect. At the time of the ejection, the game was tied, 0-0. The A's ultimately won the contest, 2-0. This is Hunter Wendelstedt (21)'s 1st ejection of 2024. This is the 23rd ejection report of the 2024 MLB regular season.This is the 11th manager ejection of 2024. Ejection Tally: 11 Managers, 4 Coaches, 8 Players.This is New York's 2nd ejection of 2024, T-1st in the AL East (NYY, TOR 2; BOS 1; BAL, TB 0).This is Aaron Boone's 2nd ejection of 2024, 1st since April 10 (John Bacon; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).This is Hunter Wendelstedt's 1st ejection since July 25, 2023 (Derek Shelton; QOC = U [Throwing At]). Wrap: Oakland Athletics vs New York Yankees, 4/22/24 | Video as follows: Alternate Link: Wendelstedt tosses Boone after mistaking a fan's voice for the NYY skipper'sView the full article

Apologies. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/41d7ed95-2333-405e-99a0-397c9ee1c2f6/gif

To round out the conversation since this applies beyond BR to 1B: "Forced" is a state the runner is in until they have touched the next base. If they are out while in that "forced" state, it's not a time play. Whether they themselves or the bag are touched doesn't matter, they were out while forced. Extending further, not a time play if they abandon while forced or are out on appeal for missing a base to which they were forced.

That’s not a foul ball! That’s a catch. A foul ball is dead. I was trying to convey that when the OBS happened on a foul ball, how would you justify awarding a base. We rule on the oder in which violations occur, absent MC, but in this case, OBS occurred on a foul ball when no advancement is possible.

I went ahead and edited the topic title to include hats falling off lol. I'll keep asking around on Nestorisms.