Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jimurray

  1. 3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

    I hate this language.


    Where is the batter standing, when he's waiting for a pitch, that would afford him to "freeze" to allow himself to get hit by a pitch that's neither in the batter's box, nor the strike zone?   He's not going to be beside the catcher, out the back of the box, nor is he going to be outside and beside the box when the pitch is delivered.   So, did they really put in this provision to deal with the batter's elbows or knees or being in that six inch gap between the plate and the box?   50% of the time the ball is over a piece of the batter's box and 50% of the time it's over a piece of the plate (yeah, I know the ball is slightly less than 3 inches in diameter, but come on)...just call it a strike or don't.  Even if you called every one a strike for being in the zone you're never "wrong" by more than the width of the ball.

    They're not really worried about a player who not only bats with his head over the plate (out of the box, and out of the strike zone), who then also freezes to let the pitch him in the face, are they?


    It looks to me like this now allows a batter to make no attempt to avoid being hit if the pitch is within the box.  Or is this covered elsewhere?   ie.  Can a batter still be awarded a ball but not first base?

    Effectively - the rule seems to have changed an umpire's judgment from "did he try to get out of the way" to "did he try to get hit".

    From the horses mouth: 


    • Like 1

  2. 31 minutes ago, Guest Michael Atkinson said:

    I agree yawetag, that the usual interpretation of directly is more towards a bag than another. But that usual interpretation is mostly found in baseball. But I hardly believe that if someone told you to walk directly down this line that you would walk half way in the opposite direction before going to the place you were told to walk to.  20 years ago if the ball had beat the runner it didn’t matter (for the most part) if the fielder tagged him in time on a close play, the explanation that was given was “the ball beat him there”. It doesn’t work like anymore. Me personally I abide by the unwritten rule of 45° because it causes a lot less arguing and  bickering but I do not believe that is what the rule says. I think eventually we as umpires need to either start calling a balk if they don’t go directly to first or the rule needs to be re written to accommodate 45°

    It's not an unwritten rule in NCAA: 

    "9-1-a-6) The pitcher must step directly and gain ground toward a base in an
    attempt to pick off a runner. “Directly” is interpreted to mean within a
    45-degree angle measuring from the pivot foot toward the base the pitcher
    is throwing to or feinting a throw."

    • Like 1

  3. 2 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

    interesting, is this only a NCAA rule? and you could still make the case that the ball was in the batter's box I suppose

    NCAA only. If the pitch was in the box freezing would be allowed but that did not happen. The "or if the batter moves to intentionally get hit" happened and was confirmed by video review. 

    • Thanks 1

  4. 5 minutes ago, umpstu said:


    I think the "or" phrase applied here: "a) If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or if the
    batter moves to intentionally get hit or freezes to allow a pitch that is
    not within the batter's box to hit him, the ball is dead, it shall be called
    a strike and the batter is not awarded first base."

    • Like 2

  5. Just now, Thunderheads said:

    Thanks Jim!  I did NOT know that!!  I understand the EJ however ....

    Well then ... that makes PERFECT SENSE .......no controversy there!

    Was that a 7 or 9 inning game? If 7 the PU could initiate his own review. Otherwise who requested the review, the ejected HC or an assistant?


  6. 1 minute ago, Thunderheads said:

    ok, but you see he called it a strike because his elbow was in the zone?

    No a strike is added to the count when the batter intentionally gets HBP. But the HC gets ejected for ignoring the "don't come out" and argue. Did an assistant then ask for video review?

  7. 28 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

    Ball lodged in an umpire's or catcher's equipment is one base.

    A pitch lodged in an umpire's or catcher's equipment is one base. Any other ball is two bases: "8-3-c. two bases if a fair batted or thrown ball becomes dead because of bouncing over or passing through a fence, or lodges in a defensive player's or umpire's equipment or uniform; or if a live thrown ball:"

  8. 9 hours ago, Tborze said:

    No!  At least I hope not!  Maybe?! :banghead:

    I was referring to pg 1 of this thread from the NFHS, which from my understanding, has been sent to every state.  

    They do have me bewildered as to why they would make it more difficult considering the NFHS has already said to disregard

    5-1-1 Q&R  and that ANY player may record an out at ANY base.  

    IMO, they would have been better off disregarding the whole rule than to put stipulations on it!  

    PA seems to follow NFHS to the T unless it can't be rationalized by the powers that be.  





    I don't think FED wants to stipulate only a force. I think PA wants to quibble because they don't like the change to how OBR calls it. The new caseplay refers to secure possession. Anything you can do when you have secure possession would be allowed, tag a base, tag a runner. BTW were the spelling errors in your referenced communique yours or PA's?

  9. 1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

    Is it limited to a force out situation?  Or was that simply the scenario/situation at hand? 

    How about an appeal?   Or a plain old tag?

    eg. line drive to pitcher, caught...and lodged.  F1 throws ball/glove to F3 to get R1 diving back.  (assuming throwing ball/glove is seen as "voluntary release")


    Two hopper, lodged in pitcher's glove.  R3 sees F1 struggling and goes home...F1 throws ball/glove to F2 - can F2 apply tag with ball/glove in his glove?  Can he hold ball/glove in his bare hand and apply tag?

    If FED is trying to call it the same as OBR then I believe, based upon the BRD,  that your two scenarios would be allowed except in PA. I did have a question earlier in the thread about whether the stricter NCAA catch wording would allow this as a voluntary release.

  10. 19 minutes ago, Tborze said:

    The reason I asked is this:

    We are to call the play exactly as presented: If the ball is a ground ball to the pitcher and the ball lodges in his glove he may toss the glove and ball to first base and only first base. He is not permited to toss it to another base.

    Even though this play is a one in a million occurrence, We must have a ruling and guide lines for making this call and and how to deal with other related plays. So for the sake of simplicity, in every other situaton where a ground ball lodges in a elders glove, We are to apply Rule 5.1.1 (f) and Rule 8.3.3 (c), 

    If that is an official communique from the PA umpires group I would advise you to comply with it and call it like they want if you see an elder with a glove in such a situaton. And while the pitcher is not permited to throw to another base he would still be permitted to throw to another base:)

    • Haha 1

  11. 24 minutes ago, D62 blue said:

    TY !

    Just had one whiz by my ear in a scrimmage 2 nights ago. My ear was in the green the ball was in the yellow. The RH batter was over the plate. Go up if you can. Down like Guch if you are real good. Or stay in the green and judge the pitch as it’s caught. Don’t go yellow. 

  12. 1 hour ago, sthomas13100 said:

    2 man, less than 2 outs, R1 & R2.  On tag up responsibilities, PU has runner at 2nd and BU has runner at 1st base is what I have always believed to be the case.  This past weekend, was told BU has the tag up at 2nd along with catch/no catch in the cone, PU would have tag up at 1st, but PU has the call at 3rd if he comes.  I have looked in my FED umpires manual and can't seem to find it. 

    I've only been umpiring for about 5 years at the HS level, please clarify.



    The 2019 FED manual still has the PU covering R2s tag at 2B even though the PU will be running down the line in case of a play at 3B. Page 53 in the manual. What you were told is an non FED sanctioned improvement as to the BU lining up R2s tag. All other codes have the BU also take R1s tag but as @noumpere says most PUs will help at 1B if they can even though BU is primary for both tags. I heard a rumor that FED enlisted Jim Evans to revise their mechanics. I guess it didn't happen @lawump.

  13. 38 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

    Mr. Jimurray, the 2016 BRD (section 317, p. 212) says there is no penalty listed for loose equipment interference. But it does show the following AO from Jim Evans—

    Authoritative Opinion: Evans:  Umpires should monitor the area in front of the dugouts and insure that gloves and equipment are not left lying on the playing field. Equipment lying on the lip of the dugout is legal, but a thrown ball that strikes it is considered in the dugout, hence dead.

    And the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 191) seems to agree:

    “There is no interference (assuming no intent) if a live ball strikes or touches equipment on live ball territory (LBT). Also, there is no interference if a fielder is unable to make a play due to contact with an inadvertently placed piece of equipment on LBT. However, if a ball strikes a piece of equipment that is on LBT (usually the lip or top step of a dugout), and such ball would have entered DBT absent the contact with such equipment, then the ball is considered to have entered DBT. [MLB Rule Interpretation 27 Note] [NFHS 1-3-7] [NCAA 1-16-d]”

    Could you please check that reference to MLB Interp. 27 Note. I believe you told us that citation refers to the MLBUM.

    I didn't cite anything for the ball being live in OBR or NCAA for a ball hitting loose equipment outside the dugout as in the OP. But the MLBUM Interp "27. Fielder going into out of play area" does add a note unrelated to the fielder that while the lip is live a ball striking equipment on the lip (top step) is dead. That is not the OP of course but it is good to know.

  14. 1 hour ago, wolfe_man said:

    That's interference!

    Immediate dead ball.

    From NFHS Bases Awarded Table:


    In this situation, it would be the top (33) one.  Runner being played on is out.  Everyone else returns to base occupied at time of infraction.

    I think you referenced a FED softball rule. For baseball it would be the god rule:

    "1-3-ART. 7 . . . Loose equipment, such as gloves, bats, helmets or catcher's gear, of either team may not be on or near the field.

    PENALTY: If loose equipment interferes with play, the umpire may call an out(s), award bases or return runners, based on his judgment and the circumstances concerning the play."

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  15. 14 hours ago, yawetag said:

    I understand that, too, @kylehutson. But Case Play 2.16.1.D says "The bat is considered to be part of the playing field."

    5-1-1d-1 says "Ball becomes immediately when a foul ball touches any object other than the ground or any person other than a fielder."

    I don't understand how they can make a bat in fair territory a different status than one in foul territory, especially with no case play or rule that makes the distinction, so with 5-1-1, my assumption is that the bat is part of the field, so you can't call it foul yet.

    They do have a caseplay that makes the distinction:

    2.5.1 SITUATION E:

    The batter hits the ball, drops the bat and it unintentionally hits the ball a second time in (a) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in fair territory; (b) foul territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in either fair or foul territory; or (c) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in foul territory.

    RULING: In (a), the ball is fair. In (b) and (c), the ball is foul.

  16. 54 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

    Is there anyway for an uninitiated like me to take this test and/or the FED one?  Really out of morbid curiosity if nothing else - and maybe a certain degree of self loathing and sadism.  I'd want to take it blind based on my general knowledge of the game and see how far it would take me.

    You can sign up on the NCAA Arbiter site for $120. You get the rulebook, CCA manual and access to a bunch of videos. I think you would select other or JUCO as your conference. 


    • Thanks 1

  17. 8 hours ago, humanbackstop19 said:

    Timing of being a quick pitch or not, the new NCAA rules for both the windup and set positions have him in an illegal pitching position.  If he's in a windup, his non-pivot foot has to be at or behind the front edge of the rubber with shoulders facing the batter.  If he's in the set, his shoulders need to be facing the respective foul line at the time of stopping and his pivot foot parallel and in contact ot the rubber.  Ruling:  Balk if anyone was on base, ball on the batter if not.  No more warnings.  

    You have pinpointed a significant difference between FED and NCAA this year. That pitcher could well have his pivot foot on the rubber and back from the front edge. Then his free foot heal might comply with being on or inline with the front edge of the rubber and he would be legal in FED. In fact many hybrid pitchers in FED still remain legal by doing this. Aside from the fact that no one would mistake this for a set position in any real world sit would you really use the NCAA chest wording to call this illegal? But I do have a QP absent any backstory about batters trying to slow down a pitcher who works quick. That back story should be compelling absent any umpire involvement previously. It’s possible also that after letting this one go he got the next one. Sometimes you have to have a WTF to bear down on the out of the ordinary stuff. 

  18. 6 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

    I respectfully disagree.

    OBR makes a very specific point of stating "The quick pitch is dangerous and should not be permitted."  The word "danger" makes no other appearance in the OBR book.  I think that clearly indicates the intent and motive for the rule.

    The goal is not to give the batter a fighting chance to get a hit, it's to give the batter an opportunity to protect himself.

    Regardless, I do agree with the assessment that it's a quick pitch - the batter did not get a reasonable opportunity to set himself...as such, I think it was dangerous.

    NCAA did not like it when they allowed a sideways pitcher to windup and he threw without a windup. They changed this year to allow a squared up pitcher to elect to not step back and/or windup because it's more obvious when that pitcher is delivering even without a windup. But this batter was not ready and I have a QP. I noted the NCAA change here: 


  19. 2 hours ago, zoops said:

    Yes; didn't hear any reference to it in the video - just that the new interp is more restrictive.  Just wanted to make sure, sorry for wasting your time.

    I guess you mean no reference to 60' in the video. There is an "on line and on time" foot stomper in the video, starting about 13:00, which allowed me to correctly answer e, a + c for the question. But I am confused about the addition on line and on time.

  20. 20 minutes ago, Guest Burg Boy said:

    OK, OK I know its just Fed but............2.9.1D and 5.1.1R are completely opposite about the old batted ball

    gets stuck in F1's glove.  2.9.1D is new in the C.B. this year? which play do we use if this ever happens?

    FED now wants it the same as OBR and has put out a notice that the new caseplay superceds the old ones and the book language. Sorry that your group did not inform you of that yet. If they don’t like the change, eg. PA, call it like they want when and if it happens.