Replacematt

Hell no. He got it backwards. He's got the touch of third and any potential contact there. You've got the call at first.

Sounds like you got it right for the right reason.

I generally have the opposite problem; my partners are too loud...

A. Depends on rule set. B. If he persists after warning (OBR), it's an ejection, not removal from the mound. C. This should just about never be enforced.

Not very.

No, it's not. It's TOP.

They'll go on sale tomorrow. My new ones arrived today.

A runner who commits an unsporting act might be ejected but not be called out. Coach would ordinarily send a substitute (NOT a courtesy runner). See 3-3-1-g PENALTY, which mentions ejection but no out, and 3.3.1 HH, which applies the provision and explicitly permits a sub. The ruling in 4.4.1B refers to a "courtesy runner" rather than a substitute because the team has no eligible subs to replace the injured player. I would extend that "courtesy" to a team with no subs whose player was ejected rather than injured on the grounds that, since there is no provision to call the ejected player out, somebody has to finish running the bases for him. You don't need to extend the case play from "courtesy runner" to "substitute." The rule itself specifically allows for this type of substitution. Whether the circumstances are correct for it to happen is the question.

I'm going off the fact that 4-4-1 does not provide limitations on the circumstances causing this situation. I think the only reason a question arises is because all the case plays specify injury.

You got me. Now I'll just await a non-sensical interpretation that a batter becomes a runner the instant interference occurs.

The issue boils down to how securely the runner had the bag. I'm having a hard time, absent a big size differential, where a fielder would be able to knock a runner who has secured the bag off of it.

In FED, all batters become runners, so the difference is moot.

Given the location of the thread, I assume you are referring to FED. If so, you are incorrect. It is the last runner not on base (so, it could be a scored runner) and the cause of the original runner's removal is irrelevant.

From what I'm seeing, you'd end up with an out.

And a clinic on plate mechanics. Two in the same association in one week?

You'd be surprised.

If there were flat-front polywools, I'd wear them. Alas, there aren't. I don't understand why the default is pleats. They look horrible.

Two bases, time of throw. Sounds like third.

If you aren't trying to advance, you can't be hindered in getting to the next base.

Intentionally interfere. 7.08b Comment.

Yes, unless it was an infield fly. 7.08f.

Yes. I hate generalizations, but have yet to see the counterexample--on hindrances during a batted ball, it is always INT or OBS, never nothing.

Yes. If that is the case, before ruling OBS, make sure it's actually OBS.

The major difference that may have mitigated these in this case was an engaged PU. He remained with the play, made an appropriately demonstrative call, indicated that he had, indeed, seen something to lead to the call. Giving the perception of being on the ball and having a preemptive definitive answer will keep the monkeys at bay, to a point.

I have INT on both. Just because he tripped doesn't mean he loses his protection. Running lane is irrelevant when it comes to BR's responsibility to avoid a protected fielder. Now, I think you either left something out or missed something in your conversation with your partner. Who did you decide the ball touched?