Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

maven

Established Member
  • Content count

    7,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    231

Everything posted by maven

  1. That's the one thing it can never be when runner and fielder collide, when the fielder is fielding a batted ball. Also: there is no such thing as rights.
  2. Protection is a tricky concept. It can be gained, transferred, lost, regained.... The purpose of protection is to give the defense adequate opportunity to field a batted ball without hindrance from the offense. The default should be: a fielder who is fielding a batted ball is protected from OBS. In this case, when the batted ball is hit to F1, he is the protected fielder. When it deflects more than a step/reach from him, he (briefly) loses his protection. "Losing protection" is an exception designed to be fair to runners: if contact with a fielder happens just after a fielder boots the ball (and because he boots it), we'll treat that as OBS. Then the ball rolls toward the foul line. The BR can see the ball and the fielder going for it. At that point, F1 regains his protection: because the BR has the opportunity to avoid F1, he must do so. INT.
  3. UIL State Tournament Batter interference

    Calling time when the throw sails way wide of 2B I can live with. If this is strike 2, and they called R1 out for the batter's INT... ick.
  4. Dropped third strike

    Sounds like MSU rules, but then, I don't know softball. In baseball, you're right.
  5. throwing glove

    No. Same ruling all codes. FED is the same as OBR: 3 base award: "three bases if a batted ball (other than in item a) is touched by an illegal glove or mitt, or by detached player equipment which is thrown, tossed, kicked or held by a fielder, provided the ball when touched is on or over fair ground, or is a fair ball while on or over foul ground, or is over foul ground in a situation such that it might become a fair ball."
  6. Balk

    The OBR balk rule is rather complicated to enforce, with many different conditions and scenarios. FED has far, far more officials and a much wider range of officiating ability than any other rule set, and so among their priorities for rules in all sports is ease of enforcement. The simplified balk rule is a result of that priority in action. The VAST majority of HS players do not go on to play NCAA, much less pro, baseball. The few who do are generally so dedicated to baseball that they have time in their lives and can pick it up as they go.
  7. Balk

    and the batter returns to the plate with his previous count.
  8. Batter interference at home plate

    10U? You have a point.
  9. Batter interference at home plate

    If there was in fact INT, this is the correct penalty, with R3 stealing. He didn't? What about this: I know the pro rule (which makes the batter's effort moot, BTW), but I would not interpret it so strictly at instructional levels. The defense screwed up first by putting the ball on the ground and giving R3 a chance to score. The batter did his part by vacating the plate area. At 10U I doubt the batter is putting himself in the line of the throw. I say play the bounce, no INT. If I saw video, I might have a different conclusion, but that's how it sounds from your account.
  10. You're picking a fight over something where (a) we don't disagree, and (b) it's completely irrelevant to the point of the post.
  11. The rule book definition of 'in flight', which is a condition of a batted ball being caught for an out, makes a ball in flight until it touches an object other than a fielder. Contrariwise, if all the batted ball has hit is a fielder(s) (head, foot, glove, whatever), then by rule it is still in flight and may be caught for an out. Except, of course, for a foul ball that strikes F2 other than in the hand or mitt....
  12. Hit By Pirch

    I swear, if this weren't the "Ask the Umpire" forum, I'd definitely be running with the "Hit by perch" thread title.
  13. 6A UIL Championship Collision

    I do not have MC here. Look again at the moment where the BR realizes that he's going to collide with F3. Does he keep going, lower a shoulder, and barrel through, as if he had been hoping this would happen? No, he slows himself down. Then he realizes that he's still going to hit F3 (though not as hard), and he braces for and pushes through the contact. IMO, that's nothing. BU steps in to usher off the BR. The philosophy there is to address the one who delivers the blow, so that the "recipient" perceives that the situation is being handled and he doesn't have to. It's not foolproof, but it's better than seeing how things go and then having to pull them apart. We're better off getting involved first, because if we have to get involved later it's often much worse (and involves EJ's).
  14. Hit By Pirch

    If the pitch was in the strike zone and the batter leaned into it, then it is dead AND a strike. If PU judges that the 1-1 pitch was similarly leaned into, he has to call the pitch as well. That was the error in the scenario you describe, as far as I can tell. Perhaps after the error he made at 1-1, he remembered that he does in fact have to call the pitch. Next time it happened, he did.
  15. Batter interference

    I agree. In general I agree with his "narrow" interps of OBR, but this one seems zany to me, and not in the spirit of the INT rules. The batter, as such, has a job to do, but we're talking about a situation without a pitch. He can move his butt out of the way.
  16. Call at the plate

    If the suggestion is that BU overruling PU on a safe/out at the plate is akin to BU ruling on check swings in B/C position, the comparison is inapt. I would (almost*) never overrule PU on a safe/out. I would always rule on check swings in B/C position. That's also pro instruction (and instruction at every level). *Exception noted above.
  17. Master class. https://twitter.com/geoffschwartz/status/1006879819471228928 Game was from 2016. https://deadspin.com/what-do-we-think-of-this-old-video-of-an-umpire-handlin-1826783441
  18. Batter interference

    FED and OBR have different criteria. For FED, the batter must move away if he has time to do so. For OBR (per Wendelstedt), the batter cannot be called out for INT if he remains motionless in the box.
  19. Call at the plate

    Well he can, but it's almost always ridiculous to do so. As other posters have insinuated, this question is usually motivated by a disagreement in the judgment call. That's never sufficient reason to request that the umpires get together. The only exception is not a question of judgment, but rather one where the call is obviously wrong to everyone in the park. If the ball is rolling on the ground and PU has an out, then, and only in that extreme situation, would it be proper to ask them to get together (if the BU isn't already coming in).
  20. Of course this is a matter of judgment, and we amateurs are all entitled to our opinions, such as they are. But we generally want to err on the side of safety for infractions like this. The entire purpose of instituting the rule was to promote the safety of both catchers and runners. Borderline cases need to be ruled illegal.
  21. does run count

    It would be odd for the OC to appeal his own runner's error, but whatever! Handle it like any appeal: if the infielders have all left fair territory, their window for appealing has closed. (That's the FED window; IIRC OBR is the same.)
  22. I expect the interp is that the last sentence trumps: if F2 blocks the pathway of the runner, then it is NOT an avoidable (that is, illegal) collision in violation of the rule, even if the other indicators are present. Compare: the NCAA football rule for targeting uses concepts of "launch," "upward thrust," and a few others as "indicators" of targeting. When those indicators are present, officials look for the foul itself, and often flag it. But if replay determines that there was in fact no forcible contact to the head/neck area, they'll take off the foul. Lowering the shoulder, pushing through with hands, etc. are indicators of illegal collisions, but they don't define the infraction, which is basically a prohibition of avoidable collisions. (For FED, those same actions are indicators for, but don't define, MC.) That last sentence in the COMMENT addresses the play where F2 has cut off the runner's access to the plate, AND it's not OBS (he has the ball): because runners are never required to slide, there will be a collision, and this sentence indicates that it's not to be ruled an avoidable collision. The analogy with targeting is apt not least because these are both rules introduced to reduce or eliminate a certain class of dangerous play from the respective games. In football, we have seen the players adjust: coaches now teach defenders to hit the "strike zone," which is basically the runner's torso; they have learned to "lower their target," and we see fewer of these plays (and accordingly fewer injuries). I think MLB players have mostly adjusted to the collision rule as well, with runners making the more athletic move outside F2. That didn't happen in this play. As with targeting, I would have hoped for more aggressive enforcement of the rule: err on the side of safety.
  23. Play at the plate

    It's the "Ask the Umpire" forum, and we're not supposed to make fun. Also, the question is reasonable enough.
×