Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

Senor Azul

Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Senor Azul last won the day on November 12 2018

Senor Azul had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

236 Good

About Senor Azul

  • Birthday 07/16/1947

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Francisco Bay Area

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

4,633 profile views
  1. Senor Azul

    Pitch count question

    2017 Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) Approved Baseball Pitch Count Rule Frequently Asked Questions Will a pitcher be able to complete an at bat regardless of the pitch count? A pitcher is not allowed to exceed the highest pitch count limit. If close to the limit, the pitcher must either be replaced prior to the batter stepping up to the plate or during the at-bat. Will umpires back up the pitch count? It is not the responsibility of the umpires to enforce the pitching rule and umpires will not mediate pitch counts. All concerns about pitch counts need to be addressed by the league. What is the penalty if a pitcher exceeds the maximum daily limit? Violations of the pitch count rule are considered in the same manner as a school using an ineligible player. The pitcher becomes ineligible to pitch when the maximum daily limit is reached. If the maximum daily limit is exceeded, the pitcher is ineligible and the contest will be forfeited. The offending team may appeal.
  2. Senor Azul

    High School Pitching Rules

    The following text is from an online article written by Jim Halley of USA TODAY High School Sports dated March 5, 2017. “The National Federation of State High School Associations in July (2016) mandated that participating state associations enact pitch-count limits, and 44 state high school associations have since done so. Four states — Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota and Idaho — do not sanction baseball, so no limits were passed. Massachusetts and Connecticut do not follow NFHS rules.” I would like to know if it is still true that four states do not sanction baseball and what exactly that means. I would also like to know if Massachusetts and Connecticut still do not follow NFHS rules.
  3. Senor Azul

    Pitch count question

    It turns out that the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) has the same penalty for a violation of the pitching policy-- OHSAA Baseball Pitch Count Regulation Approved for 2017 January 19, 2017 COLUMBUS, Ohio – Details for a nationally-mandated pitch count restriction in high school baseball were approved Thursday by the Ohio High School Athletic Association Board of Directors at its January meeting. Last year, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) informed all states that they were required to have a pitch count limit instead of a regulation based on innings pitched over a certain number of days. Previously in Ohio high school baseball, a pitcher could pitch up to 10 innings in a three-day span. Each state was tasked with determining its own regulation. The new OHSAA pitch count regulation calls for a maximum of 125 pitches permitted in a day, and contains several other details such as the number of days required between pitching appearances based on the number of pitches thrown. The regulation approved Thursday replaces OHSAA baseball regulation 1.7, which was approved last year and indicated that details for the pitch count regulation would be finalized in January. Regulation 1.76) Any player pitching during a period in which rest is required is considered to be pitching as an ineligible player. Note: Any victorious contest in which an ineligible player is participating will result in forfeiture of the contest.
  4. Senor Azul

    Pitch count question

    Mr. Fatcity, the pitching restrictions do vary state-by-state because the NFHS delegates the authority to each state to set its own pitching policy— 2018 NFHS rule 6-1 ART. 6 . . . Each state association shall have a pitching restriction policy based on the number of pitches thrown to afford pitchers a required rest period between pitching appearances. And you are right about the penalty for violation of the rule in the state of Washington being a forfeit—at least it was as of February 2017— From the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) 2017 What is the penalty if a pitcher exceeds the maximum daily limit? Violations of the pitch count rule are considered in the same manner as a school using an ineligible player. The pitcher becomes ineligible to pitch when the maximum daily limit is reached. If the maximum daily limit is exceeded, the pitcher is ineligible and the contest will be forfeited. The offending team may appeal.
  5. Senor Azul

    Ball Stuck in Glove...Lodged?

    The new case play, 2.9.1 D, conflicts with two rules and two case plays. The rules are 5-1-1f-5 and 8-3-3f. Besides the case play already mentioned by Mr. NorthTexasUmp, the very next one in the book, 5.1.1 Situation R, would also have to be deleted or rewritten. And 5.1.1 Situation S will probably need to be deleted as well. This is an egregious oversight on the part of the NFHS rules interpreters. Also, please note that the new case play is placed in the Catch section. So wouldn't the definition of catch have to be amended as well?
  6. Senor Azul

    NFHS Catcher Blocking Plate

    2018 NFHS Case Book Play 2.22.1 Situation C: A runner is advancing to score when F7 throws home. F2 completely blocks home plate with his lower leg/knee while (a) in possession of the ball or (b) while juggling and attempting to secure the ball or (c) before the ball has reached F2. RULING: Legal in (a); obstruction in (b) and (c) if the catcher denied access to home plate prior to possessing the ball. 2018 NFHS Case Book Play 8.3.2 Situation C: F2 is in the path between third base and home plate while waiting to receive a thrown ball. R3 advances from third and runs into the catcher, after which R3 is tagged out. RULING: Obstruction. F2 cannot be in the base path without the ball in his possession, nor can he be in the base path waiting for a ball to arrive without giving the runner some access to home plate.
  7. Senor Azul

    Can an infielder deliberately drop a line drive?

    Mr. stkjock, in a game played between the Tigers and Astros on April 17, 2016, Tigers second baseman Ian Kinsler did exactly what you suggested. He had the game awareness to realize that the runner on first base was a much better base runner than the batter-runner. So he allowed a pop fly to drop untouched and then forced out the faster runner at second base. And as it turned out the next batter singled with the slower runner from first stopping at second base. A very smart move by Kinsler wound up saving a run. Here’s a link to video-- https://www.mlb.com/cut4/ian-kinsler-fakes-out-colby-rasmus/c-172899766
  8. Senor Azul

    Can an infielder deliberately drop a line drive?

    No, it is not legal. All codes (OBR, NCAA, and FED) agree that in any force situation the infielder cannot drop a fly ball or line drive intentionally. Here are the applicable pro rule and high school rule-- 2018 OBR rule 5.09 Making an Out (a) Retiring the Batter A batter is out when: (12) An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases; APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies. 2018 NFHS rule 8 SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT ART. 1 . . . The batter-runner is out when: c. his fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight is intentionally dropped by an infielder with at least first base occupied and before there are two outs. The ball is dead and the runner or runners shall return to their respective base(s). 1. In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight to drop untouched to the ground, except when the infield fly rule (2-19) applies (5-1-1j).
  9. Senor Azul


    2018 NFHS rule 6 SECTION 2 INFRACTIONS BY PITCHER ART. 2 . . . Delay of the game includes: a. throwing to any player other than the catcher, when the batter is in the batter’s box, unless it is an attempt to retire a runner; PENALTY: The pitcher shall be ejected from the game after a warning. NCAA: If the pitcher unnecessarily delays (9-3c), the umpire shall call a balk. OBR: Same as NCAA. (6.02a-8) 2018 OBR rule 6.02 Pitcher Illegal Action (a) Balks If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when: (8) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game; Rule 6.02(a)(8) Comment: Rule 6.02(a)(8) shall not apply when a warning is given pursuant to Rule 6.02(c)(8) (which prohibits intentional delay of a game by throwing to fielders not in an attempt to put a runner out). If a pitcher is ejected pursuant to Rule 6.02(c)(8) for continuing to delay the game, the penalty in Rule 6.02(a)(8) shall also apply. Rule 5.07(c) (which sets a time limit for a pitcher to deliver the ball when the bases are unoccupied) applies only when there are no runners on base. 6.02(c)(8) The pitcher shall not: (8) Intentionally delay the game by throwing the ball to players other than the catcher, when the batter is in position, except in an attempt to retire a runner. PENALTY: If, after warning by the umpire, such delaying action is repeated, the pitcher shall be removed from the game.
  10. Senor Azul

    Coach interference?

    There is surprisingly little written about base coach interference. I did find an analysis by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports titled Defining Base Coach Interference—It Had to be St Louis-- https://www.closecallsports.com/2016/05/defining-base-coach-interference-it-had.html For OBR rulings the takeaway from his article is this—“If the interference is intentional, it is to be called. If unintentional AND the coach did all he could to avoid it, it is not a violation.” As I stated before, I cannot find anything other than the applicable rule in FED (3-2-3). After a long search it dawned on me that the BRD did not have an entry that shows (and according to Mr. maven I have mad skills using the BRD) that FED differs from the OBR rule and case play given at the end of OBR rule 6.01(d) Comment. Does that mean that FED agrees with the OBR interpretation of base coach interference? No, not necessarily, but it has me thinking that it does even though there is nothing else to support that. I realize that it is not dispositive. I now think that FED looks at this question the same way as OBR.
  11. Senor Azul

    Coach interference?

    Mr. jjskitours, the reason I revived this thread is that I thought it needed more discussion. The OP did not specify which rule set was used in his game and so most of the replies were about OBR. In fact, a ruling for FED was not mentioned until Mr. maven’s second response dated May 29. And now you are asking about FED ruling. I think FED differs from OBR/NCAA but I cannot find any case plays similar to the OP or interpretations. That’s because OBR/NCAA requires coaches to be on the field and the rule (3-2-1) in FED is a coach MAY be stationed in each box. Mr. maven may very well be right that the rule 3-2-3 is definitive and under FED the coach’s interference would cause an out to be called. But it is different in OBR—here’s what the Jaksa/Roder manual says about coach’s interference-- From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual concerning interference by a base coach (a person not only authorized to be on the field but required to be on the field by rule in OBR and NCAA): “It is interference if a base coach… Blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball. A coach must try to avoid a fielder trying to field. If he tries to avoid, but contacts a fielder, it is not interference. In most cases, a coach who does not try to avoid contact with a fielder will have interfered.
  12. Senor Azul

    On deck batter

    “A coach wants to know if on deck batter can use a tee if he does so behind the dugout.” That is the question posed in the OP. I posted the applicable rules to answer the question on April 2. MadMax posted his response 4 days later. Now I would like to ask him (and the two members who liked his post) if they read my post and just chose to ignore the actual rules that cover this scenario. By rule (2018 NFHS rule 1-2-3), the on-deck batter has to use his team’s on-deck circle if he chooses to warm up. By rule (2018 NFHS rule 1-3-4), when he warms up he cannot use a batting tee—only bats and items designed to remain part of the bat. Additionally, isn’t there a legal aspect to this scenario? If we as umpires allowed players to take bats off the playing field to practice aren’t we liable if, for example, a spectator was hurt by that bat? One last question and this is for the original poster, Mr. jjskitours, what did you tell your coach after reading all the replies to your post?
  13. Senor Azul

    Verbal OBS (FED) - Was I right or being OOO?

    From the 2016 BRD (section 375, pp. 250-51): Verbal obstruction is treated the same as physical obstruction. PENALTY: The obstructed runner is awarded one base in advance of his position on base. (2-22-1; 2.22.1a) Official Interpretation: Hopkins: If a defensive player tries to confuse an opponent by yelling “Go!” to a runner tagging, the umpire declares verbal obstruction if the affected runner reacts to the opponent’s attempt to confuse. PENALTY: The affected runner is awarded one base. The umpire warns the player committing the act. (Website 2004 #12) SITUATION 12: With R3 on third, B2 hits a fly ball to the outfield. As the runner on third tags, the defensive coach (in the third-base dugout) yells, “Go, go, go,” to the runner tagging. R3, as a consequence, leaves the base before the catch and must return to tag the base. RULING: This is verbal obstruction. At the end of playing action, U1 will award R3 home due to the obstruction. U1 will also warn the coach that his actions are not in accordance with fair play. (2-22-1, 3-3-1g-4, 8-3-2) “Verbal obstruction must affect the play before the umpire may penalize it.” Official Interpretation: Hopkins: Any verbal decoy, such as “I’ve got it,” is obstruction. (Website 2001 #14) SITUATION 14: With runners on first and second and one out, the batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop. The second baseman calls "I got it" and acts as if it is a pop-up. The runners stay at their respective bases and a double play is made, second to first. RULING: This is verbal obstruction. Runners will be awarded third and second. There are two outs since the out on the batter-runner will stand. (2-22-1; 8-3-2) Play 239-375: R1, R3, 0 outs. F1 pauses in the set position. From the defensive first-base dugout, someone yells, “Back!” R1 reacts by diving toward first. As R1 scrambles for the bag, the pitcher throws wildly toward third with the ball ricocheting off the fence and heading for the bullpen, with F7 in hot pursuit. R3 scores. R1 gets up and tries for second but is thrown out. Ruling: In FED, R1 was verbally obstructed. He is awarded second. R3’s run counts: On the obstruction, the ball was delayed dead: 0 outs, one run in, runner on second. In NCAA/OBR, there is no verbal obstruction. The play stands: one out, one run in.
  14. Senor Azul

    Losing contact with the rubber during the windup?

    Here’s the rule that Mr. Jimurray alluded to and a bit of text from the Jaksa/Roder manual explaining the rule-- 2018 OBR 5.07(a)(1) The Windup Position The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate and the other foot free. From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration. 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... From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 137): (Windup Position) In the motion to pitch, the pitcher’s…pivot foot may make only one step to become better situated for the pitch (optional) and may not then be reset.
  15. Senor Azul

    Stoping motion with no runners on.

    From the 2013 Wendelstedt Rules and Interpretations Manual (section 6.1.3, p. 95): “After assuming either the Wind-Up or Set Position, any motion naturally and discernibly associated with his delivery commits him to deliver his pitch. If the pitcher stops his pitching motion in either position with no runners on base, there is no penalty. The pitcher and batter will start over from scratch.” Case Play P567 (p. 272 WRIM): No one on, one out, 1-2 count. The pitcher, from the Wind-Up Position, starts his motion, but stops halfway through. He then re-engages the rubber and begins to take signs again. Ruling: With no runners on base, there is no violation.