Senor Azul

Close Call Sports analyzed an MLB play about a continuous action play that got a third and a fourth out--the question was when does a half-inning end? The article was written in July 2018 and the title is: False Fourth Out- Ball Stays Alive After Third Out One of the conclusions was, "A half-inning cannot categorically end until the potential for a fourth out or similar appeal has ended." The article contains two links to other articles about inning-ending plays. Perhaps some of the analysis there can help us understand more about game-ending procedures?

From OBR 6.02(a)(5) Comment: ...Umpires will judge a quick pitch as one delivered before the batter is reasonably set in the batter's box...The quick pitch is dangerous and should not be permitted. The OP told us that the batter was "not looking at pitcher." Mr. JSam21 told us, "a kid looking at the ground doing a bat waggle." And then Mr. Replacematt told us, "The batter did not even know there was a pitch." That sure sounds as if the batter was not reasonably set to me. The batter was not ready to receive the pitch and was hit by the pitch. That's dangerous! That's a quick pitch!

The original scenario is similar to a case play found in OBR rule 5.08 Comment: APPROVED RULING: Following runners are not affected by an act of a preceding runner unless two are out. EXAMPLE: One out, R2, R1, and batter hits home run inside the park. R2 fails to touch third on his way to the plate. R1 and batter score. The defense holds the ball on third, appeals to umpire, and R2 is out. R1's and batter's runs count.

Mr. Replacematt, Are you the artist formerly known as just plain Matt? If so, I am pleasantly surprised that you actually used a citation. I don't remember that ever happening before. Who do you mean by "the narrator"? If you mean the OP he definitely did not stipulate that the delivery to the batter was not a quick pitch. He just described the situation he wanted to ask about. It was Mr. Richvee who raised the possibility that the pitch in question could be illegal and it was me who used the phrase "quick pitch." The Wendelstedt definition you posted does not account for pitches that accidentally hit the bat nor does it account for a batter who is trying to protect his runner. All three codes use the following as part of their respective definition of the term "strike"-- A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which...(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed; There is no caution to the umpire to judge whether the batter meant his swing. I recall a thread about a minor league game where a pitch slipped from the pitcher's hand and as the ball rolled across a foul line about 10 feet from home plate the batter jokingly swung and the umpire called a strike. When everyone in the stadium sees a swing they expect the umpire to call it a strike.

You raise a valid point, Mr. Velho. Here's what the 2021 MiLBUM (p. 122) tells us that answers your question: If the balk is followed by a pitch which strikes the batter, call "Time" the moment the pitch strikes the batter. Then enforce the balk unless the hit batsman forces all other runners to advance one base, in which case play proceeds without reference to the balk. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, Mr. rhinolith, you got it right! And for the right reason--time of pitch. Both high school and college rules actually define the term "time of pitch" in their respective rule books. Cal Ripken/Babe Ruth rules are based on OBR which, unfortunately, does not define the term. But the MiLBUM does provide an interpretation in its 2021 edition (section 5.20, p. 59): A runner who advances while the pitcher is in-contact with the rubber is considered to occupy the base last touched at the time the pitcher initiates his actual pitching motion to the batter. The pitching motion is defined as any movement which commits the pitcher to deliver the ball to the batter...As long as the pitcher is not committed to pitch, a runner may advance and is considered to occupy the last base touched at the time the pitcher initiates his actual delivery to the batter...The preliminary motion known as the "stretch" is not considered the start of the pitching motion.

The exact same text appears in the 2021 MiLBUM (section 6.10, p. 101).

As described in the OP, I have a quick pitch. A quick pitch is an illegal pitch. Under OBR/NCAA rules an illegal pitch is a delayed dead ball--with no runners on base the penalty is a ball added to the count and with runners an illegal pitch is a balk. Under FED rules an illegal pitch can occur with or without a runner(s). FED case play 6.2.4 COMMENT B tells us a quick pitch is an illegal pitch and is called a ball whether or not it goes through the strike zone. If there is a runner, a quick pitch is a balk. The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch is called. Nowhere does it say that an umpire has to try to stop the pitch or it becomes a legal pitch.

The best definition of the phrase "act of fielding" can be found in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 104): A fielder is trying to field (or in the act of fielding) a ball when:...he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball (following through) I posted the entire definition in the Ask the Umpire forum in a thread called Obstruction and interference - define "attempt" dated 5/20/22 currently on page 21

From the 2023 NFHS case book play: 8.3.3 Situation L: With two outs and R2 on second, B4 strikes out, but the pitch gets by F2 and is rolling toward the backstop. F2 chases the ball down and stops it with the catcher's mask. Ruling: This is a delayed dead-ball situation. R2 is awarded two bases from the time of the infraction at the end of playing action. Also see online interpretations for 2006 Situation 5.

No, the run does not count. Here's the Official Baseball Rules relevant rule: Rule 5.08(a): ...EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base;...

From the 2023 NFHS case book play 2.16.1 Situation A: On a count of 1-ball, 2-strikes, B1 hits a fly ball down the right-field line. While the ball is in the air, the umpire inadvertently declares 'foul ball'; (a) F9 catches the ball in flight, (b) the ball falls to the ground in fair territory, (c) the ball falls to the ground in foul territory. Ruling: (a) The batter is out and the ball remains live, (b) and (c) the ball is immediately dead as soon as it touches the ground; the batter returns to bat with a count of 1-2. This case play is very similar to the scenario presented in the test question. In my opinion it is the interpretation/case play that validates the proper call. Don't you agree, Mr. Kevin_K? I gave you the relevant rule and Mr. Jimurray gave you the case play but instead of acknowledging those who tried to help, you posted an autobiography. Is this case play sufficient for you or do you want something else?

I think the relevant FED rule is 2-16-1e: A foul is a batted ball: e. that touches the ground after inadvertently being declared foul by an umpire. This rule was added to the definition in 2006. I have nothing else to back this up so if there is an interpretation of this rule it would have been issued around that time.

For step (b): If the pitcher steps onto the pitcher's plate in the windup position with both hands at his side, he may move one hand at a time to bring them together and stop. He may then deliver or step off. See case play 6.1.2H. If he steps onto the pitcher's plate with both hands apart, when he begins to move both hands simultaneously, that is the start of a pitch. See case play 2.28.3C (the time of the pitch occurred when the pitcher moved both of his arms). For step (d): Under FED rules a pitcher may not pause in the windup position once he has moved any part of his body such as he habitually uses in his delivery.

Let me refer you to a previous thread here in the High School forum that I think answers your question about when to balk a pitcher if he engages the rubber with his hands together (in the set position). The thread is called Hybrid--3/19/18 currently on page 8 I posted three case plays from the 2014 online interpretations in that thread. Here's the ruling from case play #7: "The pitcher initially assumed an illegal pitching position. Since he made no other movement, he is allowed to step back off of the pitching plate with his pivot foot and correct his illegal position. (6-1-2, 3)" Granted the FED should have said that in this case play (2024 Situation 18) just for clarification.

From the 2016 BRD (section 244, p. 161): FED: If lights fail during play: Point not covered. Official Interpretation: Rumble: Play: R1, 0 out. B1 grounds to F6, who throws out R1 at second. As F4 pivots to fire to first, the lights go out. Ruling: "The umpire uses his best judgment in deciding the outcome of the play at first." (1994) So for FED it's apparently up to the umpire's judgment. The professional ruling is different--the entire play is nullified. (2021 MiLBUM section 5.67, p. 92)

From the 2013 Wendelstedt RIM (p. 106) referring to OBR 6.02(a)(11): This applies anytime that the pitcher has engaged the rubber whether prepared to, or in actually delivering a pitch. If the ball crosses either foul line, it is not a balk. It is a pitch outside of the strike zone. 2023-2024 NCAA rule 9-2b Penalty: With no one on base, if the ball drops or slips out of the hand, intentionally or accidentally, it is no pitch if the ball does NOT cross the foul line. If it does cross the foul line, it is a ball. If there is a runner(s) on base and the ball is dropped, it is a balk.

It is considered to be a pitch if an in-contact pitcher drops the ball and it then rolls across a foul line. The pitch would be called a ball.

Unfortunately the term "pickoff" is not included in the Definitions of Terms in the OBR. But there is a definition of pickoff in the website mlb.com/Glossary A pickoff occurs between pitches when a pitcher throws a ball to a fielder, who eventually puts out or assists in retiring an opposing baserunner... And here's a case play found in the 2021 MiLBUM (section 6.27, p. 118): With a runner on first base attempting to advance, a right-handed pitcher makes a complete turn and, without hesitating toward first, throws or fakes to second. Ruling: This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base since the runner is trying to advance.

The words "cannot have" do not appear in FED rule 1-3-6. Earlier I posted the relevant portion of the rule that prohibits the colors white and gray on a pitcher's glove. I also cited three current case plays that tell us about laces, piping, and manufacturers' logos. There is a fourth case play--1.3.6 Situation A. It tells us that the pitcher's glove cannot include the colors white or gray and it has to be deemed distracting--umpire judgment. Case play 1.3.6 Situation D tells us that a pitcher cannot use a glove with white or gray piping.

As far as I know, FED has never issued any guidance on this matter. There are several case plays for catcher obstruction and none say anything about the umpire offering any additional information to the coach. There is, however, a recommendation from Carl Childress in his 2016 BRD. It is supported by a couple of well-known college umpires. They recommend that when an option exists, offer it to the coach. The full quote has been posted several times and can be found easily by searching the word "willy-nilly." Here are two examples Ask the Umpire forum--screwy ending to a game needs clarification--4/14/22 Rules forum--"Declining the Penalty" in baseball--11/3/23

The use of a double first base is permitted by state association adoption (NFHS rule 1-2-9). There are a couple of case book plays about double first base also.

Apparently it was already in the rule book as case book material. The following is text from the 2016 BRD (section 289, p. 189): Larry Barnett made that "no-call." ...In 1975 all case book material, which the BRD calls "CMT," was housed in a single section following the main text of the rules. In 1977 the case book was integrated with the rules. That change could not be a coincidence, coming as it did at the first publication opportunity after "The Call." So the back matter (Notes--Case Book--Comments) in the OBR was incorporated directly into the Official Playing Rules in the appropriate places and first appeared in the 1978 OBR rule book.

Mr. ArchAngel72, who was it exactly who led you to believe that the base runner has to try to avoid the fielder even while on base? I ask because they are definitely right under FED rules and I think they are right under Little League rules also. FED case book play 8.4.2 Situation H tells us in its ruling-- ...A runner need not vacate a base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play... In the 2022 Little League RIM in the following Instructor's Comments to rule 7.08(b) you will find these words: He/she may stay in contact with the base and show the umpire he/she is trying to avoid the fielder. I don't think you were misled. Those comments also answer your second question about how Little League rules. If you don't have a rule book or no one else copies and pastes the full Comments, I will input them later.

Yes, there were two Eddie and the Cruisers movies in the 1980s. The songs were written and performed by John Cafferty. The fictional band though was supposed to be from Jersey and I figured Mr. Richvee would have been very well acquainted with the movies and the soundtrack--I believe it went triple platinum or better. I think the real band is from Rhode Island.