All Activity

I do think it should be a state by state ruling. Here where I'm from, and a few surrounding states, American Legion Baseball is much, MUCH bigger than High School. So our high school season is a couple of months during the spring, then most of the 'non-rec' players play American Legion for their entire summer/4 months. Some only play American Legion, and don't even play High School (unsanctioned, lower quality by far). Some do go play Prep/Perfect Game travel ball. But in this state, our most senior guys all work the big American Legion games all summer long, and only get a dabble in High School games. It would be better here if they were delayed, because all of the umpires here use OBR as our primary source of reference, and people struggle through FED rules here.

.

3 man, but yes, crew and defensive manager, wow

This is a 4 man minor league crew kicking an umpire interference base award? wow.

First balk was borderline but defensible. I have a discernible stop on the second one. And yes, in Fed, balks should absolutely be immediately dead and this video is Exhibit 197,831 for why. Expecting thousands of HS umpires to correctly administer live ball balks is unrealistic. Experienced varsity umpires will mess these up, but then asking first year, often solo umpires working frosh or JV games to get them right?

C'mon TMiB. We all know FED keeps dead ball balks because we can't adjudicate them properly.

Making me cry man . . . not because U2 was having a rough night, but it was the farewell season of my adopted M Braves. Is FED correct in keeping dead ball balks? It depends on what you want the outcome to be. If the point is penalize illegal play, yes. If the point is to nullify an illegal play, no.

I know we are going off into a related rabbit hole . . . Which is the underlying issue. "I was told by them eggheads with money it worked, and I saw on TV how bad them lazy umpires are, so it works." Oh . . . oh . . . oh . . . I think you helped me stumble on to something. AI is the modern wrestling.

You are correct. They kicked it. Small screen I can’t see no stop. Also U2 killed the first balk while the ball was in play. Didn’t matter when batter was put out at 1B. But could have mattered and adds to argument that FED is correct in keeping dead ball balks.

Saw this play and had a question. The 2nd clip shows U2 getting hit with a batted ball in front of infielders, obviously it is a dead ball because U2 was in front of fielders. On the broadcast it was mentioned that R2 (at the time of the pitch) was awarded 3rd base and BR 1st. I was confused at why R2 was awarded 3rd and why he was not returned to 2nd? My understanding is that when a ball hits a umpire in front of the fielders, that the BR is awarded 1st base and that all other runners would return to the bases they occupied at the time of pitch, unless forced to advance by the BR being awarded 1st.

BlueMan, I had not thought of this angle...this is next level, John Cena "You can't see me..." thinking. Sometimes, the obvious answers are obvious... ~Dawg

I don't think that is completely accurate, so let me give it a shot: Leadership does not want MLB betting lines decided by umpire misses. It is the AI and tech bro age . . . who cares what it can actually do! The important things is what you wish it could do . . . someday . . . eventually . . . in a fairy tale . . . maybe . . . so please invest.

I'll avoid the soap box for the moment. I said for the moment. Disclaimer: I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with the ruling. I'm going to say we cannot arrive at an interpretation based on "fair and unfair" and "common sense." Those are all subjective approaches. We should arrive at interpretations based on the rules. While "fair and unfair play" can be considered under the spirit of the rules, they cannot be defined and agreed upon. We see this repeatedly in arguments about what we should or should not allow runners to do. In fact, this very interpretation contradicts interpretations about retired runners being allowed to continue running. Interference by NCAA rule: "An act that hinders or prevents a player from making a play." (2-51) By rule, NCAA interference comes in four forms: offensive, defensive, umpire, and non-game personnel. Non-game personnel are "someone other then players, coaches, or umpires." (2-51-a-d) ANY PLAYER, regardless of game status, would fall under "player." (2-51-d) 2-51 Note 1 states the ball is dead on an interference play. 2-51 Note 5 states not runners can advance on an interference play. Offensive interference is covered in 5-2-d, 5-3, and 8-5 h and -q. 5-2-d covers a dead ball on a home run. It allows for ONLY coaches to touch the runner. 5-3 repeats the definitions, confirms it applies to all offensive team members regardless of game status, and designates who is called out. 6-3 provides for delayed dead ball applications. The only offensive interference exception granted delayed dead ball status is batter's interference (6-3-b). HOWEVER . . . 3-3-e prevents a base coach from physically assisting a runner. The penalty provides for a delayed dead ball, despite this not appearing in 6-3. . . . and 6-2-g carves out a delayed dead ball on FPSR, which is confirmed by 8-4-c (Penalties). . . Randy's logic of allowing a live runner to assist, but no other offensive team member flies in the face of his own assertion. If assisting a runner is unfair, it is unfair and live runners should also NOT be allowed to do it. He is correct that there is not specific language covering this. As such, there also is no language allowing live runners to assist. So, using the language that is there: we know that interference "hinders or impedes" a defensive opportunity at a play. We know ALL offensive team members are team personnel. We know when a delayed dead ball may be called. Any assistance is a dead ball at the time it happens. The linchpin is whether you see "assisting a runner" as lessening the defensive's chance at an out. Given the runner's goal is to score, assisting him gives him an added advantage, so . . . If you want rules, write rules. Stop superseding them with individual desires.

2 questions: 1 ) Any intel from anyone on how many/which states will be using the double sided 1st base in 2026? 2) Though not mandatory for use until 2027, the new rules regarding the double first base ARE in effect for 2026 if used, correct? I ask because our state has used if for 30+ years under the suggested rules, which differ from the new guidelines. Our state will need to make some adjustments on how we officiate the double base.

Just got the shoes back from my cobbler - he did an INCREDIBLE job (see pic). VERY comfortable too - I'm mad at myself that I didn't think to do this with my previous pair of shoes, the black duct tape pretty much has ruined them I fear - pulling the tape out destroyed the padding and the leather is a mess, but at least I think I saved at least another season with this other pair. Again, this cost me only $20 too!

That was the problem with the previous NCAA rule. The runner is called out at the end of play. Now that he's called out at time of infraction I don't think the defense would play on him again when they have just played on him. Regarding a live ball my cite from the PBUC staff in the BRD says: "Following a coach's interference the assisted runner is out, but the ball remains alive: Other runners may make bases or outs." And Fitzpatrick is also cited: "The runner is out, but the ball remains alive." The cites are circa 2001 so we might need an opinion from Refmasters as to current MLB practice.

Coach assist is covered in 6.01(a) [ (8) specifically ]. 6.01(a) conclude with "PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead." The language that follows doesn't have any exceptions for a delayed dead ball. fwiw, NCAA change is in line with existing LL ( 7.09.(h) "When a play is being made on the assisted runner, the runner is out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference (dead ball). If no play is being made on the assisted runner, the runner is out and play continues (delayed dead ball)." I can't find any interp (e.g .MLBUM, J/R) that guides OBR being the same.

There is no search, but everything is broken down by author and category. As for the killing of the play, I think it makes sense to kill the play once the assisted runner is being played on. Since that runner, who is already out, could then draw throws to allow other runners to advance. As for the OBR difference, I can't find anything that would have the ball made dead in that case.

Ranger, the entire conversation that MLB is having with itself regarding the strike zone and the implementation of ABS and related automated strike zone adjudication simply does not add up factually and logically. Everyone around this game at any level knows that the whole reason that ABS and technology are being explored is because of the strong and accurate belief that technology MIGHT EVENTUALLY be 100% accurate...or at least MORE accurate than human umpires. Leadership does not want MLB games decided by umpire misses. And yet, here we are in 2025 and MLB is implementing an INCOMPLETE technology. Please explain to me how that while it makes sense that all of us, including leadership, to know that the state of the art again, can NOT consistently plot the vertical axis of pitches which we are then FURTHER compounding with this "compromise" of the strike zone relative to player...that all of this makes for more accurate adjudication of the strike zone and better MLB baseball in 2026? I get it. I do. The technology has been coming for a long time. Nobody including myself should be surprised by this coming into the game. I simply do not believe as currently constructed that ABS (full-time, challenge, etc.) is ready for prime time. And if MLB wants to "compromise" on the vertical limits of the zone, then we need for them to codify that in the rule book. They're MLB. They can do or do not as they please. Like all pro sports, MLB is not a competitive athletic contest. It's an entertainment enterprise masquerading as a competitive athletic contest. If the fans accept this and come to the ballpark, that's all MLB cares about. Romantic notion's of "America's pastime" do not help you cover expenses and pocket the rest. ~Dawg

So what we are trying to say is that each batter possibly has two strike zones? One for the PU and one for the computer. And, the hollow of the knee or the top of the zone for each player could be an inch or two different? Yeah, doesnt seem like there will be any issues there. There has to be some instance of this already where the PU called the low strike (which was correct) but was overturned by computer because the math didnt reach that low. No wonder the union wanted all or nothing. Maybe Meta glasses will be introduced that can adjust automatically for each batter... Call what you call and be confident with it. If it is challenged and changed, dont let it get in your head. What else can you do?

Thanks, @Velho...as I suspected, it seems they are changing the definition of the strike zone to accommodate the limits of the ABS tech (which fundamentally changes the game and it's not being applied equally to all players...) instead of looking at other procedures and policies that ALLOW for the limitations of the ABS technology while ALSO maintaining the existing codified, rulebook definition of the strike zone. Whether you agree or disagree with how MLB is proceeding, this is the beginning of a landmark moment and possibly a new era of The Game at its highest level... ~Dawg

I'm not on RQ anymore but I do remember that as an improvement over Arbiter. It was kind of hard to search by topic. Are they still listed just by date. BTW, do you think Randy differed from OBR in calling time when a played on player is assisted. Or is OBR the same now. All I know is PBUC saying to keep it live some years ago.

Official Review: Smitty Performance 4-Way Stretch Referee PantsView the full article