Jump to content

maven

Established Member
  • Posts

    9,399
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    362

maven last won the day on February 25

maven had the most liked content!

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

16,355 profile views

maven's Achievements

6.1k

Reputation

100

Community Answers

  1. FED does not have "follow-through INT" in the same sense that OBR does, which is to say, it's not a separate infraction with its own distinct penalty. FED treats contact from the swing that hinders F2's play on a runner as ordinary batter INT. Enforce accordingly. The question seems to concern the judgment of hindrance, which is difficult to assess without video. The batter is entitled to swing at the pitch while in the box without liability for INT. But the timing sounds off: if the B swings at the pitch, the swing should be done before F2 rises to throw. So that makes the description in the OP suspicious for INT.
  2. I would guess that the field has a ground rule concerning a batted ball that disappears from view, regardless of duration. If not, I don't see a lodged ball in the video. No different from hitting a wall: the fielder wouldn't have played it as it hit the wall or fell to the ground, and I'd treat this the same way as I see it pop out immediately. Killing it here gives the defense an unfair advantage, IMO.
  3. The umpire needs to judge whether or not the runner's momentum would have taken him off the base without the added impetus of contact from the fielder. If so, he's out; if not, he's safe. Benefit of the doubt to the runner. There is no infraction or penalty, unless the contact is sufficent for MC. IIRC this guidance is codified in pro ball, but not in FED. I would call it the same in all codes.
  4. If F2 makes a play on R2 stealing, is the ball really "wedged, stuck, lost or unreachable?" This is PU's primary, and if it happens so fast he's unaware of it, it can't really be lodged. Finally, consider this: the lodged ball rule is there to protect the defense, who has been deprived of an opportunity to field a loose ball. Whey would we employ it to deprive the defense of an opportunity to play on a runner? As I envision the timing of this, I'd allow the play on R2 to stand.
  5. 1. Yes. With the BR, now R1, standing on 1B, he has corrected his baserunning error. That can happen during a dead ball (touches during a home run trot count). 2. It's not preventive officiating to use proper mechanics—just officiating. 3. Yes. When PU tries to grant time, maybe stare at 1B and say, "Not yet!" 4. Well, you shouldn't. PU made the ball dead improperly, so we don't give the defense the unfair advantage of a dead-ball appeal. 5. Nothing material.
  6. maven

    EJ or No?

    I don't have my book, but my recollection is that throwing equipment is a "warn then eject" level offense under 3-3-1. Egregious violations can skip directly to ejection. It's HS baseball, and we still have an opportunity to teach sportsmanship. At 14, he doesn't get to be Bryce Harper. It's great when a coach addresses this behavior, but many don't have the cojones to stand up to parents. Same for some umpires. If I were evaluating a PU umpire who allowed this, it would be a substantial ding and a followup convo.
  7. For emphasis? Oh, you probably weren't looking for the reason...
  8. 🤣 What's the definition of "in flight?" If the batted ball after bouncing off another fielder is caught, still an out? José Canseco play?
  9. maven

    MLB Obstruction

    Sometimes we throw the term 'protected fielder' around without remembering, "protected from what?" Runners may dictate their own path to the base (think rounding the bases, etc.). Fielders must usually yield the right of way to runners, and if they fail to do so and hinder a runner, they're guilty of OBS. The exception occurs when a fielder is fielding a batted ball. Then he's protected from his obligation to clear the base path for the runner, because the fielder now has the right of way. I couldn't access the video from CCS linked above (seems to have been taken down?), but from the description we have F1 AND F3 in the BR's base path. One of them will be protected, the other won't. So whoever is not protected will be guilty of OBS (with or without a collision—we're watching for hindrance, and a collision is never necessary but usually sufficient evidence of hindrance). The only other consideration is INT with the protected fielder. Here, unless the BR does something intentionally or prior to the fielder gloving the batted ball, we're probably sticking with the OBS call—as I'm envisioning the play, the collision occurred because of the OBS and during a tag attempt.
  10. If the idea is to keep it simple, this is fine. If umpires need a bit more to wrap their heads around the problem, just announcing "period" can seem tyrannical. Another approach for stubborn umpires: if we call just 1 out here, then either we have a third strike with no strikeout (batter out for his INT), or we have INT with no penalty (batter out for his K). Neither is fair to the defense.
  11. Sounds like an umpire who's been dying to apply a FED rules difference for his whole career, and finally had the chance. The other possibility is that he's been dying to call this to prompt FED to change their stupid case play. I've posted this a number of times at UE, but I will say it again. The definition of batter INT entails that F2 was hindered from playing on another runner. If we rule batter INT on strike 3, then by definition a "double play" was possible (batter out on strikes, runner out for the batter INT). So either it was batter INT with a K and we have 2 outs, or it was not batter INT because there was no hindrance. I have no idea what FED could be thinking in keeping a case play that allows conceptual space for ruling batter INT and NOT calling anyone out for it. No such conceptual space exists in the rules (true of all major codes). The only possible rationale for the stupid case play that I have been able to dream up over the years is that some misguided soul thought that consistency with FED's runner INT rule is required here. The runner INT rule allows the umpire to rule 2 out in cases where a double play was "possible," so it's conceivable that someone thought that the same standard should apply to batter INT. For reasons just given, it cannot. We don't, however, need a rule change. Just call batter INT in the appropriate way, and nobody (except possibly that guy in CT) will ever rule just one out here.
  12. maven

    Batter INT

    As always, no hindrance = no INT. As always, benefit of any doubt to the defense. And as always, make 'em big—we need to be able to point to the hindrance if the OC asks what he did, and to explain how that hindered the play of F2 on the runner.
  13. R2 is forced to advance for the standard reason: the batter became a runner. The BR's "right" to 1B is moot, and not part of the definition of a force play. Had the outfielder dropped the fly ball, could R2 have remained on 2B? Of course not: he's forced. The force is not off until the ball is caught, at which time runners become obligated to retouch. Runners have to hedge their bets and judge the likelihood of a catch when they determine how far to advance on the fly ball. Sometimes it's good to go back to very basic ideas and reconnect them in our minds. Thank you for the opportunity to think and talk through this connection.
  14. Umpires should use the proper term: it's a 'time play'. Would you call the alternative a 'forcing play'? No, it's a force play.
×
×
  • Create New...