Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Your coworkers are correct in OBR. Even though MLB reworded the rule this regarding when a runner will be out there still is some confusion. But the Major League Baseball Umpire Manual has made it clear for a few years: Here is what the 2017 MLBUM says when referring to a runner being hit by a batted ball:"TO SUMMARIZE:A runner is always out when struck by a batted ball (unintentional on the part of the runner) unless:(1) The ball has been touched by an infielder; or(2) The ball has passed through or by an infielder AND no other infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball."The MLBUM also specifies that "by" means immediately by an infielder making a play on the ball. With infielders playing normal the Wendelstedt Umpire School will not protect R1, being hit by a ball thru or by F3, since a professional F4 will be considered to be able to make a play on that ball.
  3. I am interested in the shovel. I’ll send you a pm.
  4. Sorry, need to fix a typo in my question: "My coworkers' position on this seems loosely and indirectly supported by wording in a rule regarding when the call ball is to be called dead (but not in the rule regarding when the runner is to be called out)."
  5. Hello, watching a recent play involving a St. Louis Cardinals baserunner not being called out after being hit by a batted ball led to a friendly disagreement between me and a few of my coworkers. We understand that a baserunner is out if he is struck by a batted ball. We also understand that he is NOT out if the batted ball that strikes him was first misplayed by a fielder who was in front of the basepath and THEN the ball hit him. This is an exception to the basic rule and is well explained within the rule book. No argument so far. But my colleagues claim there is an exception to the exception if another player behind the baserunner could have made a play, in which case the baserunner should be declared out after all. Let me describe a scenario for this case: Runner on second. Third baseman is playing in and way off the line. Shortstop is deep and swung around into the "5.5 hole." Batter hits a grounder to the left side. The third baseman reaches down but it goes under his glove and hits the baserunner passing by a few feet behind him. Meanwhile, behind both of them the shortstop was circling to the ball and would likely have scooped it up with a possible play at first had the ball not hit the runner. My friends say that the presence of another fielder (the shortstop in this example) with a chance to make a play on the ball dictates that the runner is to be called out after all and the exception of the third baseman having first made a play (misplay) before the runner was struck does not apply. I maintain that the second fielder behind the baserunner is irrelevant. If a batted ball passes by a fielder before striking a baserunner, the baserunner is NOT out (assuming the contact between the ball and the baserunner was inadvertent/unintentional), and it doesn't matter whether or not any other players are positioned behind that point nor whether or not they had the chance to make any play on the ball. My coworkers' position on this seems loosely and indirectly supported by wording in a rule regarding when the call is to be called dead (but not in the rule regarding when the runner is to be called out). My position is based on the absence of any language describing this situation and no mention of it in any section listing the ways a baserunner or batter or batter/runner can be declared out. I hope my question is clear. So, who is right? And importantly, where is the rule or combination of rules that make it so? Thank you!!
  6. Today
  7. The protected player must not be "interfered" with in making the play on the ball. Contact does not need to occur, simply making that player "move" to avoid a collision is enough. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
  8. Little league rules. "In field fly, runner is out if fair" is what needed to have been said. The runners only have to "tag up" if the ball is caught. The batter-runner is out if the ball remains in fair territory, or is touched in fair territory by a defender. If it.is foul, thsn itnis foul. I did not see interference as the 1st baseman was chasing the ball. However, If it was interference then the batter-runner is out anyway (IFF or not), BUT this time all runners return. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
  9. maven

    Appeal play

    A proper retouch appeal involves tagging the runner or the original base left too early. In this case, that's 1B. Same rule in FED (8-2-6 PENALTY) and OBR (5.09(c)(1)). Tagging 2B is not an appeal. And there's no such thing as an "implicit" or "implied" appeal: it's either proper or improper. For a missed base appeal, it's possible to appeal any of the missed bases, if more than one. That's not true for retouch appeals, even though R1 in this play had to "retouch" both 2B and 1B.
  10. I was going to post something similar. I'm not getting two outs here. Keep in mind that when a retired runner "interferes," he must actually hinder the defense from playing on another runner. That did not happen here. The batter-runner, who was out on the IFF, hindered the fielder (maybe) from catching the ball. However, there was no other play to be made. But let's say R3 was running on the crack of the bat and the defense might have been able to put her out on appeal for leaving early, then we could get another out here. As is, only the BR is out and the play at home never happened.
  11. I also say shame on the manager for not coming out to question the call
  12. I "loosley" breaking the rule? I guess the devil is in the details, eh? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
  13. Unrelated x2 I also coach...Junior baseball these days (open bases) I have a separate set of signs and the coach that i have worked with for years has a separate set. He tells the batter to hit/bunt, i tell them where to hit the ball to in the field. He tells the runnwr to steal, i tell them what i see the pitcher doing and what to look for in his motion. We look like a couple of psychotic solid gold dancers. I try to make it fun for the players and will often "talk" signs to them. It sounds like i am chastising them, but the batters understand and make appropriate adjustments. Go ahead and try to read some of my signs and jibber-jabber...good luck. Sometimes my boys do not know what i am asking them to do, so I will (on occasion) tell them to "bunt and steal" out loud. Ha ha ha. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
  14. Mets broadcaster Keith Hernandez took issue with MLB umpires ("Awful!") for a missed HR call (correctly overturned via Replay Review) despite Keith himself having missed the same call during his first (and second) viewing of the play. With the bases loaded during Friday's Mets-Royals game, 1B... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] View the full article
  15. jjskitours

    Appeal play

    With R1 and one out, B3 hits a fly ball to right field. R1 who was stealing on the pitch believes the ball will drop in and heads for 3rd. As he gets near there, the coach screams for him to go back to first since F9 caught the fly ball. R1 turns around to go back, but before he reaches second base, F9 throws the ball to F4 who steps on second base and looks at the umpire implying that he is making an appeal. R1 having touched second base, runs back to first and stands on the bag. Is R1 out on the implied appeal or must either he or 1st base be tagged (Fed and OBR)
  16. Definitely a blown call! B4 is out for IFF--ball still in play. R2 was either tagged or went more than 3-feet out of the base bath. (No call! Umps were napping!) IMO, third out was accomplished BEFORE R3 scored. One rare time the broadcast crew got all the rules right! Mike Las Vegas
  17. When I was in Virginia, the umpire quizzes always contained this question: Describe how you could have a triple play without the defense ever touching the ball! The clue is to understand what things can happen and keep the ball in play, and those which don't--the ball is immediately dead. One solution is started with the bases loaded. B4 hits an IFF (one out; ball still in play). A runner passes another. (two outs, ball still in play). Another runner interferes with the fielder camping under the fly ball (third out, and the ball is immediately dead on the INT.) Yeah, not likely to happen, but it illustrates what can happen and your knowledge of the rules. So you could have a double play on a declared IFF (that is determined to be a fair ball) and then a runner who interferes with a fielder making the play. Definitely can happen. Mike Las Vegas
  18. I’m not buying into getting an out on R3. Assuming you call INT, ( which I disagree with , but is debatable) the ball is dead the moment of the INT. Therefore, there’s no way the interference by the BR ( or retired runner, whatever you want to call her) hindered a play on R3 because, the ball is dead and there is no play on another runner. So if INT is indeed called here, the ball is dead immediately the interference is on the BR for hindering R3’s ability to catch the pop up. Batter is out, ball is dead, fair foul is irrelevant and all runners return TOP.
  19. Perhaps. Sound reasoning. I struggle with getting 2 outs minus something intentional by the batter runner. Unless we somehow determine the running the bases after being put out in and of itself is interference (which it isn't by rule) Just seems like a REALLY stiff penalty for a very minimal infraction...not that those can't happen, but I don't feel like that's how and why the rules were written. After all, IFF is in place to protect the offense from cheap double plays...this might be the cheapest of cheap double plays. IFF or interference by the B/R gets the defense one out I could see a savvy coach coaching his kids to create contact to get a cheap DP. I'm not sure there would be an easier way to get a runner out at 3B than a play like this. I like the "he's out until it's foul" philosophy. Perhaps that's the key? That being said, I'm not saying I'm right. Just attempting to put some common sense into this.
  20. The declaration (or lack of) is completely irrelevant on an infield fly. The existence of the situation is what matters. The batter is out once the ball is hit (popped up). You are correct that you need a fair ball. However you are incorrect in thinking the ball is neither fair nor foul while in flight. The language of the rule indicates the batter is out until it is a foul ball. There is no time in between and no “indeterminate” status. As you pointed out, fair/foul doesn’t change the interference ... it only changes the status of the former batter (now either a batter-runner or a retired runner) which changes the penalty.
  21. Sound reasoning...but the issue I have with this interpretation is that the ruling could literally change over the course of the game and certainly from game to game. If the timing of the declaration or failure to declare is the test as to when the batter runner is "out" that changes how the play would be officiated. Failure to declare or declared after the interference call, then we have a different call than if it were declared prior to the interference. (Let's just agree that it's interference b/c that's not what's debated here) I guess in my mind, the timing of the umpire(s)' declaration of IFF or not, should not be the determining factor as to whether or not we get one or two outs here. I will maintain that we need a fair ball for there to be an IFF. When the ball is in flight, we don't have a fair or foul ball. Runner interference does not require us to decide if the ball is fair or foul, only if the defense was hindered or impeded from making a play on a batted ball. Thanks for the continued debate. I think there is already a thread on this, but I'm fine letting this one continue here with the support of the other mods. Thanks again
  22. Since this is extremely unlikely in NFHS baseball, let’s go to NFHS Softball (2016) for the logic of the play ... Rule 8 Batter-Runner and Runner SECTION 3 TOUCHING BASES IN LEGAL ORDER ART. 3 . . . When a runner or batter-runner acquires the right to a base by touching it before being put out, the runner or batter-runner is entitled to hold the base until touching the next base in order or is forced to vacate it for a succeeding runner. Since no play was made behind R3, R3 is forced to vacate third base. It is no longer a “safe haven” for R3, even if R3 is still touching it. SECTION 6 THE RUNNER IS OUT A runner is out when: ART. 3 . . . On a force play, a fielder contacts the base while holding the ball, touches the ball to the base or tags the runner before the runner reaches the base. R3 is forced to advance, so the only base she can “reach” safely is the next base, not the base held at the start of the play. I have a triple play.
  23. LRZ

    Triple play question

    If the third baseman tags the base first, he has retired R2 and removed the force on R3. So, yes, tag the runner first, then the base.
  24. Well ... I didn’t initially agree with this, but after digging into the NFHS rules ... Rule 2 Definitions SECTION 30 INFIELD FLY RULE Infield fly rule is, when declared by the umpire, a fair fly (not including a line drive or an attempted bunt) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort when runners are on first and second or all three bases are occupied and before there are two outs in the inning. Any defensive player positioned in the infield at the time of the pitch shall be considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule. The rule does not preclude outfielders from being permitted to make the catch. The ball is live, the batter is out, which removes the force, but runners may advance at their own risk. The runners may tag up and advance as soon as the batted ball is touched by a fielder. If a declared infield fly becomes foul, it is treated as a foul ball, not an infield fly. The definition indicates the batter is immediately out (remember, the declaration is not needed). Should the ball become a foul ball, the ruling is reversed and treated as a foul ball. The batter is NOT granted some mystic status between out and safe during the ball’s flight. SECTION 50 RUNNER, RETIRED RUNNER ART. 1 . . . Runner. A runner is an offensive player who is advancing to, touching or returning to a base. ART. 2 . . . Retired Runner. A retired runner is a player who has scored, or who has been put out and who is still in live-ball territory. Ergo, the batter runner is now a retired runner (to be reversed ONLY after the ball is foul IF it ends up being a foul ball). Which takes us to: SECTION 6 THE RUNNER IS OUT A runner is out when: ART. 16 . . . Any coach or member of the offensive team, other than a runner, interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play. This includes, but is not limited to: c. After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule. PENALTY: (Art. 16) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. Pretty cut and dry. Personally, I was inclined to give the batter runner the same status we grant on a dropped third strike ... that is to say we grant the batter runner the natural tendency of running out the play and we put the onus on the defense to know the situation. However, since 6-16-c specifically grants that status only on dropped third strike, we cannot use it here. Ruling: The batter becomes a retired runner upon hitting the fly ball (infield fly = out). The retired runner does not have any protection, so the interference with F3 is indeed interference by a retired runner. The runner attempting to score is also out by rule. Now, you can argue that the retired runner did not interfere, and I suppose that is a judgment call on the interference. Personally, the retired runner had no right to continue running, thus had no right to be where she was at. She took a path directly between the fielder and the ball as the fielder was moving towards the ball. It is difficult to tell if the fielder makes the last second “lunge” because she misjudged it or because of the retired runner. Since the retired runner shouldn’t have been there and failed to vacate the area, I have an interference call.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...