Leaderboard

No, I've only been able to find mention of it, not the actual source. And the more I look the more I see that if he said/wrote it, he probably did so in the 90's. And if he did say it, it's probably just another example of an experienced official outsmarting himself. It doesn't particularly make sense to me either, for the exact scenario you're talking about and it does seem to contradict the OBR rule which talks about a play already in progress before CI - that to me seems to imply no batted ball is needed. That's why I'm asking the question. It seems it's come up more than few times on many message boards in the past few decades...I'm just surprised to not find anything official, to the specific scenarios of the batter missing the ball because enough people are asking. Having said that, a passed ball/wild pitch that results from the CI (ie. R3 doesn't leave until after CI) isn't a "play already in progress". The problems with killing the run in your scenario aside, I can see, and live with, an argument that if no baserunners are stealing/running on the pitch, and the ball isn't hit, then there's no option to decline, in order to shut down the scenario where the batter hitting the catcher's glove causes both the batter and the catcher to miss the ball. I know it's self inflicted, I know the defense broke a rule, but it's also a SH*# show. I don't know if I'd make that decision if I was a rules official...I'm simply saying I could live with it. The defense is still getting penalized (batter goes to first)...it's simply unfortunate that in that particular scenario the penalty has no impact. That's not the only rule in the game that has this issue from time to time. Having said that, if your scenario does occur I could ask you, while I'm nodding my head, if in your judgment R3 was stealing...at least in FED. "Any runner attempting to advance (i.e., steal or squeeze) on a catcher’s obstruction of the batter shall be awarded the base he is attempting." The FED example earlier in the thread, though a foul ball, clearly indicates there doesn't even really need to be a "play", per se, to accept...in that case, the coach just accepted the foul ball for a strike, because he wanted to keep that batter at the plate, likely due to a weak on deck batter (as the opposing coach that would telegraph that I should IBB the batter). My personal opinion, that's not the spirit of the rule. But, it's likely the best black and white line we can draw and measure against, if any pitch is indeed a play (or does it need to be a foul ball?). And I know it's two different rule sets, but this position would make the OBR statement of "a play already progress" redundant.

Thank you for that informative post, Mr. maven. Did you happen to notice that the citation in my post came from a pro interpretation manual? The pro interpretation manuals dating back to at least 2007 (the oldest manuals I have) cover this question. Since it is as you say so rare above 3U level, could you tell us why they bother when space is at a premium in their book please? Come to think of it, the FED actually has a case play dealing with this very question in their 2019 case book— 2.28.3 Situation A: R3 is on third and R1 on first with no outs. F1 contacts the pitcher’s plate and assumes the set position stance. As he begins his stretch, R1 advances toward second base attempting to steal. F1 realizes R1 is stealing but he does not throw to second, fearing that R3 will break for home and score. F1 completes his stretch, coming to a pause with the ball in both hands in front of his body. R1 reaches second and rounds it, after which F1 delivers the ball to B3, who fouls a pitch into the stands. RULING: R1 is allowed to remain on second because he was there prior to the time of the pitch. The definition of “time of the pitch” determines the base to which R1 is entitled.

I've never seen a runner complete a stolen base before the pitcher starts his motion to pitch. So, in my experience, the runner always has to tag up. This could happen in 3U or whatever nonsense people are doing now, but it would never happen above 10U.

I have another pair of New Balance Plate Shoes (Brand New) older style, but never worn. Size 12E (Wide). If interested let me know if you are interested in them and if you are around the San Francisco Bay Area or Sacramento Area we could meet up. Asking $100.00 for them.

You misunderstood my point… that you’re required to wear navy isn’t the issue, or the problem; that you show up – in full navy uniform – for a meeting or class, as some kind of virtue signal that you wholeheartedly embrace & endorse stubborn traditionalism, is the issue. It’s like attending a simple meeting for Disney employees in full costume, or a veteran’s reunion (reunion, not a honorary event or funeral) in dress blues. Ya just look… well… completely over the top, and if you are in a state that (clings to) requires navy, and a majority of your colleagues have been trying to get the state / association to loosen up and modernize… you can expect to get some odd stares.