Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/29/2021 in all areas

  1. First, let’s look at current NFHS rule 1-5-11: ART. 11 . . . Non-traditional playing equipment must be reviewed by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee before it will be permitted to be used. As far as I can tell the last time the FED ruled on anything technology-related was in 2015 when they approved dugout usage of video monitoring or replay equipment for coaching purposes during games. The rule governing the use of technology aids by the coach is 3-3-1h and is illustrated in related case plays 3.3.1 Situations O and P (also see case plays 3.3.1 OO and PP for video). Since there
    3 points
  2. Although the bar for INT is lower for retired runners than it is for runners, the retired runner is not required to disappear, and returning to the dugout across the field during a live ball is legal. There is no INT in this situation unless the retired runner intentionally interferes with the throw (say, by backing up into it or reaching out to knock down the ball). Mechanics: a no-call (signal "safe" and verbalize "that's nothing!") is advisable here. It shows that we saw the action and have ruled that it's not illegal. Same ruling for all codes.
    2 points
  3. Shaun, Jim's not trying to "make you out to be an idiot". Jim subscribes to the sacrosanct-ness of the Rules, which is if there is INT, then there must be (somebody) Out. And, in the Fed rulebook especially, we (umpires, the rules) penalize to prevent. Why is Obstruction a mandatory 1-base award, even for something as "innocuous" as faking a tag, or blocking off 1B on a pickoff attempt? Because the penalty's drastic weight is to deter repetition or future occurrences. Same here for this interpreted or perceived INT. If we merely kill it, and (re-)place R3 back on 3B again, what's to deter a Re
    1 point
  4. This is no different than a batter striking out and as he steps across the plate to return to his dugout the catcher hits him in the helmet with the ball while trying to return it to the pitcher--and I have had this happen more than once. As luck would have it, Mr. aaluck, there is an entry in the 2016 BRD that deals with a batter being struck by a catcher’s return toss to his pitcher. Here is what it says (section 288, p. 188): FED: No provision. Treat as in NCAA. 2019-2020 NCAA rule 7 When Batter or Batter-Runner Is Out SECTION 11. A batter is out when: f. The batt
    1 point
  5. I think that we are making this far more complex than need be. This is no different than a batter striking out and as he steps across the plate to return to his dugout the catcher hits him in the helmet with the ball while trying to return it to the pitcher--and I have had this happen more than once. So if the ball goes to the backstop and R3 scores do we have interference? If we do then we all have to start calling time to remove retired folks off the diamond safely. There are countless situations (not plays) when this could and does happen. Throwing the ball to the pitcher after
    1 point
  6. But aside from just being snide, my question actually has a basis in the rules - we can't allow them to have anything inside their helmet that isn't NOCSAE approved.
    1 point
  7. Is it NOCSAE approved?
    1 point
  8. Your last sentence is not accurate, as shown above. The problem is finding a rules basis for the solution you and others have proposed. We can call it INT and have it supported (and being the harsh consequence,) we can find support to call it nothing and play on as there was no play, but there just isn't something (to my knowledge) that can split the difference.
    1 point
  9. I'd favor this over @Thunderheads's vaunted Douglas WV. Thinner, too.
    1 point
  10. Here’s the official interpretation that can be found in the 2016 BRD (section 290, p. 190): OBR Official Interpretation: Wendelstedt: After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher’s throw must be intentional for interference to be called. For the FED the BRD states that there is no provision and to treat it as in OBR.
    1 point
  11. Agree. The applicable standard is: INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. FED's case play about a thrown bat hitting the throw applies a different standard, because F2 cannot reasonably be expected to play around a flying bat (which is under the batter's control and thus his responsibility). F2 can be expected to play around the BR, esp. on a throw to 3B.
    1 point
  12. I might be reading too much into this thread, but I want to point out that it is a common myth that an appeal on a runner leaving the base early is a FORCE play. Not so! It is an appeal play and timing rules might determine if a run scores before the third out is made. Third out on a real force play means no runs score; but third out on an appeal may or may not allow the run to score based on the time that the runner touches the plate. Note also that the defense may appeal for an advantageous fourth out if R3's running violation is appealed. Mike Las Vegas
    1 point
  13. Freshly chopped Nike, mizuno pads, mizuno harness and samurai shovel (no dent, just the angle lol)
    1 point
  14. Clearly it was his own kid.
    1 point
  15. Any new guys on this site who hasn't seen this thread ....it's fun, and if you do tournaments .... this makes your life very easy!   No, it's not about mechanics, rules, or situations, but it's here in the equipment forum.  And, ...it IS ABOUT being organized and prepared for you to do the best job you can.   With it being mid-February, and a LOT of us are in the deep freeze, buried under FEET of snow, OR BOTH ..........well ....I thought this would help   Enjoy!
    1 point




×
×
  • Create New...