mrumpiresir

I hope you are kidding.

Woodie, One more question that occurred to me. I have asked coaches to help me out and make sure an open gate is closed prior to beginning a game, and as a courtesy they always comply. But what are you going to do when you tell a head coach he is responsible for keeping a gate closed and his reply is: "No I'm not, that's not my job" ??

The role of the DH is terminated when the DH plays defense or the player he is batting for plays offense. The new batter could simply be a substitute for the DH and would not terminate the role of the DH.

My experience with new umpires is that they tend to call low strikes, sometimes pitches that are in the dirt. I believe this is caused by not tracking the pitch all the way into the catcher's mitt. I suggest you concentrate on this and see if your strike zone improves.

As stated by others, it is the pitchers job to deceive the runner. Deception is legal unless he violates one of the pitching rules. In other words, if you call a balk, you had better be able to state which rule was violated. Telling a coach the balk was called because the pitcher deceived the runner will seriously impact your ability to move up to higher quality of games.

I'm with noumpere . I'm surprised we have three pages on this. A batted ball that goes sharp and direct to the catcher's hand or mitt and is held is a foul tip. A batted ball that goes sharp and direct to the catcher's hand and pops out but is subsequently held, even if it rebounds off the mask, is a foul tip. A batted ball that goes sharp and direct and hits the catcher anywhere besides his hand or mitt is a foul ball and immediately dead of course. I guess if the players are eight years old this could happen. Doesn't really happen with big boy ball.

I've been out of the loop for a while. What is the change?

I've heard of this. It's a misconception. The PU has the official line up and it is to be followed throughout the game. BOO does not change the order. A couple of years ago I had a disagreement with two umpires at CDP who insisted the coach gets an option on whether to take the penalty for a balk or the result of the play. They walked away when I pulled out a rulebook to prove them wrong. Where does this crap come from?

Thanks for the answer Rich. That certainly sounds reasonable. Why in the world does the rulebook include "bounds to the outfield"? If I had my way, I would revise this to be more in line with the way it is called. "A batted bounding ball that crosses over any portion of first or third base is a fair ball". It's the outfield because it's beyond the infield. Where does it say it has to be the fair part of it? It's not in the outfield if it crosses the bag and leaves the infield perpendicular to baseline and ends up in foul territory. A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that is on or over fair territory when bounding to the outfield past first or third base, or that touches first, second or third base, or that first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base, or that, while on or over fair territory touches the person of an umpire or player, or that, while over fair territory, passes out of the playing field in flight. I was hoping you would chime in because I know you tend to be a literal interpreter of the rules. I understand your previous post concerning the point of the base being pretty much the same as the bag. In the OP. I was trying to make it clear that the ball never reached the outfield.

Thanks for the answer Rich. That certainly sounds reasonable. Why in the world does the rulebook include "bounds to the outfield"? If I had my way, I would revise this to be more in line with the way it is called. "A batted bounding ball that crosses over any portion of first or third base is a fair ball".

I agree with you 100%, That's the way it is called and should be called. I was just wondering if this had been discussed before and what thoughts others have on this. My thought is that it's not worth much thought nor discussion. We know the book is flawed, so pointing this out isn't terribly interesting or new. I was not aware that this error in the book was well known. Just trying to start a discussion on something I found odd, and because I find myself with too much time on my hands.

I agree with you 100%, That's the way it is called and should be called. I was just wondering if this had been discussed before and what thoughts others have on this.

That's what a literal interpretation of the written rule would suggest.

I'm not sure where your confusion arises. If a batted ball bounces first in front of the base and then crosses over the base, that's the definition of 'bounding'. The ball you're describing bounded into the outfield, and was a fair ball. This is not a "technical" call. I'm not confused and I understand what a bounding ball is. I know it's highly unlikely that what I described in the OP will ever occur and I'm certainly not suggesting that we call it differently than we have been calling it all our lives. I'm just saying that a ball that never goes beyond the back edge of the bag does not meet the definition of a fair ball according to the book. A ball first hitting fair, going over the base, then hitting foul happens very often, probably once per game at least. It's a fair ball. Heck - this is one even the TV announcers get right. I agree with that, but what I'm saying is that we will probably never see a batted ball cross the bag but not continue beyond the back edge of the bag.

I'm not sure where your confusion arises. If a batted ball bounces first in front of the base and then crosses over the base, that's the definition of 'bounding'. The ball you're describing bounded into the outfield, and was a fair ball. This is not a "technical" call. I'm not confused and I understand what a bounding ball is. I know it's highly unlikely that what I described in the OP will ever occur and I'm certainly not suggesting that we call it differently than we have been calling it all our lives. I'm just saying that a ball that never goes beyond the back edge of the bag does not meet the definition of a fair ball according to the book.

Since the season is slowing down for most of us, I wanted to discuss something that I’ve been wondering about. According to OBR and NFHS rules, a batted ball which is on or over fair ground when bounding to the outfield past first or third base is a fair ball. The key phrase in the rule is “when bounding to the outfieldâ€. We all know that first and third base are entirely in the infield. So if a batter hits one of those cues shots off the bat and the ball hits the ground, takes a hard left turn, crosses the front edge of third base, and bounds to foul territory before it passes the back edge of the bag, should it be fair or foul since it did not bound to the outfield? I have always called a ball that passes over any part of first or third a fair ball. Is this the correct call according to the book? I hope Mr. Rich Ives will chime in because I could not help but notice he is a stickler for the literal interpretation.

I don't bring a cooler or even a bottle of water on the field. I find that I can usually get through a 2 or 3 hour game with no problem and I have worked in some dry environments. If I felt I needed some water, I have gone to a dugout or the concession stand and asked. They are always happy to oblige. Often at the plate meeting, one of the coaches will let us know that they have water available if we need it. I have worked games where some young fellow will hustle out between innings and bring us water even though we had not requested it. So in my experience, I don't feel a need to bring my own water on the field. Of course it is necessary to keep yourself hydrated throughout the season. I do keep my cooler in the car and usually drink a quart of Gatorade or water after the game.

I'm haven't watched the video yet on purpose and basing my comment on what I've read. Why was this obstruction and not the OP? What was obvious in your sit that wasn't in the OP. In my play the catcher obviously grabbed the runner to prevent him from scoring while he searched for the ball. In the OP it seemed that there was a tangle and both players were mostly doing what they were supposed to be doing. I think that you could call obstruction in the OP if you judge the defensive player was doing something other than merely trying to find the ball.

I had a similar play at the plate. The big difference was that the catcher, while reaching for the ball, reached out and wrapped his other arm around the runner as he tried to reach the plate. It was so obvious, so I awarded the runner the plate.

Three base award for touching a fair ball with detached equipment.

Thanks to Rich and noumpere for posting. I was unaware and too lazy to look them up.

Doesn't matter. In FED it's an automatic one base (mimimum) award. In OBR if the runner is obstructed before reaching first it's a dead ball and an automatic award of first base. 7.06(a ). I know what the rule is but I started thinking about a situation where the obstruction has no affect on the play. Suppose a batter hits a high, lazy fly ball to F8 which is caught. The batter is obstructed after rounding first base. We are not going to award the batter second base on a caught fly ball to the outfield are we? I agree that if the runner was obstructed on a close play where there is some doubt, we should call obstruction. But if the runner was at the 45 ft line, and had no chance to beat the throw, I don't believe I would have obstruction, unless he was knocked down or grabbed. Probably a htbt situation. Do we have any leeway on this?

Where was the throw when the batter runner slowed down? If the throw beat him by a significant margin would he have been out regardless of the obstruction? This sounds like a situation where your good judgement comes into play.

Just curious where all this discussion about a "pop up" comes from. This was a batted ball that bounced in front of the plate, then went in the air down the first base line. If this was a pop up we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I have always looked for a distinct move when he legally steps back off the rubber. If I don't see the "distinct move", and in the video it looks more like a spin move from the rubber, he had better throw to first or I'm balking him.