mrumpiresir

I don't see MC here. I think a stern warning to both teams would be more appropriate Why do some umpires feel that there can be only the slightest incidental contact or someone has to go? I have seen many on these boards proclaim "the runner must slide or avoid". The rule book says "attempt to avoid". There can be legal, violent collisions in a HS game when everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing . We talk about the "wussification" of HS baseball and I think umpires who are quick to eject whenever contact occurs help to promote this thinking. I think the question I ask myself is "was there unnecessary contact that may cause injury or a blatant attempt to cause injury?". If so, ejection is warranted and required.

I'm guessing "BD" refers to "Batter Designated", and is a Google Translate version of "Designated Hitter". Under OBR, the DH would be out of the game when the pitcher goes to another fielding position, and would bat in the DH's place in the lineup, unless there were other fielding substitutions made in which case like with a double-switch the manager has to specify where the sub(s) and the former pitcher will bat. The former DH is now out of the game and can no longer participate. If he comes up to bat it's not a batting out of order situation, you stop him from participating. I know of rule sets, particularly where DHs are involved where changes involving the DH and pitcher are handled differently, so see your doctor if pain persists. There is a situation where the DH could go in on defense replacing F5 for example, and the pitcher would now bat in the spot F5 had previously occupied. The DH would still bat in his original position and now you have both the original F1 and the DH playing defense. The role of the DH is now terminated but the DH is not out of the game. See 6.10(b)(5).

No. There were two outs so the batter would be out if INT was called.

Had a coach, between innings tell me " You know that's a balk, don"t you?" I asked what the pitcher was doing and he said the pitcher was coming set while the batter was getting his signs from the 3BC and had one foot out of the batter's box. ?????? I just said OK. I didn't want to get in a pissing contest with this idiot. Where do they learn this nonsense?

Isn't there an interpretation somewhere that allows an out to be called out on a gross miss - perhaps when returning to a base? For instance: No outs. R1 stealing, batter hits long fly ball which is caught. R1 is almost halfway to third and cuts across the diamond to get back to first (missing 2nd by 15-20 feet), and beats the throw to first. Ordinarily, the defense would have to appeal that R1 missed 2nd on his way back, but it seems there is an interpretation out there somewhere that allows R1 to be called out without an appeal because he missed 2nd by so much on his way back. Am I imagining this? This still needs to be appealed by the defense. The gross miss applies when a runner later corrects his miss of a base (the last time by interpretation). A gross miss will not allow him to correct his base running error by touching the base the last time by. Not sure I see a difference. In both cases, the runner grossly missed on his last time by. Suppose R1 advances past second base on a fly ball to F8 but the ball is caught and the runner returns to first missing second by two inches on the way back. Suppose F8 now throws the ball OOP trying to double up R1. The umpire awards R1 third base and R1 touches 2nd on his way to third. He has corrected his base running error . Last time by. However if during his return to first he cuts across the infield and misses second by ten feet. This is a gross miss that cannot be corrected by last time by and R1 will be called out on appeal.

Isn't there an interpretation somewhere that allows an out to be called out on a gross miss - perhaps when returning to a base? For instance: No outs. R1 stealing, batter hits long fly ball which is caught. R1 is almost halfway to third and cuts across the diamond to get back to first (missing 2nd by 15-20 feet), and beats the throw to first. Ordinarily, the defense would have to appeal that R1 missed 2nd on his way back, but it seems there is an interpretation out there somewhere that allows R1 to be called out without an appeal because he missed 2nd by so much on his way back. Am I imagining this? This still needs to be appealed by the defense. The gross miss applies when a runner later corrects his miss of a base (the last time by interpretation). A gross miss will not allow him to correct his base running error by touching the base the last time by.

I understand that there are leagues and areas where buckets are unavoidable. If I lived there, I would: a. do as others suggest, namely rule each case as far as possible so that the bucketeers do not benefit from their illegal actions, and b. work with the powers that be to move the association in the direction of enforcing the rules. Buckets are always avoidable if they are completely within the dugout

You need to enforce all the rules, not just the ones you determine are important. How about you taking the lead and enforcing the rules as written and be man enough to point out to those won't enforce this that they are wrong? During an evaluation, at least around here, you will receive a major ding for allowing equipment on the field. Now I understand there may be politics involved, but I can't imagine you being ostracized for enforcing the rule.

I agree totally, but the reality is every team does it and every umpire in all the associations I work in allow it, and its an accepted practice anywhere you go. I just make sure the buckets are kept in front of the dugout entrance. It may be accepted practice anywhere you go but that's bad game management. Do your job and keep equipment out of live territory. So when everyone tells you to allow it, including those above you, you're supposed to fight the battle on this? No, I'd rather pick my battles. I don't know where you are, but I've umpired in four different states and nowhere I've been allows buckets on the field. Maybe you should find a better association, you know, one that abides by the rules.

I agree totally, but the reality is every team does it and every umpire in all the associations I work in allow it, and its an accepted practice anywhere you go. I just make sure the buckets are kept in front of the dugout entrance. It may be accepted practice anywhere you go but that's bad game management. Do your job and keep equipment out of live territory.

Today I heard the 1BC tell R1 to "break it up" if a ground ball was hit to an infielder. Now with the FPSR, the only way he could break it up legally would be to slide hard and make contact with F6 (or F4) on or in front of second base. Anything else would be interference. I didn't say anything to the coach, but thought that I should be on the lookout for the FPSR violation. There would probably be a S**tstorm but I would have to stand my ground.

Please.... Hawk Harrelson is an idiot.

I didn't think it was funny. I'd like to believe that during the rendition of "God Bless America" these men had a chance to reflect on the greatness of this country and realize that they are just playing a game. Alan Hess MSgt Retired, USAF

I still think if the umpire had confirmed F3 had possession of the ball he would have made the correct "Safe" call.

Right. Would you like to say why? A play is an attempt to retire a runner or BR. The flip to F4 was not an attempt to retire the BR.

I have never heard it done this way. Shouldn't you be looking at the foot and hear the "pop" of the ball into the glove? You will not see the foot touch the bag on a close play if you are watching the ball all the way into the glove. Once the ball is released from F4 or F6, you should be looking for the foot to hit the bag. In the video, I think the umpire was looking at the foot, heard the "pop" and ruled the "pop" came before the foot hit the bag. What he did wrong was not verifying F3 had secure possession of the ball. Correct IMHO to the last line. Unfortunately, from what I can surmise when watching a lot of non MLB games, is that a lot of umpires have not been taught to look at the foot and "listen" to the pop. They have either been taught to follow the ball into the glove and glance down, or they are in a group that offers no formal training and this is they technique they gravitate to by osmosis, or whatever, when they have to self-train themselves. The ah-ha moment is when they are taught the way you explained and all those safes now become outs. Even though the other way, by sight, caused them to miss the call IMHO by just a hair on that bang bang play every time, at least it was consistent and players on either side would know it was always a "safe call" whereas one going by "sound" and getting the call correct IMHO would always be an "out" call. I prefer outs to safes on bangers.

The relay throw to F4 was not the first play. Two bases from TOP unless BR had already reached 1st base.

I have never heard it done this way. Shouldn't you be looking at the foot and hear the "pop" of the ball into the glove? You will not see the foot touch the bag on a close play if you are watching the ball all the way into the glove. Once the ball is released from F4 or F6, you should be looking for the foot to hit the bag. In the video, I think the umpire was looking at the foot, heard the "pop" and ruled the "pop" came before the foot hit the bag. What he did wrong was not verifying F3 had secure possession of the ball.

Precisely why, as BU, I never advise the incoming pitcher as to the situation. If he asks me a specific question , I will consult with my partner and give him the answer.

Why didnt his parents have him remove it before he played? You mean, like, have them take some responsibility? Really doesn't happen much today.

Reading through this it sounds like F1 and F2 have the BR in a rundown between the plate and 1st base. Unless you are sure he intentionally interfered, play on.

Does anyone else think the PU is too close to the play?? These plays have a habit of blowing up on you when you are this close.

A tie is something you wear to a formal dinner.

What could Upton have been arguing? Did something happen earlier that we are not aware of? Certainly he isn't arguing the called third strike, because if he is, he is on a very short leash.

Well played JV game between two schools that have very good programs. With R1 and R3, pitcher has come set and is beginning his motion to the plate. Catcher yells "Step Off" but pitcher has raised his non-pivot foot off the ground and freezes at that point. After a brief pause he delivers the pitch. I called a balk for starting and stopping. Coach ask why and I said "starting and stopping". Coach: Well that's legal, he can stop. Me: No, once he starts that move he must deliver "without interruption". He can't hang his leg. Coach insisted he could raise his leg and come to a complete stop. I disagreed. What do you think?