Pops

That happens to me as well...every time I place my nutty buddy into my jock strap a grandma walks by my car and pretends not to look. If she smiles, I'm not sure if that's good or bad (I've never had the courage to ask). Then the girls tennis team goes by as well. I'm gonna wind up on u-tube one of these days.

For me, there are never any locker rooms open for umpires at the high schools or local parks. So all preparation is done at your vehicle. I would guess that 90% of the umpires I have worked with drive to the parking lot with their ump pants already on. Some have their shirts and shoes already on as well. And there's something unappealing about skin exposure at 40 degree temps with the wind blowing at 20 mph, so if you have the bases that day, you get ready at home.

Good points. Then from a coaching point of view, they should probably teach their players not to move when they see a potential FTI call. No movement, no hindrance, no INT.

Leggings are great because they allow your shin guards and straps to "float" without rubbing the skin. I even wear them in the summer, but make sure you get performance "wicking" material so that the sweat doesn't make you feel wet. I think it also helps keep your pants drier and they will last longer as a result.

That's just the problem here: we do not kill it without reason. If it's not in 5-1-1, we don't kill it. If there's no infraction, then you must leave the ball live, and R1 will get 2B. We certainly NEVER kill it without good reason while there is action on the bases. @Jimurray posted a relevant NFHS interp: This play illustrates how FED wants this called: even though F2 has no play on R1 and attempts no throw, we're still ruling BI/FTI here. Batter out, runner returns. As we all know, FED is considerably stricter about BI than OBR. It seems to me that some folks (not accusing anyone!) might be looking for a way to sneak OBR's backswing INT rule into FED. I have no problem if you prefer OBR's ruling on this play to FED's; but let's be clear that they ARE different, and that (many of us) are paid to enforce FED rules in FED games. Maven: Thank you for your comments. I don't disagree with you entirely because you are drawing a reasonable conclusion from a poorly written rule, but the first time I have to tell an OC that his batter is out for FTI in this case, I'm not going to have much to tell him to defend my position. Have you had this happen yet? Has anyone on this site called it the way the OP is written? Also, let's say that the runner stands still after the batter's follow-through hits F2. Do you agree that you should call nothing except a dead ball? Or is the batter out for that as well?

That's the point. It doesn't say that in the rule book or case book. It's vague and needs to be made clearer by the Fed rule writers. We are all interpreting various parts of the book differently which can only lead to inconsistencies on the field. So while I agree with you, I still say that calling an automatic out on FTI (when the runner is just standing there) doesn't make sense to me.

Maven: I have a lot of respect for your input to this site. There are very few who are more knowledgeable than you. You have the ability to breakdown a poster's comments and make them see your point of view. However, I need to breakdown your comments below because I respectfully disagree with your logic on this post. The reason I see rule 7.3.5 as "vague" is because it lacks verbiage to cover the situation in the OP. While I agree that the rule prohibits the batter hindering F2 from "fielding" the ball, it also says, "which hinders .... the catcher's attempt to play on a runner." In the OP there is no play on a runner until after the contact was made. To my reasoning, case 7.3.5c is not a good example to apply to the OP. You mention that there's "no infraction by the batter that is penalized only by returning runners" but you are assuming that the OP contains an infraction. I view the play as one that can be killed and therefore no infraction occurs. I hope I have kept my comments civilized enough to avoid upsetting an amazing poster.

I've read this situation in the case book, and I don't think we can use it to justify calling the batter out in the original post. In this case book play, the batter is out for interference on himself because it's an uncaught third strike situation where he committed FTI. You have to kill the play here to prevent F2 from throwing the ball to 1B. So the case book does not address the original post where the runner is not intending to steal until he sees the ball get knocked out of the catcher's glove.

Why wouldn't the batter be out? FED says he's responsible for his follow-through. I say no because the rule is vague and implies that the catcher must first have a play to make before the infraction occurs. At least that's how I read it. And it also says that a runner has to be on base in the first place. Must a potential play on a runner be necessary before the batter is called out? If a runner is just standing there after the FTI, I wouldn't call it. I think the rule was put in place only for those times when there is a potential play on the runner. And in my original post, there is no play until after the bat hits F2.

Here in Illinois it's currently 4 degrees, the ground is ice covered, and the last thing most people think about is baseball. But in January I start preparing for the upcoming spring HS season by reading all the old posts on this site from the off-season that I might have missed. It starts stimulating the brain again to think umpiring. So I was looking through the follow-through interference posts from October and found that one scenario was not completely answered. The pre-season guide addresses the change in terminology to FTI, but does not address this scenario: 1 out, first pitch to B, R1 not stealing B swings and misses Follow through hits F2 glove and knocks ball away R1 sees this happen and advances to 2B I can't see anything in the Fed rules or case book that specifically addresses this play. I would be inclined to kill the play and send the runner back to first. To do anything else just doesn't seem right. What say you?

The proper mechanic is as was mentioned -- the BU kills it if he sees it. If he doesn't kill it, there's no need to go to him -- you've already effectively done so. Now, if either the BU or the PU doesn't know or follow the correct mechanic, then all bets are off. I agree with your statement about the mechanic. But we've all worked with partners who are not real sharp, so I would not tell the coach anything about my partner's responsibility. Guyinaredhat did, and it came back to bite him.

The only mistake you made is when you were talking to the HC..."I tell the HC that I didn't have it, and that if my partner had it he would have killed it , but that I would go for help." I wouldn't have mentioned my partner at all and waited until the coach asked me to go to him for help.

Do you have an online source for this stat that I can follow?

That's what I did just recently. But I didn't like the TW logo, so I used nail polish remover and a white cotton cloth (and a lot of rubbing) to take the TW logo off those pads.

What's the Vegas odds on a Cubs WS win? I like history and I like baseball. History tells me the Cubs haven't won a WS in over 100 years. After watching them play in recent years, I'm not sure it's baseball they're playing.

The Cubs will not win the World Series. How's that for a safe bet?

I thought it was just me also.

His demeanor is completely the opposite of the one from the OP. It's refreshing to see a quick ejection on arguing a judgement call and will send a message to coaches who want to do the same.

We need more 16 year olds like this. He'll remember this for the rest of his life and so will the ump.

Our HS assigner limits us to 4 or 5 games at the home team's field. This eliminates both the animosity factor (if they don't like you) and the "friends" perception (if they like you too much) when an ump sees a head coach and players too often. It may not be real, but by limiting visits to their field, you limit the potential of these problems during a game. I like this policy because I'd rather see a variety of teams and fields over the course of the HS season. And in a large population area, it works great. Those of you in smaller markets may not have that choice unless you travel long distances.

No, it's the umpire's job to know the rules. Do many know them…yes. They're paid to teach kids how to play baseball and hopefully win a few games. I agree that coaches will not know the rules as thoroughly as umpires, but they should know enough of them to be able to teach their players. Part of teaching kids how to play baseball is how to use the rules to their advantage to win games. And when players know the rules, they become smarter players and will whine less on the field.

Good for you! Here in Illinois we woke up to another inch of snow and it's currently 25 degrees. My first scheduled game is in 2 days...but I don't think so.

I like the fact that you leave some flexibility while others are very rigid in their thinking. Also, I think black ball bags go with any color shirt...you're already wearing a black belt and black shoes...Just my opinion.

How about 7 inches? If it's 7 or 8 pitches inside, they shouldn't be asking where the pitch was and I certainly don't think I need to tell them that it was inside. Now maybe 3-4 inches yes.