grayhawk

Good question! If the runner slid completely past the base, then he is assumed to have touched it, so the run would score. However, if the defense appeals that the runner missed the base and the appeal is upheld, then it would take the run off the board.

Do what I do - don't look at the players! You won't see the scowls and you'll be much happier.

I'm happy that my furthest travel time is about an hour. DHs are a grind, especially when it's two 9s.

Hope they all go well! Heading into JUCO Regionals this weekend. U1 tomorrow, then PU for Regional final Sunday and U3 for the IF game.

Nah Rich, it's you Seriously, sorry you've had a rough year. I can't say I've seen a difference between this year and previous years, but I did have an ejection of an assistant coach and I haven't had one for a while. I suspect most of the issues you've had have been in HS and not college? I know you mentioned some idiotic fans at a college game, but this is more the exception I hope? Hang in there and just make sure you and your brothers have each others' backs. They're the only ones that matter.

I do think interference should have been called. F2 stepped right on the bat, and even if it hindered him for a brief moment, it still hindered him. Think of some obstruction calls that are made in MLB where the runner is barely hindered and those calls are still made. However, I do not think the protest will stand unless the crew's explanation was that the batter-runner didn't do it intentionally or something else that showed the rule was misapplied.

You might be trying too hard to find balks. 10 or more in 9 games with 8 of them varsity? I'm guessing most of them are no stops? Don't make a balk your best call.

Do you even lift, bro?

Eject the catcher and call the police. Okay, I'm halfway kidding about the police, but the batter has been battered. This should be a criminal act.

I hear you. I would have been tempted to ruffle those feathers and then block him.

But in the original question, he's a retired runner so intent isn't relevant. They should have posted the question with less than 2 strikes to use the rule they cited.

I'm not current on Fed anymore, but since he's a runner, don't we need intent on a U3K situation? In NCAA, he would be out since he clearly hindered the catcher.

I don't think 5-1-1b applies because the batter had already completed his time at bat, so he is no longer a batter.

So I take it there was no post game discussion in the locker room/parking lot?

Agreed. Intent not required to call interference by a retired runner. Get two here.

You mean, like, ALL of them?

Here's what the BRD has to say:

To be clear, if the defense got ONE out on the play, then I wouldn't advocate invoking IFF after the fact. It's one out either way. But to answer your question, I would place runners where they would have ended up if the IFF was declared.

I suppose an argument could be made that IFF should have been called regardless of the eventual outcome. @Velho makes some good points about how ordinary effort should be determined.

That's not what I was saying. On THIS play, I felt they should NOT have retroactively called the IFF because the offense (who IFF is supposed to protect) was not disadvantaged. I was saying that if the umpires failed to call IFF, and the defense was able to turn a DP because of that, THEN they should retroactively call the IFF, call the BR out and put the runners who were called out back on base.

The presumption is that failing to call IFF put the offense at a disadvantage which resulted in a double play. In this case, returning the runners back on base from being called out.

Should be when you determine ordinary effort. Is it ideal to calI it at the apex? Sure, but if ordinary effort hasn't been determined, then calling it at the apex, or when the ball starts to come down might lead to calling it when it shouldn't have been called. We need to be patient, while still giving the offense the time they need to act accordingly.

Interesting that they call it a "chin guard" and not a "throat guard." Might be for legal purposes.

This is what I wrote on X: I don’t like it and here’s why: The offense wasn’t disadvantaged on the play - nobody was put out. If, because the umpires failed to declare the infield fly, the defense was able to turn a double play, then yes, turn back the clock and call the batter out for infield fly and return the runners. But not in this case. They penalized the offense for the defense’s poor play.

Is this a Facebook or Instagram thing? I'm not on Instagram and spend VERY little time on FB these days.