grayhawk

Why would he be ejected? We eject for MC, not for violating the collision rule.

Agree. I forgot to mention that when PU does call it in 3 or 4 man, get ready for an argument from the defensive coach. Not whether it was a balk or not, but why did YOU call it and not U1?!?!

I would argue that PU has the best look not only in 2 man, but in 3 man and 4 man as well.

Given the UCLA play over the weekend with the runner being assisted by a teammate, I decided to renew my request with Randy today and he emailed back right away. Here is his response: "The answer from February 2011 is still accurate. If a teammate told him to retouch the base or pushed him to do so, there is no specified penalty." So in NCAA baseball, teammates can assist runners. That includes active runners, runners who have scored or been put out, on-deck batters and, I would think, bench players that have come on the field to congratulate their teammate on a walk-off home run. Of course, those players are not allowed past the warning track on anything but a walk-off, so they wouldn't be there otherwise.

I think there might have been something else at play here too. If PU ejects for MC, can that be undone? Malicious contact IS reviewable, so maybe it could be rescinded, but I think it looks MUCH worse to eject and rescind than it does to not eject, and then have replay issue the ejection. Kind of akin to seeing a fumble, being pretty sure the runner was down by contact, but letting the play continue. Then, with replay, make sure the call was correct. These things happen so fast. I actually had a similar play last season with a late slide, but in my case, F2 caught the throw. There was contact above the waist but it wasn't as flagrant as this. I did eject immediately, but after seeing the video of it, I wasn't so sure. F2 got knocked back, but he was able to absorb the contact and keep his feet after taking several steps. I wish I had replay review so I could've not ejected and then get several more looks at it to make a final decision.

The Phillies manager seriously argued THAT balk? There are mice, and there are elephants. This is a Wooly Mammoth.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. This is not a free foot going partially to 1B. It's a full step with distance and direction to 1B, and with R1, he has to follow that step with a throw. I'm balking this for a feint to 1B. Fortunately, I doubt I'll ever see it.

You can't obstruct when you have possession of the ball. You didn't say when rule set this game was played under. There is an interpretation somewhere (can't remember where) that says the fielder is protected not just while he's fielding the ball, but while he is throwing it as well. In other words, the entire play is considered in the act of fielding. The proper call here is interference, so they got it right.

No. So if you have this as a legal step to 1B with R1, then this must be a feint to 1B if a throw to 1B doesn't follow.

I think they're the only ones that address this play directly.

If he used this exact step and threw to 1B, would you balk him?

A step to 1B without a throw is an elephant balk.

Perhaps I’m making this too complicated. With a runner at first, with this step, he is feinting to first. Balk.

If he's making a legal step to first, how can he legally pitch?

With R1, I can't see how this could be anything but a balk. It's a clear step to first, as he clearly breaks the 45 degree angle as described in NCAA rules. The below describes a legal step to 1B, so if he does it and pitches, it's a violation. 9-1a(6): The pitcher must step directly and gain ground toward a base in an attempt to pick off a runner. “Directly” is interpreted to mean within a 45-degree angle measuring from the pivot foot toward the base the pitcher is throwing to or feinting a throw. I'm curious, Rich, about what those that think this is legal point to in the rules. Is it that "habitually uses during the delivery" statement that drives us crazy?

I don't think sitting on the wall would be considered falling into the stands.

Those guys can buy a $5 stopwatch.

When your three hour games regularly go under 2 1/2, you won’t regret paying $80 for a timer.

They are expeeeeenive! Some colleges around here have said it cost them up to $20k to have their clocks installed. The clocks themselves are outrageous, and then you are talking about getting electrical lines run as well.

Surprised that wasn't the call on the field.

Childress had plenty to say about this in the 2016 BRD: OFF INTERP 395-376: PBUC: Same as NCAA 8-3f: A fielder who, (emphasis added) while facing the runner, intentionally blocks a runner’s view of a catch in the outfield is guilty of Type 2 obstruction. Play 240-376: Aug 6, 2004, Seattle at Tampa Bay, bottom of the 10th, score 0-0, bases loaded, 1 out. R3 (Carl Crawford) retouches on Tino Martinez’s fly out to left field. SHORTSTOP Jose Lopez moves toward third and, facing Crawford and jockeying back and forth, takes a position between Crawford and right fielder Raul Ibañez. Ruling: Umpire Paul Emmel calls obstruction, kills the ball, and awards Crawford home. Tampa won, 1-0. Note 358: Emmel showed a lot of guts in making the call. BUT HE BLEW IT, NONETHELESS! It’s a delayed dead ball , with the umpire making “awards, if any, in the appropriate manner.” (PBUC 7.30611) Instead, Emmel used the Type 1 mechanic. Veteran umpires can guess the motivation, right? Emmel had been an umpire for years and knew the interpretation, but this third-world play had never happened in one of his games. So, when it did .... BTW: The shortstop moving between the runner and the right fielder would clearly draw the attention of the umpire, especially in a 4-man crew. Play 241-376: R2, R3. R3 retouches on B1’s towering fly to medium-deep right field. The third baseman “accidentally” drifts to a position that screens R3 from seeing the catch. R3 shifts to another spot, and F5 likewise moves. Ruling: the umpire will yell: “That’s obstruction!” Then:“After ALL PLAY HAS CEASED AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS POSSIBLE,” he will make awards that nullify the obstruction. Here, he could award R3 home if he didn’t go or disallow an appeal if he left too early. Note 359: Play 241-376 above first appeared in the 1990 BRD in response to the NCAA rule change defining visual obstruction. Here’s my note from that edition: “In my own game, I will use the NCAA rule, regardless of the level of play. But I am not yet ready to advise all umpires to follow that procedure.” Thus, Emmel’s ruling is just a case of life imitating my art – even if it did take 14 years for the painting to be hung. OFF INTERP 396-376: PBUC: “With a runner on first base, the first baseman, rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner, jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second-base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher. This is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop. If he persists, he is subject to ejection.”

I think it's the nature of the beast, so to speak. MLB umpires need protection because if they can be demoted or fired, then there will be posses out for blood every time their team is on the wrong end of an incorrect call. Sure, replay has mitigated some of this, but calls still get missed, and sometimes these calls affect the outcome of the game. Are there umpires in the pipeline that are better than some of the current MLB staff? Could be. But people are calling for Estabrook's head and when was the last time his name came up in the news? Just this one incident is enough for people screaming for him to be "held accountable" which means publicly shaming him, at best, and to be fired at worst.

There's more accountability than any fan knows about, but they want public floggings, not behind-the-scenes loss of post-season, or failing to move up the chain. As far as being moved down (never) or out, wasn't Angel essentially pushed out into early retirement?

It's the ubiquitous, "Umpires need to be held accountable!!" which means they want umpires to be called out in a press conference and have a Maoist struggle session. It's to sooth the hurt feewings of fans who feel microaggressed in what is supposed to be their safe space.

Duplicate thread: