grayhawk

We're not judging what he's thinking, we're judging his actions. How do I know it's not legitimate? Because this NEVER happened before the pitch clock was instituted. It's obvious when he's trying to induce an "eyes up" warning/violation - you can spot it a mile away. This is a safety rule that has been twisted into something it was never supposed to be. That said, I've had plenty of opposition to my stance on this (elsewhere), so either this doesn't happen in other regions or umpires don't see it as an issue. In my view, it's just one more thing the plate umpire has to focus their attention on, and I'd prefer not to have to stare at the batter's eyes for 5+ seconds to make sure he's actually looking at the pitcher rather than just staring ahead hoping to get a violation, all while keeping watch on the clock to make sure his eyes are where they're supposed to be before the clock strikes 7.

Yes, it's the same. But batters are gaming the system by entering the box with, say, 15 seconds remaining and then using delay tactics like staring back at the clock at the backstop, looking down at their feet, or staring straight ahead all with the hopes of inducing the pitcher to start his motion to get an "eyes up" warning and/or violation. We call it "playing f@ck f@ck with the clock."

The NCAA rules survey is out, with questions about: - Making the double 1st base mandatory (I supported) - Making the 10 run rule required (not by conf adoption) (I supported) - Allowing bat sensor technology (No opinion) - Making any play reviewable that may correct obvious errors that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the game (I supported) - Allowing 1 timeout per at-bat for hitters (like MLB) (I opposed) - Reducing the pitch clock from 20 to 18 seconds (I supported) - Implement a shift rule (I opposed) But here's the one they missed and that I entered in the comments section. Please do so as well if you agree: To give the umpire the ability to warn/penalize batters that intentionally enter the box and delay looking at the pitcher to get an "eyes up" warning/violation on the pitcher. I suggest that on the first instance, a team warning shall be issued. A strike shall be added to the count for any batter on that team for a second instance. It has gotten out of hand and the NCAA needs to step in and put it to a stop. Thoughts?

That would be a good start for someone 18 or over (I am guessing). I doubt a HS umpire association would allow a 15 y/o to join. The HS association in my area does have its members donate their old gear, but it's for new members. But maybe they know of someone that can help this youngster.

Looks like a typical playoff crew that's working their first 3 umpire game of the year.

Gosney argued that if the batter is in the box (absent leaning over the plate), and hinders the catcher then we would need to judge intent for there to be interference. Again, he pointed to the MLBUM cite as evidence.

I discussed the "any other move" language with Jeff Gosney and he pointed to this paragraph. Good enough for me.

From MLBUM:

I prefer the OBR version which requires intent if the batter is in the box.

Saw this on X and confirmed it with an MLB umpire. This is true and I would think invaluable to help hone in the zone during a game. I wish we all had this! https://x.com/xanbarksdale/status/2051721401984319670?s=20

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.