grayhawk

If I'm on the plate, I'm calling that every time.

Well, that's what CCU's F1 thought he was doing. There's no evidence that he was actually doing It.

I don't believe that to be the case. Just call what you see, and DeBrauwere saw both of them the same given one look at full speed. We all have the luxury of (a) knowing it would happen, so we focus on the elbow, (b) having multiple looks and angles to see it. Neither of these were big movements by the batter, so I can see how he didn't get them in real time.

The official NCAA statement did not mention physical contact. It only mentioned 5-15a(4) which is prolonged arguing.

I get college infielders asking for time to throw the ball back to the pitcher. I can only assume they do this because some umpires grant it. I do not. One thing is for certain. This 14 year old player is going to (a) learn to walk it up the base, and (b) make sure he knows time has been granted before breaking contact with the base. Valuable lesson.

Almost identical to the one on Coastal Carolina earlier in the CWS. Both called intentional (both were). Interestingly, both were called HBP by DeBrauwere live.

Agreed. I think he just tripped over the feet of the other umpire. One more thing. The 1BC has NO BUSINESS being down there unless it's to get Schnall off the field to avoid a prolonged suspension. But that's not what he was doing. He continued to argue so no surprise he got run and got a prolonged too.

The pitch was borderline but probably a strike. F2 was set up outside and had to reach to his left to glove it and then dragged his mitt further left from there which gave the 1BC the impression it was inside. Campos warned the 1BC, Schnall then started arguing and got warned, then was told to go back to the dugout, and then Schnall put up 3 fingers and clearly TWICE yelled, "You missed three pitches!!" He must have forgotten he was in the CWS finals and ran himself. COACHSHOW!

I didn't pay it much attention. I would assume that if they ask for time to give signs (a nasty habit), the proper response would be, "Do you want to use one of your 6 conferences?" the answer to which would likely be, "no." I would hope it wouldn't take more than 1/4 of the season for them to clue in about it so they stop asking for time which they shouldn't have ever been doing in the first place.

What? A proposed rule change makes catchers giving signals a defensive conference?

Well, I'm not a big fan of saying something is "always" interference, and the OP's play had the runner crossing the plate as the throw was being made, so I would think the OP's play is nothing. What I'm saying is that the rules (OBR & NCAA) say that players, including the batter, are supposed to vacate any space, given the opportunity, needed by a fielder attempting to field a throw (including times when the defense has F*#Ked up). Sounds like you see it differently, and I'm not really trying to change your mind. I just posted what I believe covers these types of plays and what I would point to if I did call interference when a batter gets hit with a throw from F2 to F1 covering on a passed ball.

Seems to me that 6-2i covers it pretty well. They could have excluded the batter (like they excluded the runner), but they chose not to: i. The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball...If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

What is the price?

But in that scenario, the batter has a right to bat the ball (hopefully a bunt and not a full swing) if it's a pitch, and if F1 steps off and throws, the batter wouldn't really have a chance to vacate. On a wild pitch/passed ball, the batter certainly has a chance to vacate. If he can't get his ass out of there by the time the pitcher arrives from 60 feet away, then we should hold him accountable if he does interfere with the play.

We have to remember that when a runner gets hit with a fair batted ball, the default is that he's out. I think USSSA uses OBR, so there are 2 exceptions to this: 1. Did the ball go "through or by" a fielder before hitting the runner, and did another fielder have an opportunity to field the ball? 2. Was the ball touched by a fielder (including the pitcher) before it (unintentionally) hit the runner? If neither of these two exceptions apply, then the runner is out. Deflecting off the base is not one of these exceptions, so he likely should be called out.

I'm so tempted, but with a full season in my DIY slimmed down S7 under my belt (with many comments from partners on how low profile it looks), I'm having a hard time parting with $300. But the pull of that "new gear smell" is strong, indeed.

It's a good thing to work on. The pitch at the bottom of the zone will pretty much determine what kind of day you'll have. Pitchers need that pitch more than any other, and umpires need it too. Getting the low pitch gets ground balls, which gets you out of there.

In the Coastal Carolina case, he turned ball 4 into strike 3.

Yes, 100% intentional. Making it an automatic strike has cleaned this up in a big way, but it does still happen. I used to call it several times a season, but it was only called once (by a partner) in almost 50 games I had this year. I didn't have any this year while on the plate.

They played it on Sportscenter. Here it is from my phone. It's bigger from the ump cam view than what I saw before. I think they got it right but it's very close. Curious to know @Replacematt's opinion. IMG_7041.mov

I felt the Coastal Carolina one was bigger. Clearly sticking his elbow out.

That one was as close as it gets. I thought they would go with call stands. He did bring that elbow down just a little. In the zoom meetings I was on the last couple of years, they said it should be big to call it. This one was not big.

I don't see how they're any different from the previous version.

Well, he just called the first no-hitter in the CWS since 1960 and only the third ever.