grayhawk

We all have to determine which level(s) work best for us. I'm curious about the many reasons. What are some of the other ones?

In my experience, this is level-dependent. Might work well in games where the kids aren't shaving yet, but it'll get you the wrong reputation (unapproachable) at higher levels. Sometimes, they're just trying to get a feel for your zone, and other times they're arguing balls and strikes. It's usually easy to tell the difference. "Steve, did you have that down?" is quite different from, "Where was that?" Tone of voice will also give it away. But answering, "I have a ball" makes you sound rigid and obstinate. College coaches expect you to work with them, within limits, and stonewalling them like this will deter from having at least a civil relationship, especially beyond just that one game.

Did you use these? https://www.amazon.com/LUORNG-Backpack-Hardware-Carabiners-Adjustable/dp/B09NVSG6Z4/ref=sr_1_2?crid=PAT5VXP7PUPF&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RTvsxfdBNMD37i7p09UtKJvKuDCkQzher8u5hn8yj_K7oLKpAz2Euk3wrTDnLTGEfoS_2rD59z-6D4o7Nin5tagR3OZh61pw64x3Mstr8Oe9QfAyRAlSTsZ1A6s48G3Bo8u3-VhRYmMADQ9RTStHII_ZVCM0V6yrrvEBAloE3hhc_IA4-ULNj7Aa0Sz0Il1RKXD5ryXv5CdTonP8eK8lnBCwncCdD7qfbehizEdu9_YU-sEdzy_XYlj-jvgB0nu_Oz3xZ3GX5W_93vZf2RXJWDsKYH25rH7MKI23IqXwERM.Q9Lxc4deZoShg-TxztM0Qnz--B9UsGoJKrwc14Wgsf8&dib_tag=se&keywords=aluminum+g+hooks&qid=1761249452&sprefix=aluminum+g+hooks%2Caps%2C202&sr=8-2

Then that goes to ordinary effort at that level. If they're young enough to not know to move to the ball, then it's not an IFF. Again, the OP shows that 5 1/2 MLB umpires felt that the fielders' actions mattered much more than the fact that a high fly ball was hit in the infield.

I umpire games on this planet.

They are 100% consistent. Ordinary effort for a 10 year old is worlds apart from ordinary effort of an MLB player, but you still have to determine if an infielder, based on the average ability for a player at that level, could make the catch on THAT fly ball, under THOSE conditions.

I think the umpires in the play that started this thread would disagree with you. As do I.

This one.

It's called when ordinary effort is determined. While it's ideal to call it at the apex, if ordinary effort has not been established at that point, then it should not be called.

Yes, it can be fixed after the fact. But nobody could have caught this one with ordinary effort, which is what the crew on the field judged.

I think we can easily judge that, in this case, nobody was faking it or acting. This is just a unique play that was correctly officiated, IMO.

I think it's one thing to be camped under it and lose it in the sun. On this one, nobody can even find it until it's way too late to get to it.

That's ridiculous. They have the technology (a tape measure) to determine the top and bottom of a batter's true zone. Why not do that instead of using averages? We've all seen tall batters with short legs and vice versa. If they're going with an ABS challenge system, then get it right.

That game was played at Wrigley. Not sure, but I think it was built some time before the MLBUA was formed in 2000...

He does. It was refined last year that if the free foot "gains ground" toward the plate on the windup, that it's illegal.

Those umpires, clearly, need better training.

In fact, both feet are perpendicular to the rubber as he begins his windup.

Doesn't help that the MLB.com article on this play references the wrong rule. The reference 6.01(a)(3) when the right rule is 6.01(a)(10).

Of course, people are posting on X that this is batter's interference rather than interference on a batter-runner. People just don't understand how the status of an offensive player changes when the ball is hit, when they are put out or when they have scored.

Should have stopped there I see it differently. Would the fielder have been able to take the throw if not for the ball hitting the runner, who is running illegally? In other words, it was a good throw, but it hit the runner out of the lane. That's interfering with the fielder taking the throw. Interfering with the throw would be where the fielder throwing the ball throws errantly because he sees the runner, who's running illegally, in his throwing lane. In this case, it's affecting the throw itself.

To answer your question, "What not RLI?" Because PU didn't call it. But yes, of course it's RLI, and an easy one to call if we're doing our jobs properly.

It's because we're "soft." Didn't you know that?

I'm not saying YOU should call time knowing that the runner will ask you for time. Stay with what works for you. I'm saying I do it to keep the game moving when the runner has protective equipment on. It's obvious that he's going to ask anyway. If he gets to 2B and only has batting gloves on, then I'm keeping the ball live. As far as adhering to what's in the rules? 6-1a Note 2: The umpire shall not call time until a play has been completed. When a batter hits a double and is standing on 2B and the defense has the ball in the infield and is making no further play, then the play has been completed. There is nothing in the rules preventing an umpire from calling time until it's requested by a player or coach. As far as common mechanics is concerned, this is common in my area of the county at the NCAA level. But wait for him to ask? Sure. Just be ready to grant it by knowing what the defense is doing and where the ball is. It's mildly annoying when I work with a partner that has to be asked for time 2 or 3 times by a runner in this situation because he's not paying attention or he feels F1 has to have the ball before he calls time. Yes, I suppose. I'm so used to doing it in college games that I also do it in off-season tournaments as well.

Apples and toasters.