Aussie123

Thank you for your opinion, Beerguy55. Yes, you are correct. My old Joe West CP got hammered good on several missed catches by the raw catcher that day! He also robbed his slow-lobbing pitcher of several borderline strike calls for failing to catch the ball. You are equally correct that the "ting-thud" sound sequence of the bat, first hitting the ball and then the catcher's mitt, was most unusual and barely discernible. The slow lob pitch, followed by the late downward hacking swing, was the only way I could tell. The best analogy I could make would be how a U1 calls an out on a "whacker" at first base. He/she listens carefully for the pop sound of F6's throw hitting F1's mitt before hearing the thud of the BR's foot hitting the base. Hindsight, with gathered opinions from fellow umpires like yourself? Just call CI and hopefully teach the catcher a memorable lesson. For, after all, LL 16U Srs. is arguably developmental learning for HS Varsity.

Yes, I had never seen it in 25 years of umpiring...not the usual CI with bat-first hitting glove combo. I tried to be brief in my OP, but for more details, - 16 U LL Srs. game, and as we all know, talent ebbs and flows over the years. Even at my older age, I think I could best the radar gun on the visiting pitcher! So, slow & high pitch made it easy to track to the mitt. Batter hesitated and made his decision to swing late with a downward wood chopping swing. The bat hit the top half of the ball as the catcher, also rather raw in talent, was raising his mitt upward to catch the ball. The bat first hits the ball, and the downward arc then clips the top of the catcher's mitt. The easy call, and the one the OC came down the line expecting, was CI. Honestly, I hesitated too long in calling CI because I wasn't 100% sure of the call due to the unusual sequence of the bat first hitting the ball, then making contact with the mitt. When I explained to the OC the unusual sequence, I was upfront and told him I wasn't sure we had CI. The OC nodded and, having a good rapport with him from over 5 years of umpiring his games, we played on. Your opinion?

First, I have greatly appreciated the advice from all fellow members over the years. Realizing that dozens of routine games can go by without a "goofy play" occurring, I am always impressed with the insights shared on this forum in analyzing plays. In a 16U Little League Srs. game, an overly aggressive catcher, while reaching too far, made contact with the bat. Past CI calls have been the obvious bat-mitt-ball sequence combo, however, this was bizarrely different. The ball came in a bit high, with the catcher reaching out for it. The batter hits the top half of the ball first, followed by the ball glancing downward and first hitting the catcher's mitt, then the bat strikes the very top of the catcher's mitt. So, it was an oddly bat-ball-mitt sequence. Honestly, it was the sound differential that gave it away as I was ready to call CI. But it went, the sound of aluminum bat pop first, followed by a dull thunk as the bat then clipped the top of the mitt after first hitting the ball. The ball subsequently went foul. Forum searches, earlier found: "If by his actions, the catcher deprives the batter of the opportunity to hit a pitch, it is by rule and definition catcher's interference." Here, the batter hit the ball first, unimpeded by the catcher, but the swing of his bat then struck the catcher's mitt. In your opinion, do we still have CI if the bat first hits the ball, then hits the mitt?

In an otherwise smooth 16U Little League Seniors game [OBR], my catcher missed an outside pitch for ball four. The ball bounced over toward the on deck batter, who casually picks it up and hands it to the catcher. The BR, after tossing his bat toward his dugout, was nonchalantly walking to first base. No other runners. Hmmm...nobody seemed to notice and nobody said a word otherwise. The BR clearly had no intentions of advancing and the catcher had the ball in his hand prior to the BR reaching first base. Tell me what you would do?

In a solo-umpired LL Seniors [16U] game played last night on a field with an unfenced sideline, a speedster 3rd baseman was able to make an awesome over-the-shoulder catch in live-ball territory [both feet] with his momentum carrying him out into dead-ball territory. Remaining on his feet, he fired to his SS covering 3rd base for an easy tag of advancing R-2, who incidentally had failed to tag up, and somehow must have thought that he would find 3rd base empty? At the plate meeting I had made reference to a catch and carry ground rule at this field and advised that if it were to occur, the fielder would have to both maintain possession of the ball and bring it back into LBT prior to throwing the ball. In a quest to make my plate meetings short n sweet [unlike my posts!] I did not elaborate on the penalty for making such a throw from DBT. When the catch n' carry play happened with the throw coming into play from DBT, I was admittedly surprised as I had never encountered it in my 11 years of umpiring. I knew under HS FED if a player makes a catch and enters into DBT the ball is dead [5-1-1i, however, I was none too sure in LL Seniors Rules. I vaguely remembered a one base award and in the absence of having an FU to consult and/or buy a little thinking time, I sold it and awarded R-2 3rd base. Of course, in spite of my referencing a catch and carry rule at our plate meeting, DC wants an out on R-2. When reminded of the fielder having to bring the ball back into LBT to make a throw, DC launches into R-2's failure to tag up and then wants to appeal the play? I said, "No appeal Coach, it's a one-base award" What's your opinion? Regards

Even though it's the middle of winter and others, like myself, are enjoying off-season skiing, you apparently have to log into your umpire-empire account once in awhile...less you get a personal email from the Chief Umpire stating your status has been de-activated and you're relegated to the inactive heap! Enjoy the game, Steve

In a LL District Allstar Championship game with a 4-Umpire crew an obvious "failure to communicate" situation occurred between myself, PU, and U3 involving a fair/foul ball. With R-1, Lefty BR's hits a little pop-up that goes half-way up the 3rd base foul line. Catcher gives chase...F-5 charges in and I quickly move to straddle the line. The ball lands just a foot inside fair territory and given the spin from a left-handed hitter, appears to me to be untouched as it whirled in a little dust devil across the foul line towards the open dugout doorway. I'm screened out by the diving catcher, but given the landing point and the trajectory of the spinning ball, it appeared that the ball was untouched. I make a very subtle open hands gesture as I look to U3. Nothing in return from U3...nice shades though I remember thinking. With the ball now about 3 feet from rolling into the open dugout door, I call out, "Cris!" Again, nice shades...but no response. Just before the ball rolls into the dugout, and not wanting to compound the issue, I call, "Foul" After the foul call, skipper, coaching at third base, starts walking down the line. You guessed it...he politely states that the ball deflected off the catcher's mitt in fair territory. I nodded and walk out to U3 to ask what he saw. Given U3 didn't meet me half-way and was oblivious to my earlier hand signs, I didn't have a good feeling. The fact that I had never worked with him before nor had seen him working Allstar tournaments in past years, didn't help either. "Yeah, I think the ball might have hit off the cather's mitt", was U3's response to my question. I asked, "Are you 100% sure you saw the ball hit off the catcher's mitt in fair territory?" " I think so..." was U3's answer. No, I didn't bother to ask him why he felt that was confidential information...not to be shared earlier with me? To maintain game integrity, I explained to the OC that he may very well be correct that the ball hit first off the catcher's mitt in fair territory and U3 also saw it that way. However, due to the fact that I called it a foul ball, I'll humbly accept the blame and we're all going to have to accept it and play on with R-1 returning and BR getting another shot at a home run...which he had earlier in the game. Being humble and exhorting the positive seemed to work as the OC shrugged and said, "Yeah, OK" With the batter back in the box and runner back to first base, I turned to the scoring booth to verify the 1-2 count on the batter. The Senior District Umpire then called me over and emphatically wanted me to reverse my foul call? Put R-1 on second base and award BR first base. Again, being humble, I explained that I had killed the play...it's my fault and we're playing on. No, he argues that in LL World Series, they have reversed foul calls with the benefit of instant-replay...and I need to do likewise. I left Senior behind the fence and walked out and called in all my umpires. U1 and U2 couldn't tell if the ball glanced off the catcher's mitt, but all were in agreement that, with my calling the ball foul, it's a 1-2 count do-over for the batter. Given the 89 degree temp, I trotted back to HP...ignored Senior Umpire and quickly called, "Play!" Yes, there was a lengthy post-game discussion with District Senior Umpire, but when I asked him to show me where in the LL Rule Book there is a provision for an umpire to do a foul ball reversal...he just said he'll text me? Cell phone is on the charger...no texts yet? Respectfully, what are your opinions?

Thanks Grayhawk and Rich for your prompt validation. I realize many of you may be using your smart phones synced to this forum, so sorry if my post was wordy and filled a couple of phone screens. As I don't post often, I like to get my moneys worth! Especially, my apologies to noumpere, who must slowly move his lips to read! All joking aside, my question [albeit lengthy] was more LL related. Given the vast majority of LL players never play baseball beyond LL, I tend to be more safety conscious in the volunteer games I do in LL. As an umpire, I only see a handful of LL players ever make it up to HS. Again, a good Varsity pitcher will not ever allow a batter to be out of the box!

What a great resource and much appreciation to all the experienced umpires who take the time to offer their opinions to help. In a LL game last night, the batter's box was not chalked. Understandable, if you know how often it rains in the Seattle area! The association just ran out of chalk, but as I took the field, I was, nonetheless, pleased that at least I got a half cup of the last coffee! We all know that, in the abscence of a defined batter's box, a good Varsity pitcher will certainly define the batter's box and batters will quickly learn they will be dumped on their backside for crowding the plate! In LL, pitchers do not have that fine edge and, for safety sake, we, as umpires, certainly do not want to allow LL batters to illegally crowd the plate. I was therefore forced to call time more than once and borrow the batter's bat to define the inside line of the batter's box. In prudently calling time to mark the inside line of the batter's box with the batter's bat, after seeing the batter's toes were on the black, the one contentious OC in the league has to come down the line to "investgate". After expaining his batter's feet position, and my not wanting to see a LL batter hurt, the OC tells me I'm wrong and that if his batter's heel is inside the batter's box...his batter is in a legal batting position. Do correct me...but my recollection is ALL of a batter's foot must be inside the batter's box prior to the delivery of a pitch. I believe a clarification came out of LL Western Region HQ in San Bernadino on this about 10 years ago. A batter's foot [toe] may be on the chalk line, [if it exists], however, no part of a batter's foot may extend over the chalk line prior to the delivery of the pitch. In the course of a batter's swing, yes, a foot can be out of the box - even onto the plate, so long as any part of his other foot remains inside the defined batter's box. A drag bunt being an example of a play in which the umpire has to keenly observe the position of a batter's foot at the time of the bunt. Agree? Now, to those in the forum that are uncomfortable in hearing, "It's a quarter after 5:00", I guess we could go further with the question of a batter's legal position in the batter's box at the time of the pitch? If, for those of us umpires that glance down at a batter's feet position once prior to the pitcher's windup, and then focus our attention on the pitcher...what of a batter who may subsequently decide to subtly creep closer to the plate, and over the line? An example being the tall lanky pitcher who has such an incredibly slow windup after coming set. Curious on the first part of a the question of a batter's legal position in the batter's box....the latter "batter's creep" during a pitcher's windup might be a good rainout topic. But given the rain in Seattle...? Thanks again for everyone's opinion and the time/energy put into youth sports! Regards, Aussie

Thanks all! Of course...now, I'll likely never see another ground ruled double the rest of the year!

In a less than inspiring 18-0 LL blowout game, and with little else to think about nor any hot mommas in the stands, I, after having watched the second ground-ruled double skip over the outfield fence, wondered if I was correct on my mechanics for such a call. I have always just held my arms up, pointed to second base and vocalized, "Out of play...you second base". My PU, however, only called, "Time", which in the first occurance, caused both advancing R-2 and R-3 to freeze in their tracks. Of course, afterwards he appropriately awarded bases. Again, it's a subtle nuance, but with little else to focus on in the lop-sided game, I was wondering if the verbalizing, "Time" is the proper mechanic for calling a ground ruled double? Your thoughts? Regards, Steve

During the home opener LL game with two runners on, the young 12 year old batter, probably inspired by A-Rod's abysmally unproductive post-season long & loopy swing, flails wildly at a pitch. His one-handed follow through swing comes around to make contact with the catcher's mitt. No, it wasn't blatant, just a subtle swiping contact of the catcher's mitt and the catcher held onto the ball. R1 & R2 held their respective positions and made no attempts to advance. There was never an attempt on the catcher's part to even think about a throw behind either base runner. The incidental contact was a nonevent that went unnoticed, even by my BU, a young graduate of our local High School umpire association. It was not until I brought it up between innings that the contact became a worthy point of discussion in an otherwise dull 8-1 game. My partner felt, that given the contact was on the back swing and not the front swing, the batter should have been called out for batter's interference? I agreed that any contact made by the batter on the front swing would be catcher's interference, but, given there was no attempt by the catcher to make a defensive throw to any base, why would it be an automatic batter's interference call on back swing contact? I reminded him that the pitch was rather high and inside and the catcher was playing in tight to the right-handed batter. The culpability of the incidental contact was, in my opinion, somewhat shared between both the batter, with his loopy swing and the catcher, who was playing in close on the batter. He maintained there was reference in the rule book pertaining to back swing contact and batter's interference...myself, I could not find it? I know in the latter innings of a less than inspiring 8-1 game and with the sizzling smell of our free burgers n fries wafting in from behind the backstop, the interference discussion did not continue long. Curious otherwise for the group's opinion? Regards, Steve

All good points Grasshopper. If you have yet to snatch the pebble from the hand of the Zen Master...you soon will. Thank you all for your points of view... It's not that I had any personal agenda with R-3 and his choice of 'super-sizing' his McDonalds order of fries, but I think we as umpires are better dressed in the ubiquitous uniform colors of blue or black...rather than white robes and wielding a staff. Do we, posing as a spirituous priest rather than an umpire, have to start interpreting what is in a player's mind or heart to gather their intentions on a play? Come on...how many of us look with disgust at a BR, Major Leaguer or Little Leaguer, who fails to run out a grounder to first base because he "thinks" he will be out and turns back toward his dugout? Do we then make adjustments to accommodate the BR when F-4's subsequent easy throw to first base goes awry? Do we rationalize the BR's lack of hustle and, in turn, decide to put him on first base anyway...since after all, he would have made it safely to first because F-4's throw turned out to be errant? The BR, shown in this example of lack of hustle, acted no differently, in my opinion, than R-3 in the original story. They both gave up on the play because they felt or thought they were going to be out. Irregardless of whether the Allstar second baseman, in the example, made an easy play on the BR's weakly hit grounder, the BR should have run out the play...same with R-3 in the original story...regardless of the outcome called by the BU at second base. Do we reward post-facto the intentions of a base runner after a play? No, of course not! Most of us who played the game have a certain satisfaction in calling a runner out who shows no degree of hustle on a play. There are those of us old enough to remember that to have done anything short of hustle would, still to this day, have our old coach deservedly running us foul pole to foul pole for such a transgression! R-3, in my opinion, earned his own out...based on the rule book for failing to touch home plate and subsequently vacating the field of play...not that he "thought" he was out because of an overzealous call made by the BU at second base. Why reward him in any other way? Scoring the run? Absolutely not! That's a slippery slope beyond even our wearing white robes! How do you allow a runner to score a run because you "think" a runner would score? No touch the plate...no score the run. ...as to the query of why I called the first base coach into the meeting on the backside of the mound? Mostly to shut him up and not escalate the situation and besides, I really wasn't sure who was the real manager since in Little League they all wear shorts and tee-shirts.

The previous post on removing the force prompted me to remember one of those 'goofy' plays from last year... Of course, not wanting to highjack the thread, I'll add to the previous scenario... We had an R-1 & R-3, with 1 out. Same as previous post...grounder to F-3...he steps on the bag for the second out and throws to F-4, who, for a LL-er, does an impressive major leaguer catch and toe swipe of second base. The college kid, masquerading as an umpire by wearing a uni and what appeared to be his late Grandfather's old gray pinstripped business suit trousers...sufficient attire to earn his $15.00 game fee and a free hotdog, calls R-1 out on what he perceives as a 'force'. Meanwhile, R-3, having yet to shed any of his baby fat, is waddling his way to home plate when, upon hearing his buddy called out at second base, decides to save a few steps and head back toward his third base dugout long before ever touching homeplate. Now it gets interesting...An old umpire I tutored with many years ago once said, "Don't call time until you absolutely know for sure what you're going to do". With F-4 having the ball in his mitt, and a few steps already off second base, I needed to clean up the mess on 'aisle 2' before either R-2 aimlessly steps off the bag for a cheap tag out, or the firstbase OC blows a gasket. To me, the fix at second base was easy, however, a glance in the direction of the third base dugout had slowpoke R-3 yet to enter his dugout for a clear call and a third out for leaving the field of play...without ever having touched home plate. In spite of R-3's questionable status of whether or not he had vacated the field of play, I, nonetheless, called time and made the slow walk out to second base...hoping by the time I got there, R-3 would be sitting on the bench with a lollipop in his mouth. With but a tacit glance toward the FU, and with sufficient bellowing from the firstbase OC, the FU knew by now that he had blown the 'force call' at second and was looking down at his shoes while deftly kicking red clay off the backside of the pitching mound. To mimimize the damage, and keep the volume down from the cheap seats, I called both offensive coaches in from the corners and also called out the defensive manager for a meeting at the backside of the mound. Privately, I had earlier tactfully told the FU how to address his error on the force and he did so graciously. I then politely explained to the coaches that the third out had been made and no run had scored on account of R-3's failing to touch homeplate and thereafter his vacating the field of play. "Whadda ya mean he's out and the run doesn't score?", both offensive coaches cried out in unison. Fortunately, neither coach attempted to suggest that R-3 had touched homeplate. R-3 had quite obviously given up that pursuit at least a good 2 x4 stud length short of his reaching home plate. Both OC's argued that unless the defensive coach had first asked for an appeal...and he indeed had not, then how can I call R-3 out without such an appeal? I answered that, since he had vacated the field of play without touching homeplate, he was out and the run would not score...no appeal necessary. I'll skip the subsequent drama...we've all heard it and it fell sufficiently short to warrant an ejection. However, to intentionally make a play on words, was the out without an appeal indeed the correct call in this case?

Because the rules say the on deck batter can only be in his own circle. The ODB doesn't have to go out - but if he does it can only be to his own circle. Thanks Rich. Albeit an open-book test...I was so convinced that the answer to this question was an obvious 'True', [yes, the on deck batter may use either on-deck circle for safety consideration] that I admittedly did not look it up. Usually, though not always, there is an element of logic in nearly every baseball rule. This rule, in my opinion, defies both logic and safety!