dddunn3d

7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead. No where does 7.07 say that a pitch must be delivered or a play be made. If these requirements are in fact met: a- R3 "trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal"; b- F2, or any other fielder i. "steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball," or; ii. "touches the batter or his bat"; then F1 is charged with a balk (even if no pitch has been delivered), B is awarded 1B (a specific award, not like that in 6.08c), and the ball is dead (not delayed dead like a 'normal' OBR balk). Makes absolutely no difference what the batter does in this situation. The rule itself defines the infraction and the penalty. Of course, saying this immediately put this situation in my head: R3 stealing, F1 steps off and then throws home. But F2 steps on home plate a- before F1 disengages, or b- after F1 disengages. Now what? Is the sequence of events the telling factor? Or maybe a pitch is required to make 7.07 work as envisioned, even though the rule says nothing about it.

#1 - No, I didn't take my eyes off of the ball; it's just that the errant ball, because of the trajectories, angles and sight-lines involved, appeared to be the batted ball. #2 - Yes, the offense was disadvantaged because of my no catch call. When they heard that, they believed that they were forced to advance. Plus, they also saw a ball rolling on the ground between F5 and F1. In retrospect, a better, more equitable ruling would have been BR out on the catch, but runners placed on their bases. (I tried to paste a diagram above, but gobbeldy-gook resulted.)

[

Not really, but: 11U, bases loaded, no outs, infielders playing in. B4 hits a line-drive towards F5's feet. Here's where it get real interesting, real fast. At the same time F5 appears to catch the ball, another ball from an adjacent field appears on our field. It too was on a low line-drive type trajectory, but coming from behind 3B tracking towards the pitching mound. (Later, that 3b coach said that it almost hit him in the back of his head.) The timing and trajectory of this second ball was such that it fooled both me and the PU into believing that B4's batted ball actually ricocheted off of F5's foot or shin, and rebounded towards F1. I call "No catch" and signal. F1 picks up the foreign ball, also thinking that it was the batted ball, and turns to throw to F3. As I follow the play I notice that F3 is already in the act of catching a throw. F1 stops his actions, and I think "WTF?" Turns out that F5 actually caught the low line-drive, tagged 3B, and threw to F3 for what would have been a triple-play. But like I said, the timing, angle and trajectory of the errant ball intersected that of the batted ball so cleanly and smoothly that neither of us umpires realized what had actually happened. We huddled and eventually just ruled no-pitch and reset the play, which incidentally both managers agreed to be the fairest solution. I've had balls from other fields come onto my field at all times: between pitches, during a play, etc. but I've never had one that actually became as involved as this one.

"Before assuming Set Position, the pitcher may elect to make any natural preliminary motion such as that known as 'the stretch.' But if he so elects, he shall come to Set Position before delivering the ball to the batter." Sounds to me like the RHP was going into his stretch from an open starting position, then coming back into his set. A continuous motion from stretch to set is necessary. I've seen pitchers moving their free foot as little two-three inches back towards the pitcher's plate when coming set. If an F1 is closing the distance through several little movements, I'd think a balk call would be appropriate. A crappy mound notwithstanding, if F1 is having difficulty finding a decent spot to place his free foot in his stretch, he should smooth out a place himself.

There's a subtle, but significant difference on whether the ball hit the bat, or the bat hit the ball in the OP. If the ball is bunted where it bounces back up and hits the bat, it is a foul ball, period. If, however, the bat is dropped onto the ball, it depends upon where the ball is when the bat contacts it; it will be either foul or batter out for interference. In the OP, if you're not sure if the bat is still in the batter's grip, call foul, because that's the evidence you have (the sound of the second ball/bat contact).

14U travel... R2; RHP comes set, raises his left leg, starts to lower it towards home, and then changes direction, plants that foot near the rubber, and steps off towards 2B. "That's a balk!" Coach coming out: "How's that a balk? What'd he do?" "He started his motion that committed him to pitch, then stopped and stepped towards 2B." Coach: "That's not a balk, because he's not taught like that!" :smachhead:

By the authority invested in me by the rules: If the batter makes any move that may interfere with F2's opportunity to make a play on R1, then: (1) If F2's play results in an out, the out stands. (2) If F2's play is not successful, or no attempt is made, return the runner. Both instances the batter remains at bat. If the batter does not make a possible interfering move, the result of the play stands.

Or twice, as this double post attests :shakehead:

12 (sometimes I wonder if it isn't more like 1, just repeated 12 times) 203

JM Here's a question for all: When should a balk of this nature be called? As soon as he takes an illegal posture? Or when he starts his coming to set motion? Example-- F1 in the stretch with the ball as in the OP. option1 -- From this position he comes set or attempts a pick-off. option 2-- From this position he legally disengages. option 3-- After a second or two in this position, he moves his pitching hand (holding the ball) to his side, finishes with the signs and then comes set. Option 1 is straight forward; it's a balk. Options 2 and 3, not so much. I expect some will say that just assuming this position constitutes the balk, while others may reason that it's the actual movement of his pitching hand that makes the balk. Still another angle is to only call the balk if option 1 is observed, with the other options not being a balk. I'm about 50/50 on how I think this should be called. And another thing... If F1 wants to hide the ball from the runners, he can hold it in his glove.

So the glove is part of the body? Ever buy a glove with a body attached? Note: Using coach logic here. Let me go one step further, I'll try not to put my foot in my mouth... Ever buy spikes pre-loaded with a foot?:yippie:

Im not befuddling myself but you might be too dense to get my point that of course the rule you site doesnt apply but the pitcher even off the rubber still cant throw to an unoccupied base if its not to make a play. 8-02c or something like that. And the play doesnt seem to be covered by rule so you have to use analogies from other parts of the rules to help make a decision, thats all. Which part of "The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base" has you befuddled? I believe you're intermixing this with RULE 8.05(d), which applies when the pitcher is touching the rubber. As to RULE 8.02( c): 1-- It covers intentional delay; 2-- The remedy is "Don't do that." There is no playing penalty (like a balk, a charged ball, etc.) unless after being warned the pitcher is ejected for such action. RULE 8.05(h) then comes into play, and a balk is also charged(RULE 8.05(h) COMMENT). Like I said, don't befuddle yourself.

No, there's nothing you can do unless PU requests help. As far as answering the 1BC's question, I think all you can say is, "It was ruled a catch." He's an Asst. Coach and doesn't really deserve an answer anyway! I wouldn't use the word, 'he' in reference to your partner. If you say, "He ruled it a catch." that's very different and could imply you think he's wrong. (which he obviously was, but that's another thread . . .) I'm w/you - I hate guys who blow off bad calls with, "Well, I sold it." That will get you off the field, but it doesn't make it right. It sounds like he's the kind of guy who'll make the same BS call again, too. Anytime I'm asked about a call that I did not make, all I say is "You have to ask him, that was his call." Nothing else. This way you don't open up that can of hornet's nests.

I would use the same analyiss as when the pitcher throws to second to get the runner from first, that is if the runner was advancing its legal if the runner was just fainting an advance its not legal. At the levels most of us work im taking a very liberal reading or advancing and not punishing the pitcher unless necessary. Do not befuddle yourself through misapplication of the pitching rules. RULE 8.01(e) If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher’s plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder. RULE 8.01(e) COMMENT The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base. If he makes a wild throw, such throw is the throw of an infielder and what follows is governed by the rules covering a ball thrown by a fielder.

That's "official". It's what the rule means. Evans offers this additional interpretation, which, though not "official", I find instructive: So, if there IS any kind of "play", I'll get an out - all "benefit of the doubt" goes to the defense. But, if there's no out to be had "on the merits", kill it & put everybody where they were. I believe that's the proper interpretation of the rule. If you've got anything better, I'd be interested in your cites. Michael, I don't understand your point about an 8.05(h) balk at all. The pitcher was NOT "unnecessarily delaying the game". He got bluffed into stepping off and throwing home to prevent the aggressive R3's possible advance. That's not in any way what that rule is for or what it means. JM I agree that the situation should determine what to call. For example, R1 and a wild pitch that gets all the way to the backstop. F2 runs to retrieve the ball, but the on-deck batter has decided to be helpful and has picked the ball up. Kill it; there's no way F2 is going to get an out in the normal circumstance*, allow R1's advance, and tell the on-deck batter to stop handling live balls. I have been ruminating about those situations where the nature of the interfering action actually prevents the defense from even attempting any further action. The OP is an excellent example; when the batter decided to attempt to hit F1's throw he put himself in jeopardy of an interference call. If the outcome of the batter's action completely prevents F2 from further action, I believe that it is well within the spirit of the rule to immediately rule interference, the disposition of the runner notwithstanding. If, on the other hand, the batter swings at F1's throw and misses, and F2 has suffered no ill effect because of this, then the interference call should not be forthcoming. * I must add a caveat here. If R1 decides that he may be able to continue his advance to 3B, then perhaps the situation would then warrant an interference call.

Look at this from a different angle. You state that "there was no 'play' in progress." But ask yourself "Was there an attempt in progress?" Of course there was; F1's actions are an attempt to make a play on R3. Did the batter's action interfere with the attempt? Yes-- therefore, offensive interference has occurred, and the rules are clear on the penalties involved. Umpires cannot rule by trying to take into account what might have happened. You state that "had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B." So what? That did not happen. What actually happened was that the batter struck F1's throw and prevented the defense from continuing through with their attempt. How about this: instead of the batter striking the ball, he catches it. What is the difference? Either action interferes with the defense's attempt. As far as I'm concerned, R3 could be doing cartwheels and handstands, but that doesn't change the fact that the batter interfered. Another twist: the batter swings and just tips the ball (like a foul-tip) into F2's glove. F2 subsequently throws to F5 trying to put out the returning R3. If R3 is actually tagged out, then by rule no interference has occurred (RULE 6.06© COMMENT). But, if R3 returns safely, then interference has occurred and the batter is called out. All of the above is a consistent application of the rules concerning offensive interference, because the original action of F1 is that of a throw, not a pitch. I noticed that elsewhere I am asked by sdix00 this: R1, not stealing. After swing and miss the pitch is blocked by the catcher, and the batter's backswing strikes the catcher in the head, dazing him. The runner is able to run to 2B safely. #1-- This exact scenario is covered explicitly by 6.06© comment: If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play. #2-- The OP has F1 throwing to F2, not pitching to the batter. So, let's consider the following: The batter swings and misses the throw from F1 but his follow-through carries the bat all the way around and hits F2. a-- F2 gloves the ball cleanly and throws to F5 who tags R3 for the out. By rule, interference has not actually occurred. Batter is not out. b-- F2 gloves the ball cleanly and decides not to throw to F5. Since he did not continue through with the attempt, interference cannot be adjudged to have occurred. c-- F2 is not able to glove the ball. Since this was not a pitch, but a throw by F1 in an attempt to make a play, the batter is out for interference. Traditionally, a play has been defined as a legitimate attempt by the defense to put out a runner/batter-runner. The elements that inform whether or not a play is occurring have traditionally been the presence of an offensive player, a defensive player and the ball. But looking through RULE 2.00, no actual definition of either a play nor an attempt can be found. However, these definitions all include in some fashion "play:" BATTER-RUNNER DEAD BALL DOUBLE PLAY FORCE PLAY FOUL TIP INFIELD FLY IN JEOPARDY INTERFERENCE LIVE BALL ORDINARY EFFORT “PLAY†SQUEEZE PLAY “TIME†TRIPLE PLAY These definitions likewise include a reference to "attempt:" CATCH FIELDER’S CHOICE INFIELD FLY INTERFERENCE OBSTRUCTION RUN-DOWN SQUEEZE PLAY In listing these, my point is that these common terms are used in varying ways throughout the rules. Perhaps they themselves should be defined in 2.00.

Thank you sir ...so, kill it using INT ...and keep 'em where they are ....interesting, but it does make sense.. I beg to differ; it does not make sense. The rule states that interference happens on the attempt to make a play. If an umpire tries to second guess all of the "what ifs" and "could'a happened," he is inserting himself into the game where the rules don't warrant such intrusion. This is a very simple concept to grasp: when the offense acts in such a fashion that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play," they have committed offensive interference. RULE 6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when— © He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference. The rule also states (in 6.06© COMMENT): If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter. Another way of thinking about this is that the attempt survived the batter's interference. Therefore, the play was subsequently made when that runner was put out. If, however, the runner was not put out, even though the catcher was able to continue through with the attempt, interference by rule has occurred. No where does it give any leeway to the umpires to kill the ball and keep everyone where they started. Now, I agree with the idea of "No attempt, no interference." For interference to be called, the defense must continue through with the attempt. But, what about that case, as in the OP, where the defense (namely, F2) is prevented from continuing through with the attempt because something like the batter illegally hitting the thrown ball constitutes the interfering action? I assert that when interference is promulgated in such a manner as to preclude the defense from continuing through with the attempt, then the "No attempt, no interference" interpretation cannot apply. During the back-and-forth in the thread I started 4/28/11 (Was This Interference?), I came to this conclusion: if the offense acts in a way that prevents the defense from even making an attempt, interference must be called. We as umpires cannot insert ourselves into the playing of the game by trying to guess if the defense had a reasonable chance at putting out a runner. So I take it you're busting out from behind F2 with "Time ...that's interference" ...right away? Yes, I am, because the offense has interfered with the defense's attempt to make a play.

Thank you sir ...so, kill it using INT ...and keep 'em where they are ....interesting, but it does make sense.. I beg to differ; it does not make sense. The rule states that interference happens on the attempt to make a play. If an umpire tries to second guess all of the "what ifs" and "could'a happened," he is inserting himself into the game where the rules don't warrant such intrusion. This is a very simple concept to grasp: when the offense acts in such a fashion that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play," they have committed offensive interference. RULE 6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when— © He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference. The rule also states (in 6.06© COMMENT): If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter. Another way of thinking about this is that the attempt survived the batter's interference. Therefore, the play was subsequently made when that runner was put out. If, however, the runner was not put out, even though the catcher was able to continue through with the attempt, interference by rule has occurred. No where does it give any leeway to the umpires to kill the ball and keep everyone where they started. Now, I agree with the idea of "No attempt, no interference." For interference to be called, the defense must continue through with the attempt. But, what about that case, as in the OP, where the defense (namely, F2) is prevented from continuing through with the attempt because something like the batter illegally hitting the thrown ball constitutes the interfering action? I assert that when interference is promulgated in such a manner as to preclude the defense from continuing through with the attempt, then the "No attempt, no interference" interpretation cannot apply. During the back-and-forth in the thread I started 4/28/11 (Was This Interference?), I came to this conclusion: if the offense acts in a way that prevents the defense from even making an attempt, interference must be called. We as umpires cannot insert ourselves into the playing of the game by trying to guess if the defense had a reasonable chance at putting out a runner.

You should be able to divine the answer from this: RULE 4.09 HOW A TEAM SCORES. (a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning. EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases.

Michael, There is absolutely no reason to judge whether or not the runner was "really" attempting to go home or not. The pitcher LEGALLY DISENGAGED. Now he's an infielder. There is nothing in the OP that suggests the pitcher violated 8.05(h). For you to balk him for "simulating a pitching motion" he would have to actually make it look like he re-engaged the rubber and was delivering a pitch. That's not what happened here. I would probably treat the OP as "interference without a play" - kill it and keep the runners where they were. JM Exactly. Rule 8.01(e) Comment: The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base. If he makes a wild throw, such throw is the throw of an infielder and what follows is governed by the rules covering a ball thrown by a fielder. However, there is no such animal as interference without a play. Interference happens on the attempt. F1's throw home was the attempt at the play, and the batter's hitting the ball was the interference.

It can be.. look at my last post..LOL Great minds think alike. As to the others: Yes, he legally disengaged but look at 8.05h. Interference has to do with the attempt to make a play, not the play itself. We really should say "No attempt, no interference." In the OP, the throw home was the attempt to retire R3. Of course there was no play because the batter hit the throw. RULE 2.00 Interference (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

This one still haunts me, from eight years ago.... R3, I'm BU in C: the field is very dry and dusty, but no wind. This is a late afternoon game (read sun low on the horizon). R3 takes a little too much lead and F2 snaps off a throw. R3 lunges back to the bag, F5 gloves the throw and lunges towards R3. I get a couple of steps and an angle and I see: a huge cloud of dust back-lit by the red glow of the setting sun. When I say huge, I mean at least 15' long and 8' tall. I can't see the runner, the fielder, the bag, the third base coach, about half of the dugout, etc. They could have been dancing for all I know, because I had absolutely zero visibility. PU came up the line as much as he could get; I look straight at him, catch his eye, and then ask "What did you see?" He signaled safe, and I parroted the call.

I can't tell you how many times I've had three-pitch, three out half-innings. When I was coaching/managing, I would tell my players that anytime we got a three-pitch, three out inning, I would owe everyone a dollar. I think I still owe those guys a few $... :P

This sounds like asking for trouble. If that gets to the coach, you may have a real problem on your hands. I like the idea of sending out F2, but I think I would be more likely to tell him that any further displays will be considered arguing balls and strikes and the next steps will have to be restriction or ejection. To each his own, I guess. I would agree if this was at a higher level, like Varsity, etc. But at this level, LL Jrs in their first season on a real-sized field, I feel that this course of action is appropriate: no threats needed. F2 starts to learn that there's more to his position than catching the ball, F1 starts to learn mound-presence, and if the manager comes to me trying to make trouble, I'll just look him in the eye and explain the situation.