SoCal Lurker

One other thought: if your association feels like you do, someone should have an organization-to-organization talk with the league. tell the league as an association that coach behavior has been unacceptable, that umpires have tried to be lenient on learning coaches but it is obviously not working as the behavior has been getting worse, and that that umpires have been instructed by the association to stop being lenient and toss coaches. And tell the league that no coach gets to black ball an umpire. Then execute.

You'd think they were old enough, but in a varsity game I had F3 OBS R1 on a botched pick-off and no one really understood why I let R1 advance to third. Nor do I without more info -- was it because the ball got away and, in your opinion, but for the obstruction the runner would have made it all the way to third? (that seems like a stretch to me, but obviously depends on the field and where the ball went -- or am I missing something?)

unless I am mistaken you have described a time play. Furthermore, it seems the runner did cross the plate before the third non-force out; run counts. If, to tweak the play, it was R1 and R3, and F2 throws and gets R1 at second before he reaches second but after R3 crosses the plate, no run because the DK3 reated a force play and the out at second was a force to end the innining - correct?

@ -- a good place to start your reading might be to google "baseball rule myths" -- there are a bunch of useful lists out there, many of which are going to include this topic. You'll probably find that you have heard (and maybe even believe) a whole bunch of them. (E.g., item 11 of 40 on this list: http://www.nwumpires.com/home/index.php/larryscorner-7/14-amateur2/168-top-40-baseball-rule-myths)

There are a gazillion teen aged catchers with braces out there . . . .

Separate out the concept of "force" and the concept of appeal. (As noted, it's not really a force at frist, but effectively the same thing,) Once he passes the base, the not-actually-a-force is gone, and he's safe absent an appeal. So simply what you described in your post -- tagging the base or the player -- is nothing. (This is what Jasper was saying.) Until he actually touches the base, however, he liable to be out on appeal for the missed bag. Either of the things you describe -- tagging the base or the player -- can be part of executing the appeal, but the team has make clear that the tag of the base or player is being done for the purpose of making the appeal of the missed base. If that clear appeal of the missed base is upheld, then the run would not count. (which is what Dash and Afaber were saying.)

A conflict of interest to be a coach and an umpire? Huh? There's a conflict if you are umping games that could affect your team, but that's about it. But you can only do one at at time. Now coaches who say "well, I'm an umpire [or referee]" are being %$*#s -- umpires [or referees] who are in the process of coaching a game aren't looking at it through umpire eyes, but coach eyes. Personally, I think coaches benefit a lot from doing some umpiring [or refereeing] as it helps them see the game in a differne way. (In soccer, I've found the same with referees -- coaching and understanding the flow of the game that coaches are trying to teach their teams helps referees, especially those who did no play as much, read the game more effectively. [i don't know the extent to which that translates to baseball, which is more episodic than flowing.])

I am not sure what I would do about the out here. I guess it comes down to the last legally acquired base. Defense appealed at the last legally acquired base. I guess I have an out. Leaving early is NOT an out - no matter how far he went. Just return him to the base. Applied to the OP, if it were LL closed bases, I think it would be an out -- not because he left early, but because his last legally acquired base was still first base, so that remains the base he has to tag up to, doesn't it? Am I missing something?

I am not sure what I would do about the out here. I guess it comes down to the last legally acquired base. Defense appealed at the last legally acquired base. I guess I have an out. Why is it crazy? If the bases are closed, he's not permitted to acquire second base in this context.

WTF. The coach thinks a player shouldn't be ejected for fighting? Huh?!?!?

Yes, that's the lesson... And hydration never begins a the field . . . it begins well in advance. Far, far easier to keep the body hydrated than to rehydrate the body.

Depends on the leve. LL has bases with open bases, which would seem to be context of the post. For those levels, OBR applies and the magic question, as others have stated, is whether he acquired 2d by the time of pitch (as in started the pitch). In hteOP, whether the U misappled the rule or believed that the pitcher started his pitching motion before the runner got to second, we just don't know.

Not sure I understand -- he can pitch from the windup with any runners on any bases. Going to the windup is simply limiting the options to control the runner. Like Maven, I simply suspect this is a new umpire who has confused "what I usually see" with "what must happen." Wheher that is his fault, or what was part of his education on balks is hard to say.

You know that, I know that, but . . . poorly drafted (and unnecessary) local rules drive me batty -- if the point is to make sure everyone knows this rule is being applied, why wouldn't it say something simple like "Coaches should be aware that the recent modfiication to rule ___ (prohibiting feints to third base from the rubber) will be applied in this tournament. The first sentence is not only unnecessary (covering nothing that is not covered in the second), but seems to suggest support for the myth that the balk is caused by the throw to first rather than the feint to third. thx to all

So (haven't ordered the Evans balk videeo for my son yet...), from the windup, when does the pitcher become committed to go to the plate instead of first?

So, a tournament rule set says SPORTING NEWS RULES will apply. Does that mean OBR or something else? (Also includes the following: "Pitchers who fake a throw to third base and then throw to another base will be charged with a balk. A pitcher that steps toward first or third must throw to that base. You can still step towards second and not make a throw to that base." *sigh* Gonna see balks called when a pitcher steps off and fakes to third before throwing to first?)

Does this actually ever happen? Any video of this...I am being completely serious. I know it is in the rules, but minus Jim Evans' Balk Video, I have never seen it "in the wild". I would think it would be effective. Imagine a 3-2 counts with 2 outs and runners on base. Pitcher switches to the windup and pulls this move out. I'm tempted to have my son work on it . . . but I lack confidence that the umps he works with would realize it was OK. (He does do a direct step without jumping back -- which almost got an opposing coach ejected in a PONY game (and I had to argue with my son's coach about it being legal...)

Well, "real" baseball doesn't allow re-entry at all, so the issue never comes up. The purpose of LL regular season is to let kids play -- the regular season re-entry rule means that instead of players having to share the same spot, three players can share two spots, so all three get to play four innings. The rule makes the starter who comes out miss an at bat before he can go in, so the coach can't use it to sneak in extra at bats for his best player. If you're concerned about purtiy of the game, sure, it's an impure rule -- but that's not what LL is about. The rule serves what LL is trying to accomplish for kids. (Though mandatory use of a CB below minors does that even more effectively.)

Not all rule sets. The LL regular season rules permit a starter to come into the game in a different slot in certain situations -- I believe the sub that came in for him has to have completed mandatory play. Guest Todd: it sounds like you're a guy who volunteered (or got volunteered) and is trying to work out how the rules/league work. I'd suggest you coral a veteran coach in the league and walk through how things are done and how to manage the game to meet the minimum play rules for whatever league you're in. And you really need to read the specific rules: leagues that allow players to come back in have a wide variety of ways that they govern how that happens. But one thing I don't think any rule set will permit is to move a player curently in the game within the batting order -- a player who is in the game can't change batting order slots (as others have said, the batting position has nothing to do with the field position -- players could change positions on every pitch if they wanted to).

I'm taking a wild guess that he didn't agree wih the radical shift his team was playing, and thought he would have had that ball if he were playing normally..

As my kid, who pitches, is getting older, I'm thinking he could use the balk video (Evans?) as a tool for understanding and working on his moves. (He's a very cereberal player.) Is there any reason to wait (like, is it about to be revised)? And can anyone tell me where to get it?

No such thing. If you can see it, so can coach (just ask Rich Ives), and he might well ask why that guy out there is making this call (which belongs to PU). I'm not a fan of secret/subtle/whatever signals, which for me can promote lazy umpiring and not getting your own calls. I understand what you're saying, but I will agree to disagree. So what if Rainman saw you give me what you had. It's my call. Just because you saw it differently, and a rat knows it means nothing. You're not making a call. Youre sharing information. Its no secret. Most of the time I dont need it and dont bother to look for it. But there are times when it has been a key piece of information. My two cents on subtle signals (as many know, I don't ump, but I ref soccer, so take with a grain of salt): There are a couple of reasons for subtle signals. One is to avoid distraction of prticipants. Another is, well, not to be as visible to everyone. Sublte siganls are most subtle when the hoi poloi aren't looking at the person making the signal -- which is pretty likely on a UC3K. Of course, some coaches will notice these subtle signals -- but those are typically going to be more knowledgable ones who will actually understand a brief explanation, not the ones who scream and yell about stupid stuff they don't understand.

That's a surprisingly common misconception -- perhaps because in LL foul tips are almost never caught. (Yes, I know that means they weren't "foul tips" -- but I didn't know that till I started lurking around umpire boards.) The highlight of my (very brief and long ago) LL career, which ended in minors, was catching a foul tip for strike three -- umpire simply yelled foul and I had to turn around and point out I caught it before he gave the out.)

Rich may explain this better than I, but LL more or less tries to get the players and coaches to pretend the parents aren't there at all. Communication from the players/caoches to the stands is prohibited (albeit not always taken seriously in league play). So it's tough to both tell the coach he can't talk to a parent and tell the coach to control that parent's behavior.

While there are many LL rules I'm not fond of, by using pitch counts LL has IMO done the best job of making the pitching limits match the intended goal of protecting pitchers. (Yes, there are some side effects, but other than having coaches that we trust to do the right thing, the LL model seems to be the best proxy.) My two cents on interpretting the poorly written house rules: taking the mound is an "outing," even if it doesn't count as an "inning" because no outs are recorded by the pitcher.