Replacematt

The narrator on the Facebook post that inspired this post here, of which was based on a video not included in that post. This is not a strike. The batter did not even know there was a pitch. And the interpretation most certainly includes a requirement to judge if the batter meant their swing. Pitches that hit the bat are irrelevant to this conversation as we are dealing solely with whether the pitch was struck at. And I'll leave it at that and leave once again, since your snark reminds me of one of the reasons I stopped coming here in the first place.

Quick pitch aside (as the video was not provided for discussion and the narrator stipulated that it was not...) This is not a strike. A strike requires the batter to strike at the pitch, which requires an intentional attempt, per Wendelstedt.

He cited the whole of 8-3-5. The relevant part for what we're discussing is the last line, which governs throws by an outfielder. I believe the reasoning for citing all of it, aside from ensuring completeness, was to highlight how confusingly that rule is written and highlight the mental flow chart someone has to use to extract the proper portion to apply.

No. For the purposes of the plays in this thread, the award is 2 bases TOT.

<OBR>Yep. And, if they go and correct it (of which the issue is legal acquisition of a base,) then the award then becomes 3B. (Wendlestedt footnote 317.) Here's why touching is not operative: if (somehow) R1's miscue was not in leaving early, but in missing 2B, the award is HP, correct? It is not "the last base touched when the ball was released," as someone else here erroneously reiterates, because then we would award 3B, no matter where they were on the field at TOT.

Grow up.

No, the issue is you're still not getting that "touched" is not the operative word and is not the same as TOT. You said what you said--I did not half-read it.

That's not what the issue is. The key word is "touched." The runner's position at TOT is not necessarily the same as the last base they touched.

Dammit... Okay, my answer is limited to if it hits the top of the wall, per the last question.

...and that's why to me, logically, the OP is a home run. If a ball is a home run by passing out of the playing field touching only the top of the wall, then by the definition of home run, it left the playing field in flight. The definition of a ball in flight includes a ball that has touched a fielder. If the top of the wall doesn't render a ball no longer in flight, and we know touching a fielder doesn't, then touching both should not matter--whether it's fielder then top of fence, or top of fence then fielder. If the issue is the vertical plane, then it doesn't matter what happens after it hits the top of the fence, and should be a home run at that point (and no balls on top should be considered in play.) This is not how I would necessarily rule on the field were this situation ever to happen to me, however.

It specifies that abandonment is a force. There is no appeal in the case play.

Wendlestedt case play AP24 matches this one and states that abandonment before reaching a forced base is a force out.

Yes.

None of this is true.

Wat?

That's most of my summer schedule. While we use OBR (functionally unchanged) for rules, we generally use CCA mechanics because it's what we all do in the spring and it's what they are used to seeing (even if they don't consciously understand umpiring, they understand when something seems different.) I would also suggest that the point isn't a directive to the batter, but a signal that PU judged that it was a situation awarding the base.

I'm not sure what FPSR has to do with this situation. I'm also not sure what the OC meant by that comment.

You've got it. No run can score if the third out is a force out, no matter the situation.

De nada.

Name. People are attuned to responding when they hear their name, which means that if they say it and I can hear it, I can address what they are looking to say (this is how we know we're in trouble when we hear our parents/grandparents/whoever's throwing the chancla say our full first and middle names.) We aren't geared towards immediate response to a generic title, which can make us look aloof and disengaged. Secondly, to draw a rather extreme analogy, as for those of us who were at high risk of being taken captive learned in training, don't let anyone put a bag over your head (yes, I'm getting somewhere with this.) People find it much easier to do what they want to a nameless and faceless entity as that is a situation where it's been dehumanized. Likewise, if there's conflict on the baseball field, using names tends to keep things de-escalated as they remember (slightly) that you are a person.

If multiple people don't understand what you mean, they're not the problem.

The front foot is key on this, not the back. Because it comes off the ground, it's considered a step.

This is no different than any other fly ball with a routine catch. Back up from the point of the plate, monitor the catch, and get the best look you can at R3. There's really no reason to have to move your eyes if the catch is routine, as you can see both at the same time--you'll either have them leaving early or not as the ball is first touched. If you're not sure, they didn't leave early.

I didn't know you were a Minnesota legislator.

Yeah, actually, you are. You need to stop talking and start listening.