Replacematt

I know the answer, but not your point.

https://cdn1.sportngin.com/attachments/document/d73f-3191917/2019_MLB_Umpire_Manual-1.pdf

https://ipmall.law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/SportsEntLaw_Institute/League rules, regulations/official_baseball_rules.pdf Rules 5.10(f), 6.05(a), and 7.04(c) in this version are what govern your question.

There used to be a difference between entering a dugout and remaining standing and entering a dugout and falling. A fielder could catch a ball, go into the dugout, and if they remained upright, the ball was in play. Dropping the ball while in the dugout or throwing it and hitting something out of play was a two-base award.

I say, as someone who works a lot of replay games, that people that have no say in the system waste way too much time worrying and talking about the shoulds and what-ifs and not enough just enjoying baseball.

No. There is no such thing as a lifetime ban. It is being placed on the permanently ineligible list. That is what is on the agreement Rose himself signed. PERMANENT. Not life.

If this is what they want, this is the language they need to use. It addresses the timing of the infraction AND the exception about being on the opposite side of the throw. I think it even provides for the idea that RLI has to originate from the plate area. The one thing it doesn't do is address the part of the rule that requires actual hindrance. If this is the way they want it, why not redact that part of the rule in 2025 instead of providing half-assed examples?

I don't think I stuttered.

That still doesn't address the directive to call it the moment a throw is made.

It seems that it's possible that the video you linked to was non-canonical (or misworded,) based on the conversation. All I know is that the declaration in this year's POE and interpretations is mutually exclusive with how we have been directed to adjudge this infraction in every extant (to me) interpretation prior to this year, with the exception of this video you shared.

Yeah, but the point in question is if this is something that had been stated before this season.

Do you have any links to said thread (or even better, the FED documents saying such?) I find no such thing, but plenty of interpretations that indicate to wait until actual hindrance occurs.

Yeah, but looking at the Situation 18 one above (where BR's location is unspecified) and using the language, we can't know if the BR is on the other side of the throw since the throw's trajectory occurs AFTER the RLI. If, indeed, the time of interference is the time of the throw, then we have to assume that these new interpretations supersede the old ones.

Let me think about this for a moment. Okay, done. I gave it about as much thought as FED does in writing their interpretations. POE: BR out of lane + throw = RLI. Correct? Rule: BR out of lane + throw + hindrance of throw or fielder = RLI. Correct? So, under the POE, an RH BR with U3K that kicks off to the 1B side, with F3 setting up in foul territory and F2 retrieving the ball in foul territory, is guilty of RLI if they are in fair territory past the 45' line at the time of throw. Correct?

Lest this thread be filled with more sartorial crimes of humanity... Order this or something like it: https://purchaseofficials.com/collections/belts/products/ultimate-belt Cut it to the appropriate length where it will wrap somewhere between your pants belt and the top of the back pockets without excess length beyond the fastening section. Before putting your non-drawstring or -elastic jacket on, put the flex belt around that area of your pants. Put the jacket on, tuck the end under the flex belt, and adjust for a straight, smooth line at the bottom of the jacket.

You're right, it hasn't changed in CCA. PU has had 3B for about the past six years now. Unless that's what you meant...

For B to be correct, we have to assume that F1 has exactly two feet.

And my last two NCAA ejections speak to this point: participants are not to expect a free personal shot without actual consequence.

There can be. Nothing says there can't be.

There's no push here.

I'm ejecting for this one. He took it up the line with him until he was in front of the opposing dugout. When we think about the two reasons for this rule (safety, sportsmanship,) and that he was waiting to do that until he could throw that bat up their ass, so to speak, we have a violation of the second one.

This was entirely a flop and the initial act is not even close to severe enough to do anything official unless there had been something else to this point, which is why we use our tools. And whether the runner falls or not is irrelevant. This is not a totally uncommon occurrence in college ball, people don't usually get thrown at over this, and an ejection here will have your coordinator questioning why you ejected for something so minor. The lack of a warning might also raise the national coordinator's eyebrows (there is a dedicated field to affirm/deny that a warning was given.) Hopefully the mistake of ejection doesn't come with the additional consequences of subsequent ejections, because nothing is going to get you questioned more than having multiple ones in the same game, let alone same incident. While we could eject here and have it supported by rule, it is not the tool that anyone wants us to use. Soft ejections without using all the tools are one of the big things that will keep an umpire from advancing or the postseason (and too many will get your schedule pulled.) In the old days, without instant video at coordinators' disposal, a written report on this incident probably wouldn't raise any questions. Now that nearly every college ejection can be seen by those who give us our schedules, we have to add another area where our judgment has to be on point--game management. Our bosses can see an ejection incident and tell if we misjudged its severity.

I was expecting something with a bit more meat when I read the thread before watching the video. Absent anything else happening to this point, this is getting a stern "Really?" from me to F3. And if BR asks me to do more, I'm going to ask him about his theater major.

We mentally note the situation while we are getting out of there, getting to our off-field area, calling our conference coordinator, and aligning on who is going to retrieve, watch, and document the video.

Like I said--neither relevant nor hypocritical. You seem to think the two things have anything in common (and even if they did, it still wouldn't be relevant.) They don't.