Replacematt

Whichever outcome is more advantageous to me.

That's the thing, though. He didn't hit the ball. He messed up.

I will say that the 2.9.1C comment leaves a gap, thus, until there is an interpretation from NFHS, there is no universal correct nor incorrect answer.

And not applying 8-4-2g criteria of intent on anyone that is not a runner...welcome, bruda. The rules offer a way to punish DA batter for mucking up a play 7-3-5b. Why look for a way to absolve him by using 8-4-2g criteria (intent). STFU. You showed how worthless your opinion was and your inability to understand simple concepts in the other thread. Don't contaminate this one. A batter is not a runner nor retired runner (which are both specifically mentioned in 8-4-2g.)

It might be if someone set up a clinic for the coaches. Giving a thumbs up and saying "sure you do" isn't helping one iota. Just don't order too many doughnuts. You'll have plenty left over. just my two cents...but idgaf if they know or dont know the rules. That's MY job. If they ask for a rule explanation? A short one is in order. But I'm not explaining during the game how to properly appeal or why engaging/disengaging isn't necessary because the ball was already live. SMFH You're right, it is your job. However, your job is also helped if you don't have ignorant coaches coming out on issues that exist only because of their ignorance. The only time knowledgeable coaches are going to make your job difficult are a) if you mess up or b) if they try to game you by playing dumb. The more competent you are, the less likely a) will happen or b) will be successful.

Oh, I know! A dead bird. But seriously, folks, I'd have 2 outs and bases loaded. No run for the offense, and no double play for the defense. I framed it the way I did to make the play at the plate a coin-flip. Is that something you're taking into account? Sure. With bases loaded, the options are limited: score a run, call an out (or 2), or have a do-over. If I had significant doubt about getting an out, I might do the last. But everybody hates do-overs: I'd rather just have one team mad. Okay...just trying to get to your thought process.

Oh, I know! A dead bird. But seriously, folks, I'd have 2 outs and bases loaded. No run for the offense, and no double play for the defense. I framed it the way I did to make the play at the plate a coin-flip. Is that something you're taking into account?

Try this one on... Bases loaded, 1 out. Batter hits a chopper to F6, who fires home to try to get R3. The ball hits a bird halfway to home. You know it was going to be close. What do you have?

Swear to God that the CO of the Marine detachment on the USS Nimitz when I was assigned there was named Richard Head. True story. I have a Major Dick in my section.

I almost had this happen with a goose yesterday, so I thought of how I would do this if it did occur. I'd invoke spectator interference, and do my best to figure out what would have happened.

He was the captain on "Emergency!" IIRC. And I do have one, but it hits too close to home.

Not buying it. In front of the plate is where we would expect a RH batter to be on a push bunt, but we're not protecting him. We also don't protect the power hitter swinging for the fences as his follow-through takes him there as expected.

When, in the umpire's judgment, he is no longer interfering with F2's fielding or attempt to make a play. So, it's interference. A throw is a throw. It doesn't magically change from an attempt to make a play simply because the batter is even more egregiously out of the area that has been designated for him.

Of course. Then the OP is interference. There is no difference here. That's where we disagree. Where's the difference? At what point does a batter moving out of the box stop being interference?

Of course. Then the OP is interference. There is no difference here.

Ask him what he would have done had one or both players moved before he had gotten there.

Let me ask this. R1, who steals on the pitch. If the batter had missed a bunt attempt and ended up out of the box in front of home plate, would you consider it interference if the throw hit him?

Matt, are you saying that if the runner missed second and is between third and home, he can go back to second and touch it? OBR 7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when [snip] APPROVED RULING: [snip] (2) When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left after he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base. Rule 7.10(b) Comment: PLAY. (a) Batter hits ball out of park or ground rule double and misses first base (ball is dead)—he may return to first base to correct his mistake before he touches second but if he touches second he may not return to first and if defensive team appeals he is declared out at first. Is there a citation for your last proposition, about changing the award? If in the MLB rule book, I have overlooked it. Is it in PBUC, MLBUM or another manual? I can understand the logic--that he hasn't legally acquired possession of second, having missed it--but it seems to conflict with the idea that passing a base is equivalent to having attained it. MLBUM 5.12. The next base and base beyond refer to the runner's position when the ball is made dead.

I'm having trouble picturing this layout, but based off what I think you are saying... If a ball's out of play, it's dead. If DBT is behind the fence, and an imaginary line extended off either end of the fence, then a ball behind that line is dead. If it's not DBT, it's not. Where judgement comes in (sometimes) is determining if the ball's final position is due to the hit or the fielder.

Pop up priority, who is 9th on that list? The pitcher.

type B in FED??? Reading is, indeed, fundamental....lol That's what happens when you post while getting dental x-rays.

That's true. But the confusion must hinder a runner who is running the bases to count as OBS. Confusing a guy standing on a base ain't it. I would say convincing someone to go where he otherwise wouldn't would count as hindering.

This wasn't your mistake, it was his. BU should not go for help on the tag when there is no help to be had because PU has other responsibilities.

You did the correct thing. This is type B, and you nullified the obstruction. Just saw this was FED. Disregard the above. However, if he wasn't truly going, he wasn't truly hindered.

In FED, this would (may?) be verbal obstruction. Anywhere else, it's legal.