Replacematt

Yours do? Mine don't.

It's just mechanics. One team, one spokesman. Unless he learned that the hard way.

There is one of two balks here. If he started to raise his arms before disengaging, then he has started his motion to pitch and interrupted it. If he disengaged before raising his arms, then he is simulating a pitching motion while not on the rubber.

Incorrect.

Even if he had gotten to 2B, I'm putting him back on 1B. There's no intervening play.

No argument here. Unfortunately, once his teammate interfered, the penalty specified for interference means that the obstruction award is pointless. By rule, the runner must return.

Close. R1 is still R1. Although you protected R1 to 2B, he cannot legally advance there due to the penalty for runner's lane interference. He must return to TOP base. Or, to put it another way, what base would he have achieved absent the obstruction? 1B--the interference would have put him back there, anyway.

" 'The only way to make sure you get that call right is to get another official,' Buie said. 'We have to have three officials to get that call correct.' " No, you don't. This is watchable in a two-umpire system, as long as both know what their responsibilities are when the ball is not theirs. We all get complacent now and then, and that's probably what happened here.

Whenever it is necessary. If someone crosses a line, they are done. If not, they stay. Are you regretting not ejecting in particular situations? If so, then maybe you are being too nice. If you have no regrets, then there is no reason to think that you are being a pushover. I have yet to wish I hadn't ejected someone. I have often wished that I had ejected someone, or ejected them earlier than when I actually did. I know the intent of your question is to see if there's some sort of baseline with which you can compare your actions to those of other umpires. The thing you need to remember is that each ejection is an individualized action tailored to one specific set of circumstances. Quantifying ejections, in the general sense, is just about useless for that reason. What would help you, though, is talking with colleagues that work the same leagues you do. They might be able to give you a feel for what flies and what doesn't in the games you work. If everyone else has ten a year, and you have none, then you can try to figure out if you have a different style of game management that is better, or if you are being a pushover. In short, number of ejections is not important. When you eject or don't eject is the salient issue.

So what? Many times, there is less than an ideal angle. Your partner needs to go to you when requested. There is no reason not to do so. If you can't tell what it was, then it wasn't a swing, and you can make that call.

You've got it backwards. OBR, a runner can retouch as long as he does not touch an advance base after the ball is dead. FED, once that ball is dead, he's SOL.

If he does not touch home while returning to third, he is liable for appeal at home.

I have to stop reading these on dog watch. Somehow, I thought there was a break in action before the throw to 3rd.

1. Safe, defense has lost its right to appeal (OBR, NCAA; ) out, failure to legally retouch a base left before a catch (FED) 2. Yep, inning isn't over (OBR, NCAA; ) yep, run scored before third out (FED) 3. Yes in reasoning, no in outcome (assuming question 3 refers to question 2.)

It's a technique. There are multiple acceptable ways to deal with something like this, and this is one of them. BS. He knows where the line is, unless he's an absolute moron. This is HS, not Little League. This isn't a case of a rat arguing a call on the bases, in which the line might not be readily apparent. He did this full-well expecting to get tossed. That's fine, given those circumstances. Apples and oranges. No, everyone would know, given the public nature of the offending comment. Again, apples and oranges--if the offending comment is known only to the participant and the umpire, then the response should be in kind. Likewise, a public disapproval requires a public response. Wrong question. The only question you should be asking (and not necessarily to the ejecting umpire) is whether umpire behavior precipitated the ejection. What you are doing is micro-managing game management. Yes, there are ways to reduce ejections and conflict--but those ways involve proper training and skill sets. Arm your umpires with those tools, and have the understanding that they will use them if and when they feel it is appropriate. Don't dictate procedure to them. You are confusing a "red-ass" with someone on a power trip. If the situation warrants it, an ejection is acceptable. If it doesn't, then it's not. It is really that simple. Change your question to the one I mentioned, and you'll find those guys who are causing the conflicts. Pay close attention to what you just said and your choice of words. Your words imply that an ejection is the result of loss of emotional control on the umpire's part. While umpire error often leads to ejections, and umpires can let emotions take control, ejections are not invariably the product of an irritated umpire. In fact, in 15 seasons, I can only think of one ejection (out of about 25) in which I felt emotionally affected. It's like The Godfather: It's not personal, it's business. Just because I toss someone doesn't mean I am mad or feel that the ejectee is a bad person. It means that I have made the decision that the person has behaved in a manner so that not to eject would either elicit further misbehavior and/or minimize my ability to manage the game.

Let it determine the call? No. Take it into consideration? You bet. Since it is a determination whether or not the batter attempted to hit the ball, the ball is a relevant part of the analysis.

Let's look at this through the lens of the intent of the rule. If we remember that the intent of the rule is to prevent a double play by the defense (not to give them an automatic out,) these situations become quite easy to answer. Situation 1: If IFF is not called, is the offense at risk for an easy double play? Probably not, given the wording of the situation. Keeping this in mind, we cannot call IFF and give the defense unwarranted outs. Situation 2: The converse applies here. We have all the elements for IFF--the rule doesn't specify where the infielder or the ball must be, just that there be the ability for the catch to be made with ordinary effort. With runners at the appropriate bases, the defense would have the ability to turn the double play by allowing the ball to drop, defeating the purpose of the rule. Thus, this is an infield fly.