Replacematt

To cover the back end of a potential rundown. Not where I would have gone (I would have stayed outside,) but that's why.

That is exactly what it is--because each of the penalties has a condition based on the result of the play. Enforce the BI--the penalty encompasses the UI "penalty," as I have mentioned. I don't know why this is hard to understand. You've satisfied both rules.

Lose the idea of most to least recent. It's hindering your understanding of how to apply penalties that satisfy all requirements. There is never a time you have IFF with R1 and R3, FYI. Again, the reason the penalty in that particular situation is the way it is is because of the interplay between the rules and their penalties, not because they occurred in a particular order.

That's not a principle--that's simply the interplay between the rules in that particular situation. And if you have all three, you will always enforce the CI because that is how the rules play into each other (although hypothetically, OC could refuse the CI penalty and then you would have the same batter up with R2 and R3, and if the bases had been loaded, a run scoring, due to enforcing the balk.)

Sometimes it's not my (our, your) call for a purpose, as reaching into someone else's bucket in most situations means I (we, you) are more likely to get it incorrect as well as undermine the umpire who had the primary responsibility. This is not one of those times, and I think U1 (BU) gets a little more latitude in making this call in FED because it is less subjective. I'd be far less likely to pick it up in NCAA or OBR without being very sure that the more subjective requirement of needing actual interference with the fielder fielding the throw is met. FED has it easy--out of the lane, throw made, RLI.

Yes, the requirements would have been met, as I pointed out. Where are you getting this idea about reverse application of penalties? There's no such principle.

Huh? If the throw retires the runner, both are ignored. If the throw doesn't, then the batter is out (BI penalty) and the runner is returned (both BI and CI penalties.)

Absolutely not. We would just be allowing a DC to bail their team out by screaming for time.

This is not a balk in any set of rules.

If we have a fielder that has both feet in LBT, holds themselves up on a dugout wall that is out of play, and makes the catch, do we have that as a catch?

For OBR and NCAA, the official answer is simple when you think of priorities: fair/foul, catch/no catch, then everything else. PU moves up the 1B line as far as the play will allow, to give ample time to retreat back to the plate and be in position to make a call. PU will judge fair/foul and catch/no catch while BU takes a position to observe plays at all bases. What this means in practice is that PU will be getting R3's tag-up either in peripheral vision or by swiveling upon the completed catch. PU does not take this play from 1BLX.

It literally almost happened in my game, hence the old post. And that was NOT the consensus. Nor is there one now. And yes, you sound like a douche because this happened in softball, it almost happened to me, and it's something to be aware of in the event it happens. Millions of plays happen every day and if having this out there is seen by the umpire who has this happen, then we've contributed something...well, some of us have contributed. So, feel free to move on from this thread if you feel it's a waste of your time.

That is what I should have said.

If it helps for OBR, Wendelstedt has a specific interpretation that coach assistance is illegal during a dead ball. My analysis says that extends to any non-runner, given that the rule extends to any non-runner during a live ball.

I think we have to enforce the BI. In doing so, we have enforced the consequence for both things that have occurred on the play. There is no rule support for ignoring BI because it might have been impacted by something that occurred before it. Plus, there is no such animal as intentional vs. unintentional BI, thus only enforcing the UI means that a quick-thinking batter could intentionally interfere with the throw to ensure their runner is not thrown out and merely has to return with no penalty.

Nope. There are only two actions that result illegal pitches--pitching while not engaged with the rubber, and quick pitches. The logic is actually reversed on these--they are always illegal, and with runners on, there is the additional penalty of a balk.

Honestly, I think if we get this on the field, it lowers the chances of that, especially if we can go to review.

Bringing this here: https://umpire-empire.com/topic/68853-ui-followed-by-bi/

Only in FED is that illegal. If you notice the balk rule in the various sets, there's wording to the effect of "with a runner or runners on base..." This means that runners are a condition to make a certain action illegal. Without runners or being made illegal by another rule, these actions are legal.

I really don't get what's so hard to understand about what I've already stated. Avoidable forcible contact above the waist is MC. The runner had over 5 strides to decide what to do in reaction to where the catcher was.

I think I asked this exact question about a decade ago based on something that happened to me. I don't remember if there was an answer.

I would point out, and I should have before this, that the biggest thing to remember about the collision rule is contained in the first paragraph: "The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible." What that means is that any avoidable collision can be penalized by this rule. Paragraphs a. and b. defines specific situations in which a runner shall be penalized subject to the exception contained within; they are not intended to be comprehensive. Paragraph c. flips it to describe the catcher's responsibilities, again with certain exceptions. I think if you start with the general principle of preventing avoidable collisions, and then think about the particulars, then these types of plays are far easier to judge.

I haven't seen a clip that shows if he set up there (that is, when he took that position in relation to when the throw was made.) What I do know is that he was there and in the act of fielding well before any impediment (I saw a still with the ball in frame with the runner still over 15 feet away.)

I didn't say there wasn't obstruction. I said there wasn't blocking. The NCAA said there would not have been obstruction had the catcher caught the ball (and I have to find that statement, or else my memory is failing,) which means that blacking wasn't the issue with the catcher obstructing.

Asked and answered. F2 was there well before the slide, as in the runner was at least 15 feet away. So, no, not a valid case. Per the NCAA statement, there was no blocking (you have to read between the lines,) and I agree. The penalty for the catcher is is not ejection unless they themselves initiate malicious contact.