Replacematt

Why? It's not interference in MLB, and it's not in tee ball. This is covered. We aren't the morality police.

So, first off, OBR has the same premise. However, I'm thinking of the reality of such a play. This isn't going to occur in a vacuum--the runner isn't going to start to return on their own volition, or else they would have stopped and corrected the miss immediately after it happened. They are going to do it because someone, likely the defense but possibly an unthinking teammate, brings it to their attention. The totality of such a situation tells me that the defense is making an appeal of the missed base by tagging them. If, for some reason, there is some ambiguity, then yeah, I'll ask. But in a situation where everybody knows what is happening, even if the detail is vague, it's really grabbing the SH*#ty end of the stick and the turd that made it so to not grant the appeal. One key difference here is that this caseplay (and the OBR one) really is about determining the difference between shopping for a favorable call and a legitimate appeal.

That's how I would do it.

Because the interpretation and case plays state that the run is unscored if the runner starts an attempt to correct their error and the third out is made before they correct it and retouch home plate.

1: Correct--the miss has been fixed. 2: Exactly; covered in the same interpretation. 3: Was there a miss of 3B? If so, see 1. If not, remove the runner and they are still liable to be put out pending proper appeal.

Close. 1 is correct. 2: Once they start their attempt to retouch, the run unscores.

That is what legally scored means. If there's the possibility of appeal, the attempt to return unscores the run. If there is no possibility, nothing can unscore the run.

This run does not score, as once a runner starts to return to correct a baserunning error, the run is no longer scored (Wendelstedt 5.5.2.) I'd have no heartburn applying that to FED unless there is something published to the contrary. In fact, with the assistance of two caseplays, Wendelstedt goes so far to say that a runner that attempts to return to home after missing it unscores their run by doing so.

No, we don't need to in this case.

That rule alone cannot be used to justify interference per Wendelstedt. This is nothing.

Yep. To your last sentence, it's more of a thought that there might be something else there that makes it illegal, as I've often seen with this type of delivery.

Both sound legal to me, but I'd want to see the first one to be sure.

Looks like a judgment issue to me. Probably saw the batter step towards third over the plate and didn't realize his position after that.

It's like all OBR-based sets. A start/stop balk is dead at the moment the stop happens because play is stopped at that point. As for your assessment, the J/R enforcement mentioned above is the way to go. Kill it, nullify the balk, toss the coach, continue. I think it's very questionable to use interference here (especially since there is no such animal as verbal interference in pure OBR) because of how tenuous the chain of events would be that would result in an out. Putting that aside, OBR requires an act in violation of an interference rule aside from the offensive interference definition (per Wendelstedt definitions of terms,) so I'd be hard-pressed to find a violation there, either.

If we are considering the pitcher's hesitation to be a balk, then the ball is dead at that point.

That's because it isn't a balk (except in FED.)

And one that, to officiate effectively, requires PU to make an immediate call. The offense isn't going to notice the violation, but they'll notice the balk, and if PU isn't on it immediately, they are going to think the defense got away with one.

Yes. It has been beaten into our heads that a pitcher starting to come set before the batter is alert to the pitcher is a violation.

It's taught at Wendy (and explicitly that we are only to use the relevant hand,) that I can say.

For this to be a ball, there had to have been a warning to that pitcher already in that game. Assuming that is the case, then the violation would result in the balk being ignored.

I'm not a fan, as it looks too much like a shrug, or the salute we used in military intelligence. This sounds like it's simulating something...I've never heard it called a swing of a bat. Plenty of other things, though.

Same here. Going across our body looks like dookie.

Which is it? You can't both call and raise on the same turn.

If we called games for that weather, we'd never have a college season. Calling games (for us) is foremost a safety issue. If there is a safety issue, then it is time to call it. The other issue is playability...does the game being played become functionally impossible to play? There is an argument to be had that there is a comfort factor, too, but that is likely age-dependent.