scrounge

Not quite enough information on this one. Where was the ball when the runner ran into the fielder? If it was very close - as in, the fielder could have picked it up without taking more than a step, then this should have been interference on the runner. If it was further then that, then it is indeed 'interference' (more accurately and probably what was actually called, obstruction) on the defender. You stated the runner couldn't avoid, so no malicious contact as described.

I disagree with this take. The rule was changed to make it an immediate out rather than a delayed dead ball, to align it to a similar outcome as passing a runner. It was overly complex, and this simplified it. Also, the term playing action appears in other areas and does not seem to be 'live ball'. For instance, ejections are made at the end of playing action. One of the cases, 3.3.1TT, has a player hit a HR and get ejected at the end of playing action. If playing action only meant live ball, why woudn't he be ejected as soon as the ball cleared the fence and made the ball dead? Also, consider an appeal and an award during dead ball. The award has to be made and an opportunity for runners to legally advance prior to entertaining any appeal. Playing action in that situation clearly doesn't happen only during a live ball.

I think BRD overstates and misinterprets the case 3.2.2A. If the rule makers wanted to make assistance to only be a penalty during live ball, why would they not just say that instead of 'during playing action'? The case allows a coach to pick up a tripped runner, which would be preventing the defense in live ball but really isn't impacting the play during a dead ball award. However, preventing a missed base with physical assistance IS impacting the pattern of play and preventing the defense from an appeal. BRD is certainly persuasive, but not authoritative, it's not the rule book. And in this case, barring some direction from NFHS otherwise, I think BRD is wrong.

Yep, I thought Gardy wanted out of that one last night. Once he was ejected, he just calmly walked out, had what looked like a cordial short discussion and took off. Getting his butt whipped on a 35 degree night? He wanted out! On another note, my gosh Kirk Gibson is a boring color guy. Damn near put me to sleep But he was quite fair, acknowledging that those calls were indeed right.

Oh hells no, he's getting ejected at the end of playing action. This is much more than carelessly flipping a bat per rule 3, it's intentionally using the bat as a weapon AND taunting. He gone in one of the easiest ejections ever.

If the fielder has 1 foot in play, then he's still in play. Can't say that I've ever seen a below-grade dugout in HS, so not sure it's really any more of a safety issue than any other boundary line in the vast majority of cases.

The game is suspended, let the state handle it from that point.

there is nothing more pathetic in sport than the half-hearted jog-in from the bullpen

I totally get that you have to do what your assignor expects, but there's no rule saying they have to use the designated bullpen area, even if there is one. All 3-3-4 says is that IF they warm up in an area not protected by a fence or other structure, then they need a teammate with a glove (a helmet is not necessary unless that's some local add-on) in between them and the batter. That's it. I think your assignor read much more into the rule than really exists. EDITED TO ADD: However, as @Senor Azul points out just below, 3-3-1 does indeed say they can't be outside of the dugout or designated bullpen area, unless for an authorized purpose like warming up between innings (case 3.3.1BBB).

I can't stand this garbage of throwing at a player for the HORROR! of flipping a bat after a HR when the same pitchers pump their fists and hoot and holler when they get an inning-ending strikeout all the time. Oh, emotion for me but not for thee, huh? Don't give up the HR next time, playa. No reason Anderson should have been thrown out, and Renteria should have kicked Yost's ass, just because. (there is a small chance I may bring a wee bit of bias to this particular situation, but I've hated the old man baseball fun police for a long while)

I've often heard of these studies....I've never once actually seen one referenced. I have serious doubts that they exist.

Then he didn't hurdle the player, did he? We can't rule a violation on what he anticipated would happen, we have to rule on what actually did happen. Also, @Thatsnotyou, if you judge he hurdled the player and not just the arms in your judgment, then by all means call it. My judgment is that it was the arms, and legal.

I think @kylehutson is in that area...perhaps he can chime in?

You are correct from a rule book perspective, the other acts are only explicitly stated to do so in the case book in the case I posted above

Indeed they do... 8.4.2 SITUATION S: F4 is in the baseline without the ball (a) on both knees or (b) bending over. R1 hurdles, jumps, leaps or dives over F4. RULING: In (a) and (b), obstruction is ignored. If the runner hurdles, jumps or dives over the fielder, he shall be declared out. These illegal acts supersede obstruction.

A few years ago, my mentor (a former AAA umpire who did a couple MLB spring trainings) suggested a small change which has helped me immensely in this area, as well as improved my timing. Watch the ball until you know it's not errant or going to hit you. Once you know that, there's no real reason to watch/track it thru its full flight, so immediately switch to the fielder. By this time you should be in position and set - keep that camera steady. You'll be able to then read the fielder and see any pre-tag issues like obstruction before it blows up on you. If you see the fielder come off the bag or stretch out, it makes it much easier to take that read step or adjust as well.

I would have nothing. It doesn't look like he hurdled the torso, or that the entire path was blocked .

And as such, at least in the central OH region, I really don't see it much at all anymore. I did see it today in warmups with a kid though. I came out and mentioned it to him before the game, he gave me an attitude and said "Well, I've been doing it all year". Mind you, we're in week 2 right now, so....yea. Anyway, his coach saw the kerfuffle and came out and asked what he said. I explained, he thanked me, he corrected it.

#metoo

This is from pg 27 of the current FHSAA official's guidebook. I didn't google every state - this was the first one I did, and it wasn't hard to find. I really don't think this is uncommon at all: (6.) Home plate umpires must wear all necessary protective equipment https://www.fhsaa.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2010/09/16/node-247/2018-19_fhsaa_officials_guidebook_6.pdf Additionally, here they list exactly what that necessary equipment is: http://www.becomeanofficial.org/sports/ba.asp

Is that really all that surprising? Since the state association provides us with insurance, it seems eminently reasonable that they require all reasonable and customer protective equipment to be worn. If some dolt insists on calling a game without a mask on, they wouldn't then - and shouldn't be - on the hook. I guess I'm just not seeing the "WOW!!!" here...

What rule set? If this is played under official baseball rules (used by USSSA, Nations, Babe Ruth, other leagues) or NCAA, then it is indeed a balk, as no feint to 3rd is allowed (which I think is a silly change to outlaw, but that's a different post). If it is played under high school rules (not necessarily only for high school/middle school games), then it's fine - the feint to 3rd is still allowed.

When did 15 after 4 come in? School or travel?

I don't know enough from just a still to say if it's FED FPSR or not. Did the fielder just get the ball in front of the bag, giving the runner no opportunity to do anything? Then nothing, the contact is n front of the bag, the runner didn't interfere. Or did the runner have ample opportunity to slide or veer off but chose to actively come into the fielder like this? Then absolutely FPSR. If egregious, we'll move on to MC as well.