scrounge

This is the coaches job. I'm thinking someone's sarcasm detector is on the fritz I'll announce if there's a delay, mention it quietly to F2 (and myself) every now and then, answer if asked, maybe say it at other times. It's not a big deal really, can't even say that I have a definite pattern.

The way this is written is absolutely atrocious...why even have 8-4-2k if it's already covered by 8-4-2g? While I see maven's point, a literal reading of 2g would be that that phrase is for protecting a fielder on the initial attempt to play the ball. So now we have some weird third category, where if the runner is hit by a batted ball AND there's a fielder making his initial attempt to field the ball, it's interference under 8-4-2g, but otherwise it's just an out under 8-4-2k, except 8-4-2g seems to incorporate 8-4-2k but not really, since the context/setup of that entire section was situations when a fielder is protected on his initial play......yadda yadda yadda. I don't play a lawyer (though I did take the LSAT once) but this is horrible statutory construction.

I think @GreyhoundAggie has this one right. While the comment at the start of the case book does appear to back getting 2 outs, a closer look shows it's talking about interference. So let's look at the Rule 2 definition of interference: ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play; or b. when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline; or c. a coach physically assists a runner during playing action. In Rule 8, getting hit by the ball is indeed in a different sub-section than the penalties for interference, so a reasonable and IMO correct reading is that getting hit by the ball - provided there is no willful or purposeful action that would fall under the definition of interference above - is simply an out, not interference. 8-4-2b specifically includes language calling that interference, 8-4-2g goes into great lengths on what constitutes interference, but 8-4-2k does not call this interference, just an out. Why should that be assumed to be any different than any other definition of an out under 8-4?

It's easy for me to say from afar, but a physical assault cannot stand. Some yokels want to side with their buddy over arguing, whatever...meatheads will do that. But physical touching crosses WAY over the line - a stand has to be made.

Peter North Oh, never mind, that one's taken

Just move left and a little deep...I don't want to be in the way either, but I'm not moving towards the mound. There's no fielders behind the runner on 2B so they don't care if you're in their line of vision to home and you're safer from a line drive while still keeping a decent angle to 1B. Plus, if you get hit by a line drive, you're behind the fielders so it's play on...

well, Scott, all I can say is that if you're going to willingly work at the circus, don't be surprised when you're working with clowns...

well, that's what I get for snap-responding [sheepish frown]....

Most folks may say this, but the rules do not... It is possible for a batter to legally stay in the batter's box without interfering or hindering any attempted play on R3 coming home. Advisable? No, but possible. Actually, the rules do support Rich's point, depending on your judgment of 'reasonably vacate': A batter shall not: (NFHS 7-3) ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by: a. leaning over home plate, b. stepping out of the batter's box, c. making any other movement, including backswing interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, or d. failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away.

I'm pretty much with Chip, I wouldn't call that an attempt or feint to advance but I wouldn't overturn on replay either (IMO, this shouldn't be subject to review in the first place).

at least here in Central OH, the school shirt is authorized for travel ball until the end of the school regular season....but by the strict letter of the book, OHSAA-logo shirts are only to be worn in OHSAA (school) games

He got it right, because of 2) above. It's not being out of the baseline in what is usually said, the 3 feet rule of avoiding a play. But it's the abandonment. From 8-4-2, runner is out: " p. after at least touching first base, leaves the baseline, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base; or NOTE: Any runner, after reaching first base, who leaves the baseline heading for the dugout or his defensive position believing that there is no further play, shall be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases."

wow! A calmer and gentler Hawk?!?!?!? Nah, he was probably just confused/distracted/had to pee....

In fairness, it was only last year that NFHS changed it to B from C for runners on the corners

Hmm...The ugly truth. I still don't understand the urge to be outside the dugout, though. They got something to say and they're gonna say it when they want to say it.

I think you handled both perfectly

You said you weren't going to discuss balls and strikes - and then you proceeded to discuss balls and strikes. Yes, he was baiting you by re-asking the question of where your zone was. But you bit the hook. Just give the stop sign and a "that's enough" and if he keeps going, so be it. But you kinda kept it going on yourself.

Not a chance I'm working under those conditions...the TD can umpire all the games himself for all I care.

I commend them....why hold onto idiocy simply for blind consistency? Cut your losses, go back to what it always has been and should be, and make this blip that everyone hated a footnote in history.

Per Jon Heyman and other sources, MLB just decided they will revert to the traditional, less strict transfer rule. Effective immediately.

Well, that's a lot of stuff...I'm not sure if it's more a function of how you're describing it or what really happened, but a few questions: 1) So did you see this "MLB move"? Let's keep it simple - was his foot on the bag or not? If it's an obvious out and he just leaves a moment early, sure, don't bother. But is he doing the "MLB move" to gain an advantage on a close play? Call what you see. And I'm having trouble envisioning an AC 'flipping out' and not crossing the line. Seems definitional to me. 2) Again, did you see him leave early? The first statement seems like you did, but then you say you weren't sure. If you didn't see it well, ok it happens - learn from it, strive for better positioning in the future (though from what it sounds, the ball was yours and the tag was the BU's but maybe he didn't know given he's a volunteer). And again, flipping out isn't acceptable. Maybe if you think you missed something you'll have to listen to him - but you NEVER have to listen to him yell at you. 3) Did he pull his foot? It's his call to change, not yours. Again, maybe some allowance is made since he's a volunteer, so I get that. But call what you see (which admittedly you did state), not reward what you like.

I've made this call only once, in a 12U game where the RH batter stepped so far over to bunt that he blocked my view of the pitch. His entire foot was on the plate.

Is this pissing contest STILL going on???

With the popularity of swipe tags and to best see obstruction, 3BLX seems best. It'll cover 90% of the plays. But 10% is still a healthy exception.

Because bases were empty. BU has BR to 3rd. By the book? No he doesn't.