Richvee

Ha! I never even noticed that. I usually miss a "which one is NOT true", or I miss read pivot and free foot. Add offense and defence to the list

Wrong application of a FED rule that's rarely called. 6-4-d(1) My note- There's 3 different actions in the rule a,b,andc...I'm giving only the applicable part here, b. If the pitcher with runners on base stops or hesitates in the delivery of a pitch because the batter steps out of the box......(b) with both feet....it shall not be balk.....in (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violating 7-3-1. in (b) If the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, 2 strikes are called on the batter in (b) 7-3-1 states a strike shall be called when a batter delays the game by stepping out of the batter's box when one of the 8 exceptions do not apply. My only comment on possibly missing the start of a windup with his hands from your view behind the plate...Don't sweat this working alone is tough, you need to focus on the pitch, like you said, you were hyper focused on his feet, which is 100% understandable given the situation of a pitcher in the windup with R1. I'd be looking there too expecting a switch from the windup to set without proper disengagement. 0

If that’s how they want called, fine. My gripe is FED has had ten years to clarify the rule, make it a POE, but they opted to say nothing. Then he puts out a memo and blames umpires for lack of enforcement.

It’s been ten years since these videos. I think the consensus at the time was “this must not be what they really mean. If it was, they would amend the rule and delete the last half of the sentence in 8.4.1(g)1”. So we’ve gone on for 9 years, never seeing a POE, or rule edit to confirm the ‘15 video interps. Nine years! Nine years to fix the rule so it doesn’t conflict with their interpretation. But Hopkins does nothing. Until the spring of ‘24 when he releases a memo and blames the confusion on umpires for not knowing the rule, or being afraid to enforce it fearing pushback. Straight from the memo…. “3) Umpires (if aware) will only address the running lane violation, but not deal with the advancing runner(s) who benefitted from this offensive gamesmanship and rule violation.” Really? This is an insult to any competent high school umpire who dedicates their time and energy to learning and enforcing the rules as written, and doing the job to the best of their abilities. Yeah, this hits a nerve with me. Sorry for the rant.

But FED's changes do not seem to promote better safety. I still requires a throw, it still has the same narrow lane with a runner running to same narrow base located outside the lane. I'm pretty sure schools can afford a fourth base and a can of spray paint.....Or have them laying around somewhere. If not I'm not to sure they should be fielding a team.

Our first meeting is not until February. I don't even want to bring it up unless they do...Then I can plead ignorance to the new interp and call it correctly. the same way as before.

Wonderful... While MLB makes the bases bigger and expands the running lane to the grass line, and NCAA starts it's way into the world of the double first base on a larger scale...all in the name of safety and leading to LESS calls of the controversial RLI....the FED pivots and says "We're gonna have you guys call it even when there's no interference."...SMH

Been there more than I care to admit 😎

I agree with @noumpere's thinking on this. And of course, this doesn't help us with the NCAA interp

Nice. Since I started doing college in 2018, I never even knew about that interp, and somehow missed it in the new book. Thanks.

But the answer “this is coach assist the runner is called out” is a wrong answer. which leads to the question, is this answer wrong because the ball is dead, or because the call on the field was changed? I think it’s because the runner was called out and then changed. But it still leave the question that this “wrong answer” brings up as a side note. Can there be coach assist during a dead ball?

Exactly. Every pitch, maybe even twice between pitches until the scoreboard operator figures it out, or turns it off. I will not hold up the game waiting for it to be corrected, and I’ll do all I can to make sure everyone within earshot can hear me. I’ll also tell the batter and catcher “score board is wrong, it’s 2-2.”

And they must re enter in the same spot in the batting order as the player that was out for concussion protocol.

I used 5-5g to answer the second part. #10 entered the game, and was then legally removed.

It’s a great jacket. It’s our college group’s go to jacket👍

I’m going to disagree here. This should be treated exactly like batting out of order. Give info when asked. Otherwise, stay silent and impartial. That said, if you have two teams, two coaches, and umpires looking at each other all saying things like “that’s 2 outs, no, that’s 3..”…. Yeah, it may be time to interject . But if there’s two outs and teams are changing sides and no one on the field or dugouts are questioning it, you probably should stay silent. This drives home my point. You are supposed to be impartial and not have a rooting interest. You certainly are not under any obligation to bring these facts to the umpire’s attention, and more precisely, I would say you shouldn’t unless asked. Picking and choosing when to bring up such details only when they give “your team” the advantage is improper for an official scorer. A good umpire will signal these things. There should be no need to ask. On a time play, the umpire should either point at the plate and verbalize to indicate the run scores, or wave his hands above his head and verbally indicate no run scores. If no sign is given, it would be appropriate to ask. Swinging strikes or called strikes, HBP or ball four should also be signaled. A swinging strike would just be an arm motion from the umpire. (Point or hammer). A called strike should include a verbal “strike” call. A HBP would be followed by a time out call, as a HBP kills the play. Ball four would not. If you’re unclear, neither is a big deal from your perspective. Don’t hold up the game asking the umpire questions on such things. “Good afternoon Sir(Ma’am). My name is _____ ,I’ll be the official scorer today. I’ll be sitting in that chair located……” If the umpire responds by giving you their name, use it. Otherwise - Blue, Sir, .. all fair game. From that point, a good umpire will come to you or signal you with substitutions, and approach you if they need your assistance on any other matter.

Putting it after 11-HBP situations sure doesn't help.

A call of no catch on the infield can be changed to catch if there are two outs. Appendix E 1-c11 note 1 (don’t ask me why it’s after 11 “hit by pitch situations” and not after 10.

Plus, rule 9-2e actually says “The pitcher or defensive player shall not…..” yet the penalty only says pitcher and HC🤷‍♂️

Out of the park home run, rounding 3b, runner misses the bag, 3B coach is a few feet down the line towards home to high five him, sees the miss, and pushes the runner back to third. Would this not be coach assistance?

As for the catcher interference question, it was either in the clinic, or a recent rules interpretation video where they quickly show a little diagram with a line at the point of the plate parallel to the front of the plate. I remember thinking that little diagram should have been put in the rulebook.

That's usually the way our college group works too. There will be a year transition where the old style or new will both be acceptable. It wouldn't surprise me if it was this year. If not, I 100% expect it to be next year

Everyone I work for is black/ grey, blue/black. (Except for high school who is hopelessly behind …and special order logoed anyway) ). I’m happy I have enough shirts to get though this coming season. I can see a switch to the new MLB look, especially in college within a year or two.

Yeah, he’s “interactive” alright 🙄

"....umpires calling balls and strikes in a traditional manner, but with calls subject to challenges by the batting team" It's so frustrating when "reporters" can't get facts right.