Richvee

Good point. Allude would be indirectly. You were rather direct. 😁👍

I disagree. He balked while engaged? Like a flinch, or stop start after coming set? There’s the balk… call time. There’s no play if after he balks he steps off. Play only continues on balks along the lines of no stop and F1 delivers the pitch, or balks for not stepping towards the base F1 throws to a base. (as @grayhawk alluded to….herein lies the problem with live balls in high school.

There’s many methods. I also like having it all on one side of the lineup card. I make sure I strike a line through a sub when he enters the game. I will circle ⭕️ a sub that courtesy runs and write CRC or CRP by their name.

Here’s what I’m envisioning. Rundown in progress, let’s use 3b/Home. Throw from F5 to F2. The runner, stops about 30 feet from home, turns inside (maybe on the infield side of grass dirt line) and starts back to 3b. After F5 throws to F2, F5 moves out of R1’s path. F5 is about 15- 20 feet towards home, and in the grass in foul territory. F6 moves to cover 3B. F2 is chasing R1 back to 3B, on the fair side of the line. R1 veers left, directly at F5 who was nowhere near the runner’s path to 3B, for the sole purpose of making contact to draw an obstruction call. If you’re saying interference is a miss applied rule here, would you go with out of the basepath? (Does F2 running him back to 3B constitute a tag attempt?). I can’t see this action being nothing.

I would look at this a little different. I'm not invoking any 3 foot rule here....There is no tag attempt being avoided. I would say, if the runner veered off his path to the bag to intentionally make contact with the fielder, I have interference. (IOW..an obvious attempt to try to draw an obstruction call, when in reality, if he just ran at the base, the fielder was not in the way) Pushing off him I wouldn't have flagrant or malicious....Lowering shoulder, throwing a forearm, malicious.

Yes. HTBT. was the fielder in the runnner’s bae PATH? (in his line between him and the base he was going towards)…..obstruction Or did the runner veer away from his path to the base to intentionally run into the fielder? (Quite possibly interference). As far as flagrant/ malicious? Complete HTBT. You know it when you see it.

You're far from "late" . I started at the ripe old age of 50. Sometimes I wish I started sooner, but I'm grateful I got to watch and coach my kids without having to split time between officiating and watching or coaching.

...And what happens when someone devises a thumb guard that is permanently attached to the batting glove?

Maybe LL is thinking along the lines of this guy..Saying kids under 13 really have no use for this. (not a valid reason to outlaw them IMO. Just throwing it out there as a possible reason. https://youtu.be/JezkhA4bHPg?si=PbaRaZIAsW_D39yV

Welcome! Lots of great info here. You can learn a lot.

I like the idea of treating it as a thrown ball, Although the rule tells us it's still a pitch. 2-28-4 A pitch ends when: the pitched ball is secured by the catcher comes to rest goes out of play becomes dead or the batter hits the ball (other than a foul tip) Funny how using this as an explanation, in a strange but logical way validates FED's D3K rule that interference must be intentional.

Good point

What do we do with the glove or gear after the game? Just give it back? Also wondering what a “secure area” would be on some fields.

I would also think if they didn’t want the double strike left live, it would (should) read something like “One strike is called on the pitch, and a second strike added for stepping out of the box, the ball is dead” or in the dead ball table. The ball is dead when…a penalty strike is called after a pitch.

The way I read it all, the order would be reversed from the way you’re seeing it. One strike on the batter, he steps out first (penalty strike 2) THEN the pitch is delivered. (Strike 3 ball is live). And yes…. Situation H would be a lot more helpful if they made the count 2-1.

So teach your runner to veer towards 3B and not run straight into the OF. That's what I've seen more often than not on these plays anyway.

I'll buy that. That IS a rule that applies to the situation. (even though there's other situations where fielding a pitched ball is differentiated from fielding a thrown ball) As long as I have something better than "There's no rule so it's legal" to explain a call. Again, there IS a rule. It states specifically what is umpire interference.

We have rules for almost every kind of interaction with the batter, or batter runner and catcher around the plate...On D3K's, on a pitch when the the batter remains a batter and the catcher needs to gather a misplayed ball, on a batted ball when he becomes a batter runner. Ball four should fall into one of these categories, and I don't think it should be arbitrary as to which one. All I'm saying is "there's no rule so it's nothing" doesn't convince me on this play.

casebook 6.2.4 sit H & I says otherwise

I think we’re the only ones on this side of the aisle. The majority says we’re wrong, and the interference needs to be intentional. OK. That’s fine, but I’m really not happy with the explanation of “there’s no rule that says this is interference on ball four”

Rule specifically states ball is live. Hypothetically, Batter can step out, pitcher can deliver a ball over the backstop, and BR would be awarded 1B.

Brian Debrauer gives a lot of info in his double first base presentation. Off line throws, heightened awareness by plate umpire, etc. It's probably the most informative piece in the whole clinic.

While the rule doesn't mention plays where the runner would be avoiding a collision, the clinic did dive deeper into the rule and gave this interpretation.

Patrick is doing a fantastic job. Working with Referee Magazine now as well. I'm hoping he can turn Umpire Classroom into Nationwide FED video updates and interpretations along the lines of NCAA platform.

You are aware this play has an R2 advancing on the catcher’s misplay of the pitch, right?