Richvee

4 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Oh, I didn't allude to it 

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

9 hours ago, HumblePie said:

if a pitcher balks, then disengages and throws home (difficult to do) when R3 is stealing, the play should be allowed to continue

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. 

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

Here's a trick to avoid this situation, assuming you use the "A, B, C" method of tying the list of substitutes to the substitutions on the lineup.

Assuming that there are 24 or fewer subs listed, use Y and Z for the pitcher's CR and catcher's CR, respectively. Multiple players can have one or the other, but no one can have both, and no one can have a different letter and then one of these.

In this case, your lineup card would have an entry in the substitute list of something like "26 Smith A." (I use red ink for most of my notations.) When you go to the list to write a Y or Z after the proposed CR, you'll see that they have been in the game and cannot fulfill that role. (Or, if they've been a CR for the other position.)

Of course, you can use whatever you want if there are too many subs listed or you don't want to use letters. As long as you can tell what it is at a glance and it doesn't look similar to other notations you do, knock yourself out.

 

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. 

8 hours ago, noumpere said:

It's more than stretching it -- it's applying a rule where it shouldn't be applied.  All the runner was doing was making it take longer for him to reach the next base.  Unless it was really maliciouos (doubtful), it was nothing.

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. 

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

If you don't have a flagrant collision, you don't have the runner moving more than 3' to the right or left of a direct line between their location and the base they are trying to reach

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.  

On 1/29/2025 at 2:25 PM, orangebird said:

Yeah I'm def getting the impression I might have some slightly younger coworkers as someone in my late 20s but hey, better late than never lol

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. 

11 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

So, at what point does a pitch stop being a pitch? I would say in this case once the F2 misplays it and it stays in play the rules for a pitched ball no longer apply. It is then the same as a thrown ball as far as runner and fielder liability.

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:

1. the pitched ball is secured by the catcher
2. comes to rest
3. goes out of play
4. becomes dead
5. 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.  

13 hours ago, Replacematt said:

A call to your conference coordinator immediately after the game is in order (and for us, it's mandatory for any and all ejections, so it's going to happen anyway

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. 

42 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

The rule tweak here gives the replay official the ability to rule whether or not the runner heading through second base in this scenario has abandoned the baseline before the runner scores. If so, the run would not count. 

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. 

42 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

The rule that an interference with a fielder fielding a thrown ball has to be intentional on a runner's part. Since this falls outside of that, it's not interference.

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. 

42 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

The logic you're using says that if we get hit by a throw, we can call umpire interference because the rules don't say it isn't.

Again, there IS a rule. It states specifically what is  umpire interference. 

13 hours ago, Replacematt said:

 

13 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Why not? 

If this was a runner anywhere else and they, say, inadvertently kicked a ball away from a fielder after the fielder dropped it in an attempt to make a play, would you have heartburn about using the same explanation?

Do we really want to create even more confusion in learning the rules if we were to spell out all the things that are legal? 

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. 

16 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

So, I am going with no . . . you cannot have UK3 on this call.

casebook 6.2.4 sit H & I says otherwise

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

While getting lost in the weeds, I'd challenge you to take a step back and stay basic on this.

Of course, you will all tell me you think I am wrong . . . but hear me out.

Using FED (which I assume this is a HS level tournament being played on a college field) . . . 

I have interference on the batter-runner.  Stay basic.  "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 . . . "

If the batter did this on ball three, what would you have?  

Now I have to figure out who is out.  In virtually every case, the interferer is out.  So I have the batter-runner out and the runner going back.

BUT . . . BUT . . . BUT . . . 

He walked, TMIB!  He can't be called out!  He is awarded first base!

He is not awarded first base with impunity.  He is awarded the base without liability to be put out.  He is not being put out.  He is being penalized for the illegal action of interfering with a fielder attempting to make a play (on the runner stealing third base).  The rule does NOT say he cannot be called out.  As with any other base award, the runner is still beholden to all other rules.  If a runner misses a base on a base award, we do not overlook it.

As there is no imperative for a walked batter runner to beat a play at first base, as there would be with a UK3, there is no reason to give him priority (or impunity as in a tangle) over the catcher who has a play to be made.

Stay basic on this.

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. 

50 minutes ago, BravoUmp said:

I must have missed that interpretation and strictly went with the book. I will have to go back and rewatch so that I can quote who gave the interpretation as I know this will come up in a game. 

The difficulty factor just went up, especially in games without instant replay. I would imagine you would have to rely on HP umpire to help with collision factor much like running lane. With that interpretation, we now have to officiate the play with fielder on base, firm and secure possession, and judge if there was possibility of a collision to determine if he stepped on correct base.

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. 

7 minutes ago, BravoUmp said:

The only situation that the runner can touch the white bag with a play being made is on a dropped third strike. 

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. 

On 1/21/2025 at 9:20 AM, MadMax said:

… Georgia for one, as the shining example (so far). Why? Check YouTube. That kid and the production team behind him are turning the instruction of non-collegiate amateur baseball umpiring on its ear. 

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. 

6 hours ago, maven said:

'd put it more strongly still. On a BB (with no other runners) there's no play. Without a play, there's nothing to hinder. Without the possibility of hindrance, there's no possibility of INT. I don't see that code would matter to this question

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