Richvee

Thanks for that. I’m convinced now the ball was not through or by, but a shot that F3 had no chance to get to. So regardless of F4, its interference in OBRand NCAA. FED is a different ball of wax.

Just to expand. FED has a caseplay and says the ball is live. Does NCAA or OBR have any guidance on this?

Perfect

At a minimum, a steel toed work shoe. You don’t want any ball at any speed hitting your toes square.

@jimurrayalterego has the FED interp and caseplay. Nice find! Here’s how I answered this question. D is definitely wrong. If it’s interference, A and C are correct. So, the answer must be B.

I don't have a push here. F3 held the ball on him and R1 tried to move his foot to the white base. I don’t think he was touching the white base when he stood up.

Don’t laugh. I know for a fact this isn’t far from the truth in areas I may or may not be familiar with.

You can’t have a rule for the offense and not the defense. If a base is dislodged and it moves from it’s position, if you’re going to allow a following runner to touch the area where the base should be as having touched the base, ( which is indeed a rule) you must allow the fielder to touch the same area, and if it’s a force only, you must count the out. This seems pretty cut and dry. What’s the alternative? The defense has to run and touch the base wherever it may be to get the force out, while the runner is running to the spot where the base should be?

Is that a little TV screen for video review. 🤪

Are you saying technically this isn’t a hidden ball trick, and still just a pick off attempt?

I read this… and it makes perfect sense. Then I thought about an average fan reading this and watching his head explode. 🤣🤣

That’s a great guideline! And on this batted ball, there’s no way the runner could have expected f3 was going to field this ball.

That makes sense. Certainly an interesting play. I found the condensed game on you tube, but the play is barely in the frame of the video and there’s no replay.

It was a rocket. It may have been by F3 before he even had a chance to put the glove down. He clearly never even took a step in the direction of the ball. So even if it ws only 3 feet or so to F3's side, you're saying that wouldn't be enough for through or by, so interference is the call? I can get on board with that. Plus that's probably the less dirty end of the stick.

That's my subscription feed so I'm not sure it will play? here's the best still I cold get.

Should this have been interference? Looks like R1 was behind F3? https://www.espn.com/watch/player/_/id/f8e8628f-0054-4b6a-9bd3-19bcb566fdde Edit..I'm not good at this stuff. Bottom 9 two outs, about the 3hour, 50 minute mark

That's because it is the only correct answer

The one thing I can say of the years I worked small diamond games, is, you’ll see more crazy stuff that you won’t see in high school every day. The little guys helped me learn obstruction, interference, base path calls… all kinds of crazy stuff. Then that once in a while you see it on HS or above. It’s like “I got this”.

Hmmm. That’s debatable. I got one from my association this year. I probably wouldn’t shell out $20 for it. Then again, a tax write off is a tax write off 😁

There’s a Seinfeld joke in here somewhere.

It’s been totally re done and doesn’t even resemble it’s predecessors. It still has its flaws, but worth looking through if you do high school ball.

Any opinions on spraying them with some of these UV fabric protectant sprays?

I don’t have the energy to debate this tonight. But that’s just not supported by any definition of a catch.

Without purchasing it from a place like referee.com, I don’t know. Our association gave out copies this year. I got to say, it’s totally revamped, and a LOT better than it used to be.

This shouldn’t be an issue in FED. FED does not want a catch/no catch changed on fair fly ball with runners on. ‘25-‘26 FED umpire manual ”Get the Call Right” page 40.