Richvee

No. The same argument @jimurrayalterego is making. Nothing in the rule book regarding the set says the pitcher must step towards home. This is the reason I have a legal pitch with the bases empty, but I’m with you, Steve. With a runner on, this is a step to 1b and the rules tell us a there must be a throw to 1b when a pitcher steps towards 1b from the rubber.

That’s my take but there’s people online I respect who disagree. Interested to hear from the UE community.

Sorry for the FB link, I don’t know how else to do it. (Perhaps someone can help) Anyway, crazy delivery. I don’t have an issue with bases empty. However, IF we saw this with an R1, what do you have? https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16VHGQEuBu/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I don’t know. On the 13th, it looks like Bates is between the two bags. That’s nowhere near in line with F9. I think it was the Dodger bench getting on Gibson. 3BC playing peacemaker, and Roberts not really knowing what happened.

And quite possibly the origin of this thread question.

Yes they would...God forbid they align with other codes.

Yet there is a case play for an R1 "interfering" with F3 by leading off and deliberately getting in the line of sight between F3 and F1

It does take the judgement of "Did the runner hinder the throw" out of the equation. That's a good thing. one step forward (judgement of throw eliminated) two steps back. (1)Call it time of throw regardless of outcome, (2) return runners TOI

We saw it in the Met/Dodger game, and detailed by CCC. Its obstruction in OBR as per the Umpire manual It's obstruction in NCAA 8-3-f, pg 80...Visual obstruction by a defensive player may be called if a fielder interferes intentionally with a base runner's opportunity to see the ball on a defensive play. I can't find a reference in FED...Anyone have something?

it still requires throw to call it. The interp doesn't change this. I can point to the rulebook and say the infraction is ignored because it did not interfere with the fielder or the throw. 8-4-g(1). Conversely, what if the coach knows 8-4-g(1) and I call RLV and send his R3 back to 3B? How do I back out of that one?

I had full intention of calling this by the rule, until speaking with others I would be working and in some cases, answer to. I wasn't about to be out on that island alone.

What interpretation? Never seen it. 😁 Seriously. If I Called it would be the first time in my area. Pre season, I talked with at least a dozen, if not more of most of the best High school umpires I work with, (including my chapter rules interpreter) and no one was willing to call this as written, until the rule is rewritten. Until “this violation is ignored….” part of the rule disappears from the FED rulebook, I think we have a fair case not to follow the interp.

I’m sensing there’s an umpire somewhere who got a hard time from coaches /players/parents for enforcing a rule correctly. 😞

I do not disagree. PUs watching catchers chase uncaught and fouled back pitches, watching fielders run after foul balls instead of throwing a new one to the pitcher and telling the fielders to let it go, talking with coaches and not moving them along between innings….. it drives me crazy. It’s been less of a problem this year, as about 95% of my high school names have been plate assignments. 🤣🤷‍♂️ But then, there are those games that no matter what you do as PU, the games just don’t move. Consistent deep counts, insane amounts of balls fouled off, slugfests… sometimes it’s not our fault.

This is how I call it. Big inside curveball, the batter has to stay on there to some degree….They’re looking for a late break. If it hits his shoulder because it didn’t break, that’s a HBP. Slow inside curve, batter sticks out his elbow, he’s staying.

5 pitches within 2 minutes from the final out of the previous frame. Six conferences, 3 with a coach. That stops the powwows at the mound after warmup pitches which this year seems to be the biggest time waster I’m seeing on the high school fields. I’m seeing less requests for time by a batter unless they’re genuinely getting frozen, and less stepping off unless F1/F2 can’t get together on signs…..Maybe I’ve just had a good schedule and getting better pace of play games. But I think there’s a trickle down effect too. They see a better pace watching MLB, a lot know when they get to college they’re not allowed the time outs, unlimited step offs…. At any rate, whatever the reason , I’ve seen better pace of play on HS this year. Limiting player conferences and a strict 2 minutes between innings would go a long way, IMO.

There are those of us that agree, and will buy the timer. Unfortunately , as mentioned above, there’s just too many haven’t bought a new shirt or pants in 5 years. (Or more). We still have umpires without a black shirt, which we’ve been allowed to wear for at least 5 years now….. and they still have one pair of pink pants. And it’s not just one or two umpires. That’s the high school issue with timers

I agree. I think it’s all legal.

Unless it’s an infield fly, the runner is out. In which case the ball is dead, the batter/ runner is out, runners return. Otherwise if r2 gets hit by a batted ball, that’s interference he is out.

This statement is the issue. It doesn’t matter what you like calling. You cannot decide not to call a HBP because the batter’s actions of starting a swing “put him in the path”. Unless the pitch is in the strike zone, or he swung. Anything else, barring deliberately getting hit, is a HBP - like it or not.

Another thing that jumped out at me on that podcast.....37 proposals, and we'e still not looking at fakes to third to align the codes?

Interesting for sure. As is Bob’s excessive use of “that’s going to be interesting “. “Listening between the lines”, it sounds like there’s a lot of baseball people looking to fix a lot of FED things, and are very frustrated with the “non baseball executives” of the NFHS.

The batter runner is out as soon as he passes the runner who was on 1b. That runner would now need to be tagged off a base to be out. In other words, he can advance to 2B or return to 1B. There is no more force. The batter has been retired. BTW - Do NOT trust AI for baseball rules questions. This link is 100% wrong.

It’s definitely a “slow down and think about what you’re calling” kind of call. (Sort of like thinking about a low outside pitch before ringing a guy up on it😞)

Because they're bent on not having type A AND B obstruction. It's another case of dumbing down the rules like the dead ball balk