CricketChapman

In OBR, if the obstruction was the reason the runner missed the base, the runner is protected from the appeal on this particular play. The obstruction must be the actual cause for the missed base in order for the runner to be protected.

Other guys can probably point out any mistakes in handling this one with much greater depth, but I'll say this: the griping was allowed to go on for far too long. Were you right to eject? Absolutely; but it probably should have occurred quicker.

You could say that again...

I think the more appropriate reason that's generally a balk is because it is considered a feint to first.

Not going to lie, when I first started umpiring in my teenage years, I'm almost certain there were some Saturday mornings I was...hmm, a little woozy, when I went out to work 10 year old rec ball games...

http://m.mlb.com/video/v899004383/?query=interference Tough sell here if this game is more competitive at the time of the play. Is BR truly hindered by F1? Vic is one of my favorites, but I'm not sure this is obstruction. And of course, the brilliant minds at MLBAM mislabel this "Interference."

Maybe we could sticky this play and the "Is a tag on a force a force?" play at the top and instruct folks to read before posting... Because it seems 25% of the questions in this forum are about one of those two plays.

In reality, David finished batting (walked), the defense said nothing, and Frank came up and batted. Also, it was the top of the second and not the bottom - my mistake on that. Here is the best I can recall the conversation between myself and the defensive head coach: HC: "Hey Chris, I think they just batted out of order." Me: "Okay, John. Let me see your book." *I looked at the book, saw the proper order, and asked the runner on first his name, he replied, "Edward." I then asked the batter his name, and he replied, "David." Me: "John, you're right that they batted out of order, but it's too late to appeal now because you already threw a pitch to another batter and legalized Edward's at-bat." HC: "Dang. Okay, that's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure. Thanks, Chris." At this point, no one on the offensive team said or did anything. Remember, this was a rec ball game, I've umpired both these coaches' teams many times over the years, and they know I generally have a reputation for being on top of things. However, the next time around in the order, before David was supposed to bat in his rightful spot, the offensive manager asked me if they were supposed to follow the order listed in the line-up or the order they had used the first time around - I told him to use the line-up order.

Very similar to another post: 15U Babe Ruth rec ball, I'm PU. Bottom 2, no score. Batting order is David, Edward, Frank. Edward leads off and singles to right. David comes up to bat and two pitches later, the defense brings it to my attention that Edward BOO. I tell defensive HC that the first pitch to David legalized Edward's at-bat, which he accepts without questioning. Here's the hypothetical part I want to confirm with U-E: David proceeded to get on base. The defense could then appeal that David BOO, correct? I was thinking this the whole time, but this being rec ball, I figured there'd be no way the coaches would consider it. In reality, David singled and Frank came up to bat with no appeal for BOO.

Gil, do you know if MLBN uses the same camera setup and data as Pfx/Gameday? It seemed their on-screen tracker was much more accurate than Fox's or TBS'.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v450525083/pitstl-umpire-gets-hit-by-line-drive-up-the-middle/?query=umpire UI here. I don't know the commentators, but I was impressed they knew the batted ball was dead because it hit the umpire while he was in front of the infielders.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v385366683/?query=balk Despite the video title, I suspect this was a base award for a pitched ball becoming lodged in F2's equipment/mask; there are no Balks listed in the box score. Was anyone watching the game who can provide more info? Note: I didn't listen to this video with the audio on.

Let's disregard the security guard throwing the ball... Based on the video, does Hamilton tag second base after catching the ball? If he does, R1 may have been forced out for out two, but the force is then removed on R2 so the tag of third base means nothing (the tag of first obviously means nothing because BR clearly touched first). Vanover's explanation is incoherent.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v351069583/?query=oddities I didn't listen to the audio, but based on Ausmus' reaction, I'm guessing this was an RLI call.

Should work now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbHC9fZUt_A From a game last weekend. What, if anything, do you have on this play?

Well, I imagine that the most difficult part was explaining why Ruiz is not permitted to score here.

Hmm...There is no slide or avoid rule in Cal Ripken or Babe Ruth baseball. 75% of the games I call are CR/BR; I just reviewed my 2015 CR/BR rulebook and can confirm there is no slide or avoid rule in the book. As for the basepath stuff, you nailed it. Don't conference on this play - stick with your gut.

Strictly answering the question, and assuming the OBS call was correct (base was completely blocked, FED rules), the runner is awarded second base.

Note: I did not listen to the commentary on this one, so feel free to tell me how bad it was. Also, ignore the MLB title for this video; at about the 1:05 mark, you can see PU saying "You have to avoid him." Really an interesting INT call here. Your browser does not support iframes.

You realize you are asking someone to intentionally violate U.S. copyright laws in doing this, right?

Initially, I immediately thought OBS...Upon many reviews and angles, I'm less convinced. And I'm a Vandy guy!

Without looking at the BRD or WUM, I believe the proper mechanic for a "fielder forced him off the bag" play is to call "Time" and instruct the runner/fielder he is safe for said reason. As for the call itself, I am unsure. But at the same time - is this really something to get tossed over? I think Tichenor handled the situation the best he could after the call/mechanic was made.

The play is at 3:58. That must be a delicious sandwich PU gets to eat. When I saw it in a recap on SEC Network, they also showed the Miss. St. manager lighting up PU (I mean yelling at the top of his lungs) and staying in the game.

OBR 4.09(a) If the batter had indeed missed first, and the appeal was properly made, no runs would have scored.