Jump to content

maven

Established Member
  • Posts

    9,539
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    370

maven last won the day on September 28

maven had the most liked content!

5 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

17,065 profile views

maven's Achievements

6.4k

Reputation

100

Community Answers

  1. Sure, but the answer/response to the OP is the first line of the rule: "Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball..." Game over. You're right about the rule in general, but it's not really a question of the "bar" going up—it's just not OBS when F2 lacks time to set up properly. I'm not sure quite how that example affects the "legitimate attempt to field the throw" exception, but a case either qualifies as an exception or it doesn't. Maybe I'm quibbling, and if so, I apologize. I guess what seems odd about your post referencing F1's throw is akin to someone accused of murder saying: "Look, I've proved that I was out of town that day. Oh, also, I don't even own a gun!" We don't really need the second piece of info, and it's a bit distracting to add it.
  2. It does? Why? Which part of the OBR HP Collision rule are you referencing?
  3. It sounds as if you're a coach, and love the game. So I'll add this bit by way of explanation. The rules evolved. When INT was added, I'm sure it was pretty simple: the player who interfered is out. They might not have thought much about intentional or unintentional, what to do with other runners, etc. As the rules evolved, additional features and qualifications, as well as different flavors of INT, were added. This complexity made the rules harder to learn and administer, but it made the game fairer and promoted the balance of offense and defense. More complexity still arrived with the appearance of different codes for different levels of play. So the price we pay for better baseball is more of a struggle to learn all the rules. This challenge is especially pointed when the rule in question is rarely applicable, such as INT/OBS at HP on a suicide squeeze or the like.
  4. In a word, yes, but you're not going to like it: the rules read together answer this question. The rules, often just as written, specify when INT requires intent. The example that you cited in the OP, INT with a thrown ball, is one example. INT of a fielder fielding a batted ball, however, does not require intent, nor does INT of the batted ball itself. Part of learning the art of umpiring (or officiating any sport) is mastery of the rules. Newer officials often want shortcuts, "simplifications," "rules of thumb" that will relieve them of the obligation of learning all the rules and how to apply them. Alas, that's not a thing. Nor is the answer "umpire discretion," which among amateur officials is code for, "I can't be bothered to learn the rules adequately." Simplification becomes over-simplification, and then we're applying the wrong rule to a situation. Two conclusions: There is no substitute for mastery of the rules. As such mastery takes time, dedication, and experience, there is no substitute for patience with newer officials and support of their efforts.
  5. This part creates a significant liability issue that should not have been allowed. In the context of a tournament, suspend the game, get the TD to the field, explain the situation, and go with the ruling. If the ruling is to allow a parent to coach, then we resume play with the parent now as coach. Otherwise, it should be a forfeit. I personally would not officiate a contest without an adult responsible for the players. Doing so could lead to a variety of jackpots. The new "coach" has the same privileges initially as the previous coach, with the same penalties attached to infractions. The former coach's penalties don't "carry over" to the new coach, no matter how frustrated the umpire might be.
  6. As described, this might well be a balk for stepping and throwing/feinting a throw to an unoccupied base. The ball not being thrown is moot: it's a balk whether he throws or feints to an unoccupied 2B. Caveats: If R1 makes any significant or noticeable move toward 2B prior to F1's feint, I'm probably ruling the feint legal—such a move invokes the exception to throwing/feinting to an unoccupied base. If R1 does in fact disengage legally, it's obviously not a balk; but a jump move is not a legal disengagement—if both feet move or leave the ground approximately simultaneously, it's not a legal disengagement, no matter where the pivot foot happens to land.
  7. maven

    Runner Hit

    Good pull. I'd bet pro UM's and NCAA have the same rulings. Don't let these stump you: you probably figured it's not INT, because the runner's over foul ground when hit. If it's not something, it's nothing—play the bounce. Of course, some among us will be along shortly to quibble or throw in their "what if's" that illuminate nothing but merely change the subject.
  8. maven

    triple play

    It depends on whether F5 "knocks [the batted ball] down" is an intentional act. If so, which seems likely, then it would qualify as an intentional drop: the ball is dead, the batter is out, and other runners stay put. The correct way to get 3 outs here is to allow the ball to fall untouched, then tag R3, 3B, and throw to 1B (in that order). On many line drives, allowing them to fall would entail letting them go to LF, which would obviously not work. So in most cases, this is just an intentional drop, with the result stated above.
  9. maven

    Obstruction

    Home. The fact that the runner missed 1B does not nullify the legality of the touch of 3B.
  10. I agree with Rich. To answer the title question: it depends somewhat on the code, but in amateur baseball it is generally illegal deliberately to crash a fielder. So, at least in that (minimal) sense, a runner has a duty to try to avoid contact. The rules in play are OBS, INT, and MC. As described, F3 is not denying the BR access to 1B (though his positioning is bad and needs coaching), so this would not be OBS. Depending on how it happened, it could be INT or INT + MC in some codes, if the runner intentionally crashed F3. In that case, the BR would be out (and ejected with MC), and R2 and R3 would have to return to their TOI bases. R1's out would likely stand. Not having seen the play in the OP, I cannot responsibly comment on the correctness of the "call." The OP doesn't say what the call was. But the umpire has no basis in the rules to "correct" the position of the runners based on the outcome of the play at 1B, and no code I know would yield the result indicated for any infraction I can envision.
  11. Good no call. Same ruling in FED (the INT provision for a thrown ball is substantially the same). Here's how I suggest thinking about this play. R1 clearly steps into what he expects to be the throwing lane as F3 fields the batted ball. He surely intends to put himself between F3 and F6 in case there's a throw to 2B. Is that intentional act INT? No—there's no throw yet, or even an attempt to throw. At the time of the runner's choosing his base path, F3 doesn't even have the ball. At any level, it's up to the fielder to "play around" a runner who is running the bases legally. Had R1 deviated afterward—say he saw F6 move "inside" to take a throw—we might have something. Or waving his arms. That's what we should be looking for on these plays. "Setting up" a base path based on where F3 is fielding the ball is nothing.
  12. Below a certain level*, I recommend signaling "safe" and verbalizing "No force out, that run scores!" or the like. As ever, our job is not only to MAKE a ruling, but to communicate it clearly. Saves a LOT of wear and tear, gives the appearance of knowing what's going on, and promotes the good order of that game. Otherwise, and at higher levels, I agree with Jimurray. *To save the followup: "certain level" here is going to include 10U and below (except maybe where they've already been playing for 5 years, year around), rec ball pretty much all the way up, and everything else that is more instructional than competitive. The fact that they tried to make a force out here suggests that these players were still learning the rules, in which case I'm leaning toward communicating the ruling more vigorously and vociferously.
  13. The rule of thumb in baseball is: if either team stops playing due to the umpire's false start, then kill it and reset. Otherwise, play the bounce. In the OP, I'd let the out stand. And then everyone gets a beer. Hey, umpires need beer too.
  14. I agree with Max. Nothing to call here. To realign your intestinal flora, please remember that the key concept of interference is hindrance. Sure, ODB picked up the ball, but there was no play to be hindered, as R3 was not advancing. No hindrance = no INT. Another deflationary thought: ugly or stupid ≠ illegal. BTW, I've had this a few times. I've found that the more vigorously I scold the ODB, the less likely the DC is to come out and demand a penalty. And, when one such coach thought to ask about interference, I merely said, "with what?" For that guy, it was enough, and he went back to the dugout.
×
×
  • Create New...