Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


maven last won the day on December 4 2019

maven had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,527 Excellent


About maven

  • Rank
    Rules Interpreter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Neck o' the Woods, OH

More information about you

  • Your Association Name

Recent Profile Visitors

10,863 profile views
  1. Yes it changed. I think it might have been 2019 rather than 2020.
  2. maven

    Throwing Period

    This is a question for an ASHAA state rules interpreter, who is the final authority for those state-specific regulations. We do have some AL umpires in the forum, but their opinions are not authoritative: you could follow their advice and still get in trouble with the state. I encourage you to contact the state office with this question.
  3. The FED definition of a force out (2-24-1) is this: "A force-out is a putout during which a runner who is being forced to advance is tagged out, or is put out by a fielder who holds the ball while touching the base toward which the forced runner is advancing." Note that a force out is one that the defense records. This definition is extended to include outs that the defense is prevented from recording by INT (such as the FPSR). When the 3rd out is earned by the defense in this fashion, it nullifies any runs scored during play. It does not include outs that umpires call, for instance for desertion or passing a runner. These outs are "unforced errors" by the offense, and do not nullify runs. I think this reasoning explains the MLBUM ruling as well: force outs earn nullification. Called outs don't.
  4. Yes, it's a force out. Easy to see why: INT during a force play is a FPSR violation. If the out weren't a force out, then that would not be the case. The case plays with INT and force plays all seem to be FPSR violations, the penalty for which is always returning runners to TOP (and nullifying run(s)).
  5. I'm pretty sure R3 hadn't scored at TOI.
  6. This is all I would quibble about. Umpiring used to be all about projecting authority, and men—especially athletes, especially pro athletes—usually don't recognize women's authority (a defect, but there it is). In the era of "get it right," women are just as good at that.
  7. Last of the big 3 sports to have one... NBA, 2014 NFL, 2015 MLB, 2020
  8. Correct. 3-4-1 Here's 6-2-2 EXCEPTION: In your scenario, (say, swapping F1 and F9), when F9 comes in to pitch he may have up to 8 warmup pitches. If he requires more than 8, then the previous F1 may not return to pitch in that game (not just that inning). When original F1 returns to the mound, he may also have up to 8 warmup pitches. Of course, he might not need that many, or he might need more, which 6-2-2 EXCEPTION allows in some cases. There's no scenario in HS baseball where a pitcher coming to the mound gets zero warmup pitches: that's a safety issue. Pitchers returning to the mound after having pitched in a prior inning get the reduced (5) warmups.
  9. Yes, you may, once per inning. Here's the primary rule governing subbing for/replacing F1, 3-1-2:
  10. maven

    Sad News

    I'm so sorry for your loss, Steve. My heart goes out to you and your family.
  11. maven

    Catcher communication

    State associations almost always defer to NFHS for safety and equipment provisions (mainly to deflect liability). And if Alabama had already answered the question, why would coach be asking here? He's looking for cover to apply an NCAA rule.
  12. maven

    Catcher communication

    Based on 1-5-11, I'd say no. "Non-traditional playing equipment must be reviewed by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee before it will be permitted to be used."
  13. FED 6-1-2 specifies how F1 may "assume" the windup: "A pitcher assumes the windup position when his hands are: (a) together in front of the body; (b) both hands are at his side; (c) either hand is in front of the body and the other hand is at his side." F1 MAY assume the rubber with his hands together in front of him. The key provision for determining a balk/illegal pitch is the time of pitch definition in 2-28-3: "Time of the pitch is when the pitcher has committed himself to delivering the pitch to the batter. For the windup position, the "time of the pitch" occurs when the pitcher, (a) first starts any movement of his arm(s) or leg(s) after stepping onto the pitcher's plate with his hands already together in front of his body; (b) with both hands at his side, first starts any movement with both arms or leg(s) prior to the pitch; (c) with either hand in front of the body and the other hand at his side, after bringing his hands together, first starts any movement of his arm(s) or leg(s) prior to the pitch...." Note that, if F1 starts with his pitching hand at his side and brings it up to adjust the ball, per (c) above, that movement is legal, and his next movement commits him to pitch. If he then puts his hand down again without pitching, that's a balk/illegal pitch.
  14. The umpire ruled that whatever the batter did with the bat did not constitute offering at the pitch. As the pitch was not in the strike zone, it was ruled a ball. I agree that the "tactic" is sometimes used to hinder F2's play on the runner. If successful, it could be ruled batter INT (as an "other movement" by the batter that's prohibited). At amateur levels, I just recommend calling a strike, not batter INT, unless the action makes the batter lean over the plate or the hindrance is otherwise more obvious than a mere "swing."
  • Create New...