maven

As usual in this kind of situation, we have 2 options. Enforce the rule as written and interpreted, prompting an eventual change to the rule, or MSU, roll the dice with a protest committee/assigner/state commissioner on the fairness question. That whole stick is poopy. Maybe one end is a bit less so, because everyone will expect that no run scores. The expected call sneaks by almost always, right or wrong.

No, it's not similar conceptually at all, because one is an out called for INT (a penalty), and the other is an out made by the defense. If the cases have a similarity, it's similarity of outcome, not concept. But I agree that they have that kind of simliarity: we have to call R2 out for the INT, not another runner. By rule, the out occurs at TOI, which is after R3 has scored. No force play; the BR doesn't make the 3rd out, so whether he's reached 1B is irrelevant. So count the run.

That's a different pitching motion. A key passage from that article that you might have missed:

You've got the answer. You seem to want to argue with every answer you get here. Good luck with that.

Yes, he can pick from this starting position in OBR. OBR allows pickoffs from the windup. A pickoff attempt must begin BEFORE the time of the pitch, and it must start with a step toward the base. F1 can do this wherever the free foot is positioned. AFTER the start of the pitch, the restriction about "swings his free foot" behind the rubber kicks in. By that time, it's too late to pick off legally.

No. 5.07(a)(1): "He [F1 in the windup] shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot." This provision prohibits a step with the pivot, which this F1 in the video clearly does. Penalized as an illegal pitch. Same ruling all codes. Cute though. 99/100, when we see tricksy stuff like this it's illegal (though being unusual doesn't MAKE it illegal). Were it legal, we'd see it more.

In my experience, this is a common reaction from people who never bothered to learn the definition of 'force play'. Not knowing that definition causes problems in other areas as well, as when we rule on whether a run scores on a third out retouch appeal that players and coaches mistakenly believe is a force play. Now that you're an umpire, you're responsible for knowing the rules, their interpretations, and how to apply them judiciously. It's a long journey, and one that can profitably begin with mastering the definitions. Even where application of a particular rule might be "looser" or adjusted to local custom, the definitions are constant.

As I think about the play—and I don't think we have video of the actual INT call?—the delay might have been what set off Snitker. (Eff him, BTW, he's high on the list of skippers it's never too soon to run.) I dunno. If we call it quick and have to unwind it, we're dumping F2 and his skipper; if we call it slow, we're dumping the runner and his skipper. No easy answer there. (These remarks apply to the pro context, and I'm not now, nor never have been, a pro umpire, so JMHO; I don't think that most FED coaches would need to be run for this.) But let's be clear: this is definitely INT, and needs to be called. It's INT because the fielder's right of way is not undercut by his seeming intent to contact the runner. INT with a fielder who is fielding a batted ball is different from INT with a fielder making or taking a throw, and different still for OBS (we've all seen runners try to divert their path into a fielder who's not in their way, for instance).

Wouldn't we want to wait to determine whether F2 was the protected fielder? F1 or F3 might have been protected, which would have made the hindrance of F2 nothing. I don't think I'd want to holler INT, only to unwind that after F3 makes the same play (and drops the ball)...

Saw this live. Henry Davis is a smart F2. Olson's first career EJ.

Yes, that's OBS. U3 should call time before awarding HP.

Just so folks are clear on the rule: from the description, it seems that U3 ruled that F5 obstructed R2 coming into 3B. That's Type 2 (formerly B) OBS, the penalty for which is to protect the runner to the base he would have attained without the hindrance. Runners who advance beyond the awarded base (the ball remains live, to prevent the defense gaining an unfair advantage through their infraction) are liable to be put out, which also seems to have happened here. We don't know (a) the base U3 awarded, (b) what U3 said, or (c) what the base coach said. If the base coach told his runner to advance after the OBS call (with or without thinking it was somehow a "free" advance with no liability to be put out), then that's on the coach. The out should stand. But it's also possible that U3 initially protected the runner to HP, which would have nullified the out there. Given how close the play was at HP, he might have changed his judgment of the protected base after the play, in which case putting the runner back to 3B would be correct under the "changed judgment call" provision. I have no idea whether any of that happened, and I don't contend that it did. But it's one way the umpires might have had a leg to stand on. It's not a strong leg: the assessment of the protected base is not made "live," during play. We generally need to see what else happened to have a proper judgment of where the runner would have advanced without the hindrance. But it's something more than just "MSU."

I agree it's a balk, but for a different reason. He does not step directly to the base. Instead he lifts the free foot as if to start the pitch, and only then steps to the base. It is possible for a RHP to pick to 1B without using a jump turn or jab step, but it's MUCH slower. That's why all pro RHP use the jump turn or jab step. Whenever a RHP lifts the free foot without moving it toward 1B, he's committed to pitch to the batter. Same ruling, all codes.

How DARE you be human. Umpiring is no activity for mere mortals.