maven

We should be able to read that as we move into the infield. If F3 is in the vicinity of the base, then we can adjust to see the action around the base. On a safe extra base hit where F3 has moved to cut off, we can glance to get the touch and go. Good idea to have an idea where F3 is going so he doesn't obstruct US.

Could be that negotiations with the MLBPA are coming up (2025–26), and the billionaires are priming everyone to think that MLB is losing money.

Did you argue that it was a balk, or merely claim (loudly? repeatedly?) that it was? If it was a genuine argument, what were the premises? A balk is an illegal act by a pitcher, and illegal acts are those prohibited by rule. What rule did F1 violate? In fact, no baseball rule dictates the speed at which F1 must step in the "step and then throw/feint" requirement. It does have to be continuous and uninterrupted, but nothing here suggests it failed in those respects. Ugly ≠ illegal

I know exactly how you feel.

I agree that R1 cannot be entitled to 2B until R2 is no longer entitled to it. So that's enough info to answer the OP: 1B is still occupied at TOP, and the batter is out on strikes and may not advance. But what if R1 and R2 are BOTH standing on their advance bases? Then the answer will turn on what F1 has done. The bolded part above does not tell us enough info. In the windup, the time of pitch begins when F1 starts his delivery—usually a rocker step, sometimes just moving the hands. By the time he's moving "toward the plate," we're well into the time of pitch. So, in the revised play, had F1 started his motion prior to both runners reaching their advance bases? If so, then we have R1, R2 at TOP, and 1B is "occupied" for the purposes of the D3K rule; if not, we have R2, R3 at TOP, and 1B is "open" for the purposes of the D3K rule.

You don't need to yell when answering a rhetorical question, you know. Just sayin'.

Well, he boosted his post count. It's also not the worst post in the forum in not being wrong.

A few comments: Regarding the anecdote, I don't have much to add. A yahoo umpire looking for a scrap with a kid. Not a great look. That said, on close plays at a base, we should NOT instantly turn and run away. The kid on the losing end could turn and pop his opponent in the nose, and we cannot always count on a partner to see it. Don't approach them (and never, ever, clean a base, as if you weren't really sure where it was), but don't leave them until they start to separate. (This tactic is essential for football.) I never try to "prevent" an ejection. Ejections happen when people cannot control themselves, and if they cannot control themselves, how could (and why should) I control them? Ejections should be situations that are big, that others see, and that must be addressed for the good of the game (both the game on that field and the game of baseball generally). Experienced officials know how much shîte they can stomach, and where their line is (usually not strict enough). It's more difficult for newer officials who haven't figured out where their line is, and that's part of the learning curve. I don't tolerate anyone yelling at me—they don't have to agree with me, but they're going to model adult behavior or yell at their steering wheel. I have known few umpires (or officials in the other sports I work) who take (what I consider) exactly the right amount of shîte—almost all habitually take way too much, and a very few have hair triggers. Many of them don't know how to issue a proper warning, either. For me, that's the real art: warnings aren't there to prevent ejections (I'm not trying to prevent anything), they're there to remind a participant of the consequences of proceeding. Then the participant makes his choice, and we go from there.

As Kevin's wife never says, "Always listen to Kevin." Plate meetings should be 30 seconds max, so I won't be able to trim 90 seconds from my plate meeting spiel. I cover what I have to cover and no more, because nobody came to the park to talk to me. In tournaments we have to determine home and visiting team and talk about time limits; in HS baseball, never. I never discuss providing baseballs at a plate meeting. Baseballs should magically appear, or I use the incantation, "I need baseballs!" I never raise mercy rules at the plate meeting—I can't give the impression that I'm expecting a rout, or someone will conclude that I'm trying to cause one. I'm definitely never mentioning extra innings, because I don't want to prime them to think that could happen today. I'm seldom concerned about courtesy runner rules. I'll allow one when coach wants one—if the other coach wants to object, we'll deal with that in the moment. Courtesy runners speed games, which is always good. I don't care who the official scorer (much less scoreboard op) is until I have to do. Raising all that at the plate meeting tells coaches: "Look, we're going to have lots of problems today, and I need to get in front of all of them." Psychologists call this "priming": we can actually generate more problems when people expect there to be more problems. (I knew an old timer who would start his plate meeting with: "Look, we're going to make some mistakes out there today..." No, no, a thousand times no!) No warnings, no "here's how we're going to handle arguments," no threats ("if they leave their positions...."), none of that. If we have problems, warn, restrict, eject. Because I haven't been "pre-warning" them all game, when I give a coach a warning, it makes a much bigger impression and will more often than not lead to the desired outcome (that is, coach STFU). That's why we want to minimize the plate meeting. With familiar coaches who know how to write a lineup, I'll scan the lineups during ground rules, and the whole meeting might take 15 seconds. Where I must do more, I'll do more (if TD asks umpires to review something he's had trouble with, I'll do it), but the faster we get to baseball the better.

You're both right. The batter INT rule does require the batter to move...IF THERE IS TIME. For example, with R3, F1 throws a wild pitch, and R3 tries to advance. The batter generally has to move and clear the plate area for the play, and he has time to do that (usually a couple seconds or more). But in a straight steal of home, he would have a fraction of a second to read the disengagement and then clear the plate area. That's not enough time, even if he saw the sign and knew a steal was coming. So I would never call batter INT on a batter who remained motionless in the box on a straight steal. BTW, asking for a rule here is pointless—what you want is an interpretation and case plays. IIRC Wendlestedt has a couple rulings making the batter liable for INT if he hinders the defense, regardless of intent, when he could "vacate the area needed by the defense" (or words to that effect).

That's an easy one: the rule applies to the defense, because only the defense would be trying to touch the ball with detached equipment (that's what the rule prohibits, with the base award depending on the status of the ball, pitched, thrown, or batted). Nothing in that rule mentions detached equipment used to touch a base. The legality of the removed helmet aside (it's illegal in FED by a separate rule, of course), a runner is not in contact with (for touch or tag of) a base unless his "person" is touching the base. A player's person, by rule, includes his uniform and equipment properly worn (which is why a fielder can tag a base with a glove on his hand). A detached helmet is not properly worn, so not part of the runner's person, so touching the base with a detached helmet is not a legal touch. QED

By "all others," I'm confident Rich means "BR misses any base other than 1B." If "others" refers to other runners, we can have fewer than 3 runs scoring. For instance, R3 misses HP and is successfully appealed after playing action = no runs score.

We should take care not to confuse hindering a fielder with hindering a thrown ball. Fielders must throw around runners, who are allowed to run where they will until there is a tag attempt. A runner who makes a fielder have to move to throw around him has violated no rule of baseball. Call it as you will, but if you call that INT you're in for a long game.

This statement (in both its specific and general forms) cannot be right. We read each others' minds ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY. Every time we determine that our friend or partner is speaking sincerely or making a joke, that a politician is lying or merely mistaken, that a post on the forum is sincere or ironic, we are reading their minds. When our friend or partner walks into the room without uttering a word, and we are prompted to ask, "Oh my, what's wrong?" we are reading their mind. Sure, we call that "body language," but like all language it's an expression of what's on their mind. And meaning is intentional, so we are reading intent. Happens every day. Couldn't be any more routine. So judging intent isn't anything magical or mysterious, either in general or when officials do it. The Machado play brings 2 rules to the fore: the rule that allows runners to choose their baseline, and the rule that INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. The umpires judged that Machado did nothing intentional to interfere, possibly due to his choice of baseline from where F3 was, and I'm fine with that. Fielders have to play around runners. What I look for on plays like this is adjustments that runners make based on the fielder receiving the throw. If F6 sets up for the throw inside and reaches for the ball, and R1 then deviates and moves in front of him, I'm more likely to grab INT. Throwing up arms is also another one to watch for. This is not a proper question. ALL action is allowed until it isn't. The burden is on those who contend that action is illegal to provide the rule and interpretation that makes it so.

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.

It does? Why? Which part of the OBR HP Collision rule are you referencing?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Home. The fact that the runner missed 1B does not nullify the legality of the touch of 3B.

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.