maven

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.

Only if they are MLB umpires with Jerry Lane's ability and résumé. Amateur umpires need to know a lot more, at least if they plan to keep working. And I know that you're likely making a rhetorical point about Jerry Lane, but not everyone will necessarily read your post that way.

I agree that this hypothesis likely explains the higher rate of overturns. Teams are (a) preserving their challenges for more important plays (at 3B or HP) by (b) avoiding challenging 1B calls unless they're nearly certain that the 1B umpire missed the call (75–100% subjective confidence). If we inferred that umpires are getting worse at 1B calls because the overturn percentage has risen, we could be guilty of selection bias. The frequency for last year is listed (289 overturned out of 413 challenges), and this year's data is on track to match it. The lower percentages in previous years don't have the frequencies listed: are they lower because there were fewer overturns or because there were more challenges (or both)? That would have some bearing on the adequacy of grayhawk's hypothesis. Because replay has no role in amateur baseball, I'd say that this information can be safely ignored. Close plays are close. Get better at proper use of the eyes and consistency—but that imperative applies across the board, and is not related to the overturn rate in pro baseball.

UEFL picked this one up.

When grayhawk says "calling it," that will always include the appropriate mechanic. Some readers might think you're suggesting to point with no verbal, but that's not proper.

Just so. Umpires who refuse to do this are overly impressed with their rules knowledge at the expense of the good order of the game. Some coaches are aware that there's a rule at stake in walk-off situations, and they'll ask to make sure they're doing it right. Good on them: the rule varies by code, so it's worth checking in about it for that particular game (plus, if the umpire does NOT know the rule and will be applying his own special version, the coach can adjust accordingly to prevent a problem).

Right: for a runner, INT with a thrown ball must be intentional (in contrast to INT with a batted ball). But for a batter, the standard is different. For OBR, the umpire should be looking for clear hindrance (I think that's the phrase) of a fielder making a play. Whether the batter intended to hinder is irrelevant. But either way, I think the answer is the same for the OP. As I'm picturing it, F2 (accidentally?) threw the ball at the batter instead of to his teammate. The batter had fulfilled his responsibility by clearing the HP area—6 or 7 feet! not just 3 or 4—so getting hit by a terrible throw that had no chance to retire the runner is nothing. We definitely don't want F2 trying to peg the batter (à la wiffle ball) to record an out on a runner.

The two coaches on this kind of play will often perceive rather different times between the request and granting of time. The DC will think it's called too fast, and the OC too slow.

Well, Gene, I recognize the last 3 lines, if they've been adapted to baseball from a context farther west....

We all know the rule: INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. That is, a runner must do something with clear intent to hinder the defense. Examples include waving arms, knocking the ball out of a fielder's glove, etc. We want this to be BIG. By the time we call this INT, we want the OC to be yelling at his runner for being an idiot. I see nothing in this video even close to INT. R2 sliding back into 2B and butting heads with the fielder is unfortunate, mostly the result of a crappy throw and poor technique, and in any case not an intentional act of hindrance by R2. I don't see R2's action before scoring. Whatever it is, I'd say if it's that hard to spot, it's not nearly big enough to call for INT. Live longer and make these BIG, BIG, BIG.

I too thought it was nothing. The runner wasn't trying to advance, he diverted into a fielder who wasn't in his way in order to draw the OBS call. I consider that "self-hindrance" and not a violation. The player contacted was no longer part of the play, so I agree that this can't possibly be INT. I didn't see all of the contact, but I did not see anything remotely big enough for MC. On one hand, I have seen many umpires fail to call genuine OBS in poorly executed rundowns. So I am glad to see a crew alert to the possible violation. On the other hand, I hate to reward this kind of play with a call. It's the baseball equivalent of a flop in basketball.

Agree with Rich. If F2 has a chance to retire the runner, then it's INT and the runner is out for the batter's interference. If F2 has no chance to retire the runner, then he hasn't been hindered and there's no INT. In no situation is it possible (despite FED's language) to have both INT and no play.

Alas, it seems that various codes are muddying the waters for RLI, by having diverse and sometimes potentially conflicting criteria for the call. I guess I don't fully understand the rationale for doing that. If we want to use RLI like other forms of INT to protect fielders from hindrance, then do that. If instead we want a rule that requires runners to be in the running lane on any ground ball (or any play at 1B prior to BR's touch), then just call them out for being out of the lane (not a form of INT). How fast would runners change their approach, if that were the rule?