Jump to content


Established Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by maven

  1. 13 hours ago, Velho said:


    Can you talk about why you don't see enough to get two outs since a 2-6-3 double play seems likely if F2 is allowed to make the throw without INT?

    What noumpere said. 

    For FED: we have always taught that 'a possible DP' (which is an exceedingly weak standard on its face) in this context means "routine double play ball," that is, a hard grounder right to or near F4 or F6, and for HS varsity probably F1 or F5 as well. I do not consider a ball in front of the plate a routine double play for HS.

    I'm not giving the defense a cheap double play when the INT I've called didn't prevent one—doing so, for me, is a disproportionate penalty for INT. That's a potential game-killer.

    • Like 2
  2. The fielder's protection from OBS lasts from the time he starts fielding the ball until he makes (or is prevented from making) his throw. The contact in this video happens in that window, so it would qualify for INT.

    The tangle/untangle exception lapses once the BR stops his advance. When he restarts and makes contact, he's liable for INT here.

    I'd have runner INT on the BR: the ball is dead, BR is out, R1 returns. Same ruling for OBR and FED.

    • Like 5
  3. 2 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

    Call this in LL on something blatant and you get a 50/50 from parents those who it was called for are all YAH!  those against are like "WHAT!"

    True, because we all come up watching professional players who so rarely obstruct or interfere. Our brains have thus been trained up to a pattern where baseball plays generally occur legally. As we know, youth baseball is quite different, including the officiating—many adults present at youth games assume that the umpire is making something up against their team.

    2 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

    Call it in LL on something a bit more less but Yes it was there ( IE a 1st baseman standing at the bag, on a line drive to the gap in left and they are in the runners path and the runner is forced to run around them while rounding 1st and heading to 2nd)  I have called that at 12U you get "huh?" and "WTH" from everyone. 

    I discourage umpires we train from calling the "less than blatant." We have to judge whether a runner was clearly hindered in advancing (or returning) to a base. Get the big ones (and I am NOT asserting that contact is required), and leave the borderline ones uncalled (a "talk to" offense, in your example, with F3).

    That won't guarantee that anyone likes the call, but will give us more confidence to say, "Coach, the runner was clearly hindered in his advance by F3 being out of position." He won't agree, but we'll be certain (and any video will support our judgment call).

    • Like 3
  4. 11 hours ago, ErichKeane said:

    HTC: Why would you do that, thats not the rule! (or some other such complaints)
    VTC: Don't do it <HTC>, or he'll give you homework!
    HTC: Wait, thats him?
    VTC: *Nods*
    HTC: Yeah, nevermind blue, good call.

    If that's the worst they ever say about you as an umpire, you've had quite a run!

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  5. 14 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

    This is what is called unverifiable information and the standard response is:  "That may be true coach, but this is what we are doing today."

    I do not recommend this approach. It sounds arbitrary and capricious, which is exactly what coach is suggesting in the subtext of the report of his prior experiences.

    Instead, stand on the rule: "Coach, this is the rule. If you'd like to share your email address, I'd be happy to send the citation after the game."

    If what you're using is an interpretation rather than black-letter rule, it gets trickier, but it might still be worth sharing a resource. That way, coach knows (a) you're not using the MSU rulebook, (b) you put your money where your mouth is, (c) there's more to calling the game than black-letter rule, and (d) they have a link to that "more."

    • Like 2
  6. Ignoring the coach-speak in the tweet, the video seems to present a step and throw to 3B. Legal.

    What might look odd is F1 falling toward HP as he throws to 3B. However, we should bear in mind that the rules in this case require a step and throw toward 3B. The front foot pretty clearly gains distance and direction to 3B, and F5 is there to make a play. F1 has thus complied with the rule, despite subsequently losing his balance.

    Note that the rules do NOT say F1 is prohibited from (ever) moving toward HP. It's a balk if his FIRST motion is toward HP and he then throws or feints a throw to a base. But the reason for that is that we're interpreting the requirement that F1 step and throw/feint DIRECTLY to a base—and starting toward HP will violate that requirement.

    Falling subsequent to a legally executed pickoff is nothing. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  7. I think that's unfortunate, and explicable by the fact that whoever is providing that guidance is a former pro umpire trying to raise the level of LL umpiring.

    It doesn't do justice to the fact that LL coaches are not pro coaches and cannot reasonably be expected to know a rule that they might see applied twice if the coach for 50 years.

    It also doesn't do justice to the notion that LL is instructional baseball top to bottom (that is, including the adults involved).

    I have no authority to advise LL umpires. But for amateur ball I have always recommended taking any option to the coach without making him ask.

    • Thanks 1
  8. Yes, that's OBS.

    I won't change the requirements on R3—touching HP in a certain time frame—because F2 obstructed him. The entire need to go back to touch HP is (as I read it) the result of the OBS. 

    Again, as I'm reading it, at the time of the tag (which presumably would be the end of playing action, as it would be the 3rd out), I'm calling time, ruling OBS on F2, and awarding the touch of HP to nullify the effect of the infraction.

    This OBS call is essential to make. The runner properly avoided F2—and I usually make a point of telling him "good job" for that—and failing to get OBS here penalizes him for proper base running. Even had R3 gotten back to touch HP prior to the tag, call the OBS when it happens and let R3 know he played it correctly.

    7 hours ago, JWTW said:

    Runner avoids the catcher entirely but fails to tag home in doing so.

    Not sure whether you are an umpire, but runners 'touch' bases, fielders 'tag' them.

    • Like 3
  9. First, here's the actual link: https://baseballrulesacademy.com/2023-game-and-inning-ending-plays/

    Second: I don't quite get the point of your post. Are you citing Marazzi (not an authority?) to support your (minority?) view, or to announce a change of mind?

    If you and one other were right, then the order of appeals would not matter, contrary to Marazzi's statement. If R1 is forced and misses 2B, then you seem to be saying that any appeal at any time of the miss will be a force play. And if that were right, then the order of appeals on multiple runners would be irrelevant, which would contradict Marazzi.

    OR: your original claim might be restricted to the trailing runner being retired on a force play that is NOT an appeal. But if that's what you're saying, Marazzi's posted play does not address that, as no runner in that play is retired except by appeal. So it still doesn't support your view, even on this interpretation of it.

    Third: what's up with the aggrieved tone? 

  10. 30 minutes ago, markdoc said:

    What's the call?

    I believe it was ruled a double play.

    31 minutes ago, markdoc said:

    Could the plate umpire have called the runner out for leaving his base path?

    No. The runner was returning to touch a missed HP, so he had no base path (no direct line from his position to his advance base). And, in general, umpires give leeway for this particular play.


    32 minutes ago, markdoc said:

    When can the catcher appeal and when must he tag him out?

    In OBR, the current interpretation allows the fielder to tag the base at any time, whether or not the runner is attempting to return. I like this interp because it precludes this nonsense; I'm not sure of the current FED interp (which I seem to recall being the same as OBR). Based on this video, it would seem NCAA is different (or was in 2020).

    The old J/R interp distinguished between "relaxed" and "unrelaxed" action, where the fielder could appeal by tagging the base if the action was relaxed—if the runner were not near the base and trying to return. This was superseded by a Wendelstedt interp from years ago.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  11. Two issues: first, most restrictions on F1 that could result in a balk apply only when he is engaged with the rubber. If he legally disengages—his pivot foot steps back off the rubber and touches the ground prior to the other foot moving—then those restrictions lapse. In particular, F1 may throw the ball to any fielder (or feint a throw), within any applicable time limits. It won't matter where F3 is, because F1 is not subject to that restriction unless engaged with the rubber.

    Second: if F1 is engaged, then yes, he must step and throw "directly" toward 1B when he picks there. This restriction does indeed prohibit F1 while engaged from throwing to F3 away from the base. By interpretation, F1 has satisfied the requirement to throw directly to the base when F3 is in position to make a play, though this restriction too needs interpretation (obviously, any fielder with the ball anywhere near a runner could chase him back to the base and so be making a play in some sense). Whether 10' satisfies this requirement will depend on level: for 10U I'd say no, but for HS and up it likely is. At 10' an adult-sized F3 with the ball can reach out and tag a runner diving back.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  12. Sometimes umpires get confused by strange, unusual plays.

    The out for passing is immediate, and the ball remains live. The other piece the umpire needed to remember is that all force plays are off when a trailing runner is retired—think of a bases-loaded ground ball to F3, who steps on 1B to retire the batter runner. When F3 throws to another base, the fielder's should all be calling "TAG!" to remind themselves that all forces are off.

    Also: a runner is never out for "failing to advance." That's not a thing (in baseball). But failing to advance usually makes playing on that runner much easier.

  13. I'd say no OBS. I'll go ahead with my followup post now. 😀

    Although it's true that F3 may not be in the runner's base path without the ball (subject to an irrelevant exception), I wonder about the collision. The BR has an obligation to avoid a fielder, even an obstructing one, and if he doesn't try to do that, we might be looking at MC.

    But even if the collision was just a bump and not MC, how exactly was the BR hindered? He reached 1B, and F2 was standing with the baseball in his hand. Where was the BR going, that contact with F3 hindered him? No hindrance = no OBS.

    So, for me, this is either MC or nothing, definitely not OBS as I picture it, and either way I'd have a word with F3 to get out of the way unless he's making a play.

    • Like 2
  14. C'mon guys: "third world" is so 1958—countries not either in NATO (First World) or Warsaw Pact (Second World).

    "Developing country plays" has no mojo. I can't recommend it.

    So maybe we need a new term: how about "infinitesimals?" As in, the probability of their happening is...you know...infinitesimal. 

    Maybe that's not catchy enough. "[Near] zero probability plays," or ZIPS? That will offend only Akron U. alumni. 


    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  15. 22 hours ago, Toggy said:

    I think intentionally running to first when not an uncaught dropped third should be penalized.

    There's your problem right there.

    16 hours ago, Toggy said:

    I saw a 12U coach allow his defense to try a hidden ball trick while winning 27 to 0. Perfectly legal. I wouldn't make a call (other than the balk that did occur). But I would encourage coach later on to think that one through.

    Yeah, I might call time and clean the plate (or base, if BU, which I NEVER do) if I saw that one setting up.

    But I wound't say anything to the coach—think that one through? Do you think that appeals to this chap's sense of sportsmanship are likely to work? He's using that game to practice his tricks. He doesn't care what you think.

  16. A batted ball before it reaches 1B or 3B is fair or foul depending on where it is first touched, regardless of where it lands. If the entire ball is over foul territory when first touched, that's a foul ball. If any part of the ball is over fair territory when first touched, that's a fair ball.

    A batted ball beyond 1B or 3B is fair or foul depending on where it first lands, regardless of where it is touched.

    • Like 3
  17. 11 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

    No but the caught ball from the throw had no voluntary release.  He slapped someone with the glove and dropped the ball.

    When F3 receives the ball, it's not a CATCH under the rulebook definition. For one thing, a CATCH must involve a batted ball in flight, but the throw to F3 can bounce in. 

    Instead, it must satisfy the rulebook definition of TAG (which includes tagging the base or tagging the runner). And this term includes secure possession in hand or glove, but does NOT include voluntary release.

    Many tags are preceded only by a fielder fielding a ground ball. The fact that many tags involve gaining possession of a thrown ball does not entail that the definition of CATCH now applies to a tag. It does not. That's why 'voluntary release' is not part of the definition of TAG.

    All that said, if a fielder does voluntarily release the ball, that's evidence that the ball was held securely through the tag. And secure possession IS necessary (hence the NCAA guidance).

  18. If F3 fielded the throw and was subsequently in touch with 1B—even accidentally—that's a tag of the base, and the BR is out. Nothing else matters.

    If F3 came off 1B to field the throw and then attempted to tag the runner without first tagging 1B, and if the ball came out of the glove during the tag, then that's no tag, and the runner would not be out.

    The ball coming out of the glove during the tag is evidence that it was not held securely. Thus it's no tag by interpretation, all codes. 

    • Like 1
  19. I can't tell exactly what happened on the far right edge of that video, over 100 feet away from the camera, through a fence.

    But it looks like F3 fields the batted ball, runs right at the BR, and crashes him deliberately instead of stopping and tagging. Tagging the runner instead of the bag is a legal choice, and a smart choice when F3 fields the ball in front of the base. 

    But intentionally crashing him is not a legal way to make a tag. If that's what happened, I'd probably rule MC: the fielder is ejected, and the BR awarded 1B.

    That's the applicable rule and how it would apply. But I can't say with much confidence that it's the correct call for this play without better video.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  20. First, you should be aware that the batter's foot is out of the box only if his entire foot is on the ground outside the box and not touching the line. If that were truly the case, then the umpire should not allow a pitch, as the batter has not assumed legal position in the box.

    So perhaps the batter's foot was touching the line, or that's what the umpire saw. That puts him legally in the box. And at that point, CI is back on the table.

    The other relevant rule is the possibility of an illegally batted ball. One way for that to happen is if the batter's foot is on the ground completely outside the box AND he hits a pitch. This is not a call that any PU is likely to make in this kind of situation, as he should be tracking the pitch, and cannot possibly see the position of the foot at contact.

    • Like 2
  • Create New...