maven

21 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I would guess it has more to do with teams getting better at figuring out what to challenge and what not to challenge than the umpires missing calls at a higher rate.

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.

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Me too, except I’m pointing it. 

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. 

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Just tell the runner something like "you need to touch first before the game is over" or "the run doesn't count until you touch first."

 

You are just explaining the rule, not coaching the runner or telling him what to do.

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.

9 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I had commented on a couple of these, with one particular casual fan posting that I, and 3 other umpires are just as trash as the umpire that called the balk. At that point, I had to bring out this modified movie quote. Anyone besides @Velho know where it's from?

What did I expect?
Thank you for the rules lesson?
Marry my daughter?
I've got to remember these are simple fans.
These are people of the bleachers.
The common clay of the upper deck.
You know.....Morons.

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.

37 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

When watching I thought I would have given a "that's nothing" signal and let them play on. I don't think we can call INT here but maybe MC.

1. 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.
2. The player contacted was no longer part of the play, so I agree that this can't possibly be INT.
3. 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.

15 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

As our resident @maven suggests on a regular basis, interference is akin to hinderance. No hinderance means no interference.

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?

8 hours ago, Velho said:

🦆

Everything OK, Velho? The mallard is an internet SOS...

Same ruling in all codes (not only FED). 

If a batted ball is first touched by a fielder over fair territory, it's a fair ball.

The position of the fielder, and what subsequently happens to the ball, is irrelevant to its fair/foul status.

On 4/5/2025 at 10:36 PM, johnnyg08 said:

Are the numbers at the bottom, the WNBA scale? 30 steps is a lot. 

LeBron doesn't think so.

Fraternization is fine.

Antagonization is not.

.. and runners return to their TOP bases (that is, it doesn't matter whether they were "half way" or any other such nonsense that's not in any code).

20 minutes ago, Kali said:

So noumpere, you're saying the Force Play Slide Rule is NOT a safety rule designed to protect the fielder but simply a fair play rule?

How could that possibly follow logically from what he said?

I take it he was responding to your question about there being "2 slide rules." The definition of illegal slides applies to all slides, on all plays.

FPSR has a more limited scope, applying only to force plays. It adds additional protections for infielders. Illegal slides also may violate FPSR; but not all illegal slides invoke the FPSR penalty.

Illegal slides may also be INT.

All slide rules prioritize player safety.

1 hour ago, RBIbaseball said:

And just to clear up the last question. From the windup, F1 can move his hands up and down and pause as much as he wants, right?

For FED, F1 in the windup is limited to "two pumps" of his arms, whatever that means.... And he can't stop everything during a pitch, no matter the position (he can stop the hands, if that's what started the motion, provided something else is moving).

11 hours ago, noumpere said:

Only allowed on days ending in “y”

Disagree. It's also allowed on days starting with a consonant.

That's correct. 

I'll add that there's a reason we don't see this in pro ball: there, they know that it just gives runners a huge advantage, as they can take off the second the hands move without fear of being picked off.

26 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

TL:DR - I'm confused. I know what a double set it. But can you just slowly move your hands before stepping toward a base to feint/pick or before  delivering home?

I feel like I'm having a bit of a brain fart here.

I few days ago I saw a video of a pitcher coming set, I think it was college, (hands/glove near chin). Then the pitcher slowly moves his hands/glove down his chest to his belly button, then immediately picks off to 1B (no second stop). For some reason I thought this would have been a balk, but no call.

Then last night during NFHS game, I had a pitcher (with runners on, from the windup), receive the sign with glove/hands at the chin, then he nonchalantly moves his gloves/hands down to the belt line and pauses for a couple seconds, then starts his delivery. Is this legal?

 

Going back to the stretch question. Do the glove/hands moving up/down after coming set but prior to stepping to a base or delivering a pitch matter? Or is it just considered as part of "starting the delivery" or "stepping to feint/pick off"?

Hopefully that makes sense what I'm asking. I get it's two separate questions from the windup/stretch, but similar idea.

Once F1 comes set, he may legally disengage, step and then throw/feint to a base, or pitch to the batter.

The first two require F1 to move either his pivot or free foot, as they both involve a step. This must happen first, or at least simultaneously with any motion of the hands.

Any step with the pivot that is not a step backward and off the rubber is prohibited.

Any step with the free foot that is not a step toward a base commits F1 to pitch. A pickoff requires F1 to "step directly," which precludes prior movement of the hands/arms. (Normally applied to the step, requiring distance & direction.)

Any motion of the hands or arms (that's not part of a jump turn/jab step or other legal pickoff move) after coming set commits F1 to pitch, as it marks the start of the pitch by rule. 

NFHS 2-28-2: "For the set position, the 'time of the pitch' occurs the instant the pitcher, after coming to a complete and discernible stop starts any movement with arm(s) and/or leg(s) that commits him to pitch."

So to answer the main question: the hand/arm motion you observed is legal if part of the pitch, illegal if it proceeds a pickoff.

7 hours ago, noumpere said:

Single on weekdays; DH on weekends (and spring break, and other days when school is out)

Same here.

On 3/29/2025 at 12:36 AM, John F said:

bases empty, no outs, ground ball to SS who overthrows 1st.  Batter touches first on way through, turns towards second, scampers back to first while ball is being retrieved by catcher who throws it to pitcher who was now standing next to 1st base.  The batter in scampering back to first touches the base again, but slips off of the base and is immediately tagged by the pitcher and is correctly called out.   Does the SS still receive and error in the scorebook?  My thought is yes, because the batter did achieve 1st base, but in attempting to advance to second is put out.  The announcers for this game indicated that the out "erased" the error because the runner was out.  I have never heard of any error being "erased" except for when the coaches kid plays short.

This is an umpire forum. Better check scorekeeper-empire.com.

On 3/21/2025 at 6:35 PM, 834k3r said:

"Where does it say I can't do that?

"The rules don't prohibit digging a moat around HP or bringing a wolverine on the field either, but the good order of the game does.

It's my job to keep everyone here safe, sometimes against their own judgment."

I discourage anyone from referring to the baseball diamond where you happen to be officiating at that particular moment as "my field," unless you own the property on which it is situated. That's a terrible look in 2025, and needlessly confrontational ("me vs you"). Asserting authority should be a last resort, not the first club out of the bag.

At every opportunity (including here) I strive to talk about "we" and "us" instead of "you." In youth baseball in particular, all the adults on the field have the same mission. We should always be on the lookout for opportunities to forge collaborations. It doesn't always work (asshats gonna asshat), but it's an essential tool in deëscalation.

22 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

Umpire must err on the side of the offense methinks. 

As a general principle, this is incorrect. Baseball is a game of defense, and in general we should respect that.

But I'm sure you meant this in the context of OBS, in which case, I agree.

A better general formulation for your consideration: "the umpire should err on the side of the offended team." This will apply to OBS, INT, MC, and other infractions.

Though old schoolers will insist that we be perfect, and not err at all, ever.