maven

Eh, umpires can be a little defensive (hi Max ). But the tone of your first post is critical rather than inquisitive: you might consider "why did he do that" instead of "his mechanics aren't good." Just a suggestion. As always, posters are free to fire their hot takes as they like.

A step to his left takes him quite close to the plate and the risk of collision with the runner. F2 is pretty far up the line, so it's more likely he'd need a step to his right to pick up the swipe tag on a runner who was even or just beyond F2. Since the ball arrived well before the runner, his positioning was fine.

They can both happen if the batter hits a fly ball with 1B and 2B occupied that can be caught with ordinary effort by an infielder, and the infielder intentionally drops (in the relevant sense) the ball. If your question is: how could both rules ever be applied to the same play, the answer is that they should not be. Some newer umpires can get confused about whether to kill it.

"Intentional drop" triggers another rule, about which I suspect you're not asking. The forum has existing threads on IFF vs intentional drop (which can both occur, as their conditions of application partially overlap) A retouch (tag up) is required when a fielder catches a batted ball in flight. It is not required when a batter is out by rule. If in your play the defense did not catch the fly ball, the runners do not need to retouch.

You don't mention the code under which the game was played. In NFHS (and, I'd wager, NCAA) this is a FPSR violation every time. The rule does not require a slide, but if the runner chooses not to slide he may not interfere (typically accomplished by "peeling off"). Colliding with a fielder is INT, so upgraded to FPSR. R1 is out, the BR is out by rule, and R2 and R3 return to their TOP bases (unless the inning is over, in which case no runs score). If this is OBR and amateur ball, I'd reach the same result. In real time, I'd have the INT before R3 scored, so he's going back. R1 colliding with F4 is a willful and deliberate act to prevent a double play, so the BR is out as well. Hard to tell from so far away whether this is MC, but it's on the table whenever a runner goes in standing up.

If the ball hits him in the chest, it's not dropping "untouched." We're used to seeing this play involving the glove and hands, but touched is touched. The scenario is not what folks usually think of as a judgment call, pretty black/white.

Regarding the "only question": yes, I do.

There's a provision in the dead-ball appeal rule that stipulates that runners must be given the opportunity to complete their advance/retreat prior to the umpire ruling on the appeal. The rule would give a fantastic advantage to the defense if it were otherwise.

Yes. This missed base appeal is a time play, so if the runs scored before the appeal is made, they count. And because it's the BR, there are no trailing runners whose runs would be disallowed by the successful appeal. Had the BR missed 1B (or R1 missed 2B), those successful appeals would nullify all runs scored. Same rulings all codes.

We would and have argued as much. What's confusing here is the word "proof." Definitions provide criteria, and criteria are individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. The definition of CATCH, for example, includes 2 conditions: secure possession in hand or glove, and voluntary release. Each is individually necessary, and together they are sufficient for a catch. The definition of TAG includes secure possession and touch of a base or runner. Again, individually necessary and jointly sufficient. If a play satisfies these conditions (slightly varied for tagging a runner or a base), then we have a tag. The concept of proof does not enter into definitions. Either a play satisfies the conditions of a definition or it does not, and that's a matter of judgment, not proof. Judgment is based on sensory evidence, so perhaps NCAA just sloppily conflates proof with evidence in their revised definition. Which, as I say, is confusing and unfortunate (and, if you like, problematic).

The first one (youth) I could see passing on IFF. The pro game is definitely IFF. Definitely IFF. The key is the last sentence. Remember: IFF protects the offense. It's not a crutch for the defense, we're not helping the defense, we're not "bailing out bad play." Call it even when the defense screws up (though obviously what counts as "ordinary effort" will vary by level). The critical concept with IFF is that the popup CAN be caught with ordinary effort (at this level of ball). Not that THIS FIELDER can or will do so, or that SOME FIELDER is in a position to do so, or if it weren't for the sun etc. etc. The pro clip is a perfect example: the defense misplays the popup near the mound, and it falls untouched. Depending on how high it went and what the BR did, that's a recipe for a cheap double play if we don't get IFF. The purpose of the rule is precisely to prevent cheap double plays: these fielders didn't (it appears) do it on purpose, but that's irrelevant. Had they been able to record a double play, it would have been of the cheap variety. As for whether this approach is unfair to the offense: well, the batter just popped up with runners on 1B and 2B. He failed. Why does he deserve help from us?

You're asking about diction or word choice, not semantics or meaning. A tag play requires tagging the runner. Very simple. A force play, appeal play, or retiring the BR prior to his touching 1B requires tagging the runner or the relevant base. Tagging a runner requires the fielder to maintain secure possession of the ball in hand or glove through the entire action of the tag. The ball popping out during the tag is evidence that he did not maintain possession, and the umpire should rule the runner safe in that case. Tagging a base requires the fielder to maintain secure possession of the ball in hand or glove at the moment of tagging the base. The ball popping out due to accidental contact with the runner after the tag of the base is nothing, and the umpire should rule the runner out in that case. 'Secure possession' is a judgment call.

Correct: newer umpires who read the "makes any other movement" clause might wonder, "other than what?" The answer is: "a normal swing." What counts as 'normal' gets squishier the younger the age group, but it still doesn't include ducking. Stepping out violates other clauses of the batter INT rule, so need not be covered by "makes any other movement." Comparable wording appears in all codes.

Correct: the hijack was initiated by the post above that started with something like, "since the OP has been answered..."

Man, they still don't know what they want with the HP collision/block rule. How many years have they been "finalizing" that rule, 5? 6? Hanging the call on F2's intent to block is not the bright line they need for these plays.

It can be helpful to think of batter INT, as we teach balks, in terms of what the player is permitted to do. Doing anything else in a way that hinders the defense is then INT. Batters are permitted to take the pitch in the batter's box or swing normally in their stance (without falling over). If they do those things and hinder the defense, it's nothing. Many coaches train their batters to duck on the throw to 3B for stealing R2. But that's a mistake: ducking is NOT a permitted action, and if it somehow hindered F2 that would be batter INT. The batter is better off standing still. These are permitted actions during the pitch. If the ball gets away from F2, a different rule applies, and the batter needs to vacate space needed by the defense (if he has time, benefit of any doubt to the batter).

I've heard this song before.

The 2-base award for a fair ball that leaves the field not-in-flight applies to all runners: "Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance..." So yes, in this developing world play, it is possible for the BR to be out on an IFF and other runners to receive a 2-base award.

I can't help with the judgment part of this call: without video (probably requiring just the right angle), it's not possible to know at this point whether the ball landed beyond 1B. That is crucial for getting this right, and the umpire has to make the call in the moment. When in doubt, it was not past 1B. As for the rule: supposing the ball landed in fair past 1B (which is the difficult case, other cases left as an exercise), its status as a batted ball instantly and irrevocably goes from indeterminate to fair. It satisfies the definition of a fair ball. No matter what happens to it as a result of spin, bouncing off a base or player, or other weird bounces or spins, it's a fair ball for the rest of time. Spinning back in front of 1B and going foul does not change its status, any more than spinning foul in the outfield changes its status—even if it also bounces into the stands. Fair ball. It does not satisfy the definition of a foul ball when it spins back and into foul in front of 1B because the rule applies to a batted ball of indeterminate status. This one is already a fair ball. It can't go back.

That call would turn on tangle/untangle. The contact in the video is borderline for tangle/untangle: ruling T/U or ruling no T/U would both be supportable, IMO. As for determining the protected fielder: in general, I'm protecting a fielder who moves aggressively to field the ball and does in fact field it. F1 might initially have been protected due to proximity, but F2 should be protected through the contact, IMO. And I have no idea how Evans might justify calling OBS on F2 in the play, at least as I'm envisioning it.

"A step and reach" applies to retrieving a booted ball, and determines whether a fielder's protection is preserved. F2 did not boot the ball, so his protection was intact on this play. "Step and reach" has no application otherwise, and in particular not to tangle/untangle.

I think we're getting hung up on whether this is tangle/untangle in order to determine whether to absolve F2 of OBS. But tangle/untangle is moot. But F2 is the protected fielder here and has the right of way. He's not hindered by the contact, so it's not INT. He's protected from OBS. I like a no call here, and wish only that the umpire had signaled "safe" and verbalized "that's nothing!"

All of our close calls are either obviously right or obviously wrong.

It's neither a swing nor a HBP. Not a swing, because the batter wasn't offering at the pitch. Not a HBP, because the pitch did not strike the batter's person. But it is, as indicated above, a batted ball, and thus a foul ball. The batter was lucky: some of these end up fair, and they're easy outs for the offense. I've never heard of this, and AFAIK this is not a rule in any code for baseball.