maven

Your question suggests that you might like to import the OBR criterion into your FED RLI rulings. Runner out of lane + throw = FED RLI Do you call runners safe who almost beat the throw, say, by an inch?

About the diastema?

I disagree with the assertion that such assertion was made (in this thread). @GetItRight made it (or implied it) in post #5. I wondered the same when I saw that.

Not buying my evasion, huh? Tough customer! If he is close enough to hinder the fielder's attempt to field the ball, then you might have garden variety runner INT on a batted ball. But in your hypothetical, the fielder has already gotten possession of the ball before the BR steps between him and 1B. So runner INT is off. If he were simply between the fielder who is trying to make a throw and the base to which he would like to throw it, I've got nothing until he does throw it. If he does, then the provisions of RLI come into play. Why require a throw? Think of it this way: at any other base, having a runner between the fielder and the base to which he's throwing — even a runner getting hit with a throw — is nothing (absent intent). Why would 1B be any different? Well, it IS a bit different, because the BR has the privilege of overrunning the base, and because we have a foul line in play for fair/foul decisions. So we restrict the BR to the running lane and penalize his being out of it under certain conditions. But there still must be a throw: we don't want to make it too easy to penalize the BR, so we make the violation depend on a throw (or "quality throw" in OBR). And FED doesn't want to make it too difficult to penalize the BR, which is why they don't require a "quality" throw (just a throw). This balancing of offense and defense, with continual tweaks over the years, is part of what makes the rules so complex.

IMO, people confuse the change FED makes from OBR. In OBR, as we know, a "quality throw" is required before the BR can properly be called out for RLI. Without a quality throw, the BR has not interfered, according to interps of this rule. FED wants to eliminate "quality" from that rule (pun intended), which is consequent to their general philosophy of making the rules easier to apply. Some people hear that and mistakenly conclude that no throw at all is required. Of course, the rule (and case rulings) could be clearer on this point. The other source of confusion is the different standard for BI: if F2 need not throw in order to get the batter for BI, why would he have to throw to get the BR for RLI? I would say that the standard is different because the batter is RIGHT NEXT TO F2. He can interfere by preventing a throw. That's not the case with RLI, so the standard is different. That's my 4¢ (2¢ for each issue).

zm, Did they? (come up with the idea that you can have RLI with no throw) JM zm, I think John is suggesting that it is NOT correct to attribute this ruling to FED, and that a throw IS required to rule a BR out for RLI properly. I think John is NOT suggesting that this ruling is correct but that someone other than FED came up with it.

I agree with your rulings.

I don't think pointing is a huge issue. It's all about communication: if you communicate the HBP without pointing, everyone knows where the batter will go. Pointing can help communicate the HBP call, but it is not necessary.

Jax will be along shortly to take credit.

I think you mean 9.01( c). There is no 9.03( c). But no, you can't do that. This IS covered in the rules. The classic correct application of 9.01( c) is the Randy Johnson's pitch that hit a bird. If you're thinking of any less bizarre play, forget about 9.01( c). The play you describe is simply a foul ball and an out for runner INT. For me, an out and a strike to the batter does not constitute much of a "reward" for the offense.

IF you rule OBS, then the award is mandatory in FED. As described, I would not rule OBS in this case, since the runner was not hindered per FED 2-22-1 or OBR 2.00 OBSTRUCTION.

Thanks for the link. Intriguing that the "Trick Play Heaven" coach divided his own trick plays into "ethical" and "unethical" plays. Of the "ethical" plays, the "Rainbow play" constitutes verbal obstruction in FED per 2.22.1 A. I would say the "Phantom Ball off Catcher" does as well.

The dangers of relying on the comic book...

BUT!!! We have authority in FED to get 2 outs if we believe a DP was possible sans INT That's the general procedure, correct. However, the specific case ruling in 8.4.2 B on this exact play trumps the general procedure. FED wants this a foul ball, batter back to the box.

Right. Someone will be along to say: how do you know if it was foul until it's touched? And if you leave it live until it is touched, why wouldn't a subsequent catch count? Per the earlier advice in this thread, we should leave the ball live until its fair/foul status is determined. If a fielder touches it over foul territory, then it is foul. Since touching precedes a completed catch, it becomes dead on the touch, and the ball is dead when the fielder completes the catch.

Right, I remember. In fact, my research suggests that the FED interp is based on the pro interp for these plays. That's not a good choice, because the pro rule for when to get 2 outs is different from FED's: for FED, since a DP is possible without INT on a foul pop-up, there is a rule-based reason to get 2 outs here. The rule is different in OBR, which is why it's just 1 out for interfering with a fielder on a pop foul, and the BR resumes his at-bat.

Brad Meyers. Viewer discretion is advised. http://m.mlb.com/video/v31568447/?game_pk=396223

Not sure about the HS ruling (not too familiar with FED) but the Pro ruling requires you to keep the ball alive after the INT until you determine whether the ball is fair or foul. If the ball becomes foul (or if caught in foul territory) the batter goes back to bat because the IFF doesn't apply. The runner is still out. Nothing after the INT matters however, except whether the ball becomes fair or foul You're right to point out that enforcement will vary depending on whether it was in fact an infield fly. I interpreted the OP to be saying that it was in fact an IFF, in which case there's no need to wait. Good point on leaving it live if you don't know whether it is fair or foul. Again, in the OP, the fly ball was touched, so we'd kill it immediately.

Not sure about the HS ruling (not too familiar with FED) but the Pro ruling requires you to keep the ball alive after the INT until you determine whether the ball is fair or foul. If the ball becomes foul (or if caught in foul territory) the batter goes back to bat because the IFF doesn't apply. The runner is still out. Nothing after the INT matters however, except whether the ball becomes fair or foul If the ball is caught in foul territory, the batter goes back to bat? Yes. FED is the same: 8.4.2 B.

Matter to whom? The kid who has a perfect fielding percentage? The R3 who's going to sneak home while the defense ignores him? Everyone who's bored because the score is 27-1? The rules prohibit runners from interfering with a fielder playing a batted ball. There is no "it didn't matter" exception. Keep it simple.

INT. The runner is out for the INT, BR is out on the IFF, the ball is dead, other runners return (if there were no outs). The fielder dropped a dead ball. Same in all codes.

Not to pile on, but we should avidly enforce safety rules. Compare: F1 uses hybrid stance, plunks B1 in the head, B1's lawyer uncle sues the umpire and a host of others. CLAIM: umpire should not have allowed F1 to use hybrid stance. Judge laughs aloud before dismissing complaint. F2 uses unapproved helmet, gets hit in ear by deflected foul ball and sustains injury: F2's lawyer uncle sues the umpire and a host of others. CLAIM: umpire should not have allowed F2 to use illegal equipment. Nobody laughs; lawyers for insurance company settle for an undisclosed sum; state association revokes PU's license to avoid further liability. Guys who ignore the jewelry rule are also liability time bombs.

He can wear a mask and helmet, but the helmet must cover his ears. Edited to add: the reference is 1-5-4: "The catcher's helmet and mask combination shall meet the NOCSAE standard. Any helmet or helmet and mask combination shall have full ear protection (dual ear flaps)...."

...and the conference does not negate the right to appeal. I'd guess the umpires made up a rule: runs scoring before the base was missed count.

That's what fist-bumps are for! I use them all the time for pre-game in basketball. You never know where those teenagers' hands have been...