maven

Your partner Your partner was misreading 8-4-2k, which states that a runner is out when hit by a fair batted ball when... k. is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play When R1 is hit by the ball and he's behind F3 near the base, the second clause fails. That's not INT: live ball, play the bounce.

You don't mention the rules, but FED specifically directs the UIC to rectify any situation where a team has been disadvantaged by the overturning of an umpire's decision. 10-2-3l OBR has a similar provision. 9.02© In the OP, the batter hit a grounder to 3B, and F5 made a poor throw to 1B. Unless the ball got away from F3 on the play, I wouldn't think R2 could score. I'd like to hear the rationale for that decision.

You're right, tank, no signal is itself a signal. But it's a signal to all equally: you're ruling no tag and no touch, so play continues. Since each team has the opportunity to continue to play, neither team is disadvantaged by the non-signal. We had this in my game today. Runner trying to score, F2 receives the throw, tags the runner, and the ball pops out. Due to the contact from the tag attempt, the runner missed the plate. I made no signal, and the OC prompted the runner to tag the plate before F2 could retrieve the ball and apply the tag. Then I signaled safe.

I was having trouble visualizing the play, but I gather that everyone was moving before the pitch, and that F6 and R2 collided. When the batter whiffed, R3 was put out in a rundown. You could get OBS on the collision, but it would be tough to catch. BU has his back to the play, and PU is tracking the pitch. PU might pick it up peripherally if the collision is colossal, but probably nobody sees that. If they do see it and rule it OBS, you're correct, it's a delayed dead ball award. After all playing action, R2 would be awarded 3B. Since he already acquired 3B, the OBS would be ignored. The fact that 3B was occupied during the steal is immaterial and no protection from OBS for the defense. Had the runners returned to their respective bases, the award to R2 would have forced R3 home.

Under FED, the standard is lower for calling running lane INT: a "quality throw" is not required, though some kind of throw or other is. For OBR, it must be a "quality throw," which is one that would otherwise have retired the BR. One way to have a quality throw is for the BR to be plunked, but that's not the only way.

James, regarding your 2 questions: 1. Don't mirror a F/F call. Why would you need to tell runners, when there are two perfectly satisfactory base coaches with nothing better to do at that point? Seriously, if I see a runner who doesn't know I might say something quietly to him, but it's not really my business. 2. F/F is a call like any other. One call, one umpire. Do you advocate mirroring ball/strike calls? Safe/outs on the bases? If not, why would you mirror F/F?

You're right. My post was potentially misleading if it suggested that jumping is always legal. Apologies.

If it hits the fielder, it remains in flight and may be caught for an out. If it hits the wall, it is no longer in flight and may not be caught for an out. But if it hits the top of the wall and goes over, it is a HR by interp, not by rule. MLBUM interp already posted by Gil above.

Jumping is not prohibited: diving (head first) over a fielder is. So it doesn't sound like that. If the fielder has the ball, is attempting a tag, and the runner jumps wide enough to avoid a tag, the runner has deviated more than 3 feet from his baseline and thereby violated FED 8-4-2a. Out, and the ball remains live. Depending on the level, the fielder's arms are 2.5-3 feet long, so jumping wide enough to avoid a tag is in itself evidence of a violation. I get this out every time I can.

I agree. What is your reasoning? I did not look at the video again, but my recollection is that the runner slid past the base, made contact with the fielder, and altered the play. maven

That BR was a step from the base when the throw arrived. Regardless of where the ball was, the runner is allowed to be in fair territory near the base. maven

I agree with JM: the rule was not changed, it was editorially massaged for clarity. Too many people stopped reading at "If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored." The key sentence is the one making a minimum award of one base beyond the last legally touched base. The 2013 version puts that key clause first. That provision and its enforcement have not changed, and the sentence about ignoring the obstruction must be read in light of it: the obstruction is ignored when the obstructed runner is advancing and achieves the base he was attempting to acquire. But if he gets the base you were awarding, it's pretty obvious you'd ignore the OBS. My only quibble with mstaylor's advice, "When in doubt award the base," is that, if you rule OBS, you should not be in doubt. For FED it is ALWAYS a minimum of one base. If he means, "When in doubt, rule OBS," then that makes more sense. I'm not sure I agree, since OBS needs to be obvious for me, but it makes more sense.

Your post is misleading. The thrust of most posts in the thread is that the umpire SHOULD have judged U/INT here. When you lead with "Wrong...," it seems as if you're claiming on the contrary that he correctly ruled no U/INT. But the rest of your brief post simply clarifies that contact with an umpire is not "automatically" INT, which I have not seen anyone deny. Do you believe the play in question was ruled correctly? That seems to be the main issue in the thread, not the substance of the U/INT rule.

Can you expand on that, zm? If the sense of "altering the throw" is akin to umpire INT by the PU, then obviously it wouldn't apply to the BR in the running lane. But if it's about forcing a bad throw to avoid hitting the BR in the back, then it might.

I very much like your first suggestion, but not the second. I personally would never turn down an opportunity to be evaluated by someone skilled in doing that. It's great to have objective feedback to improve oneself, and it improves the chances that I'll be put on the correct level of ball for my ability. Indeed, requesting evaluation shows that you care about improving, especially if you do it more than once and document improvement. The "correct level" might be higher or lower than the level I think is right for me, of course.

"Safe! ... Now he's out!" Gotta stay with it! FPSR violation in a FED game, and the OC might be unhappy to earn 2 outs when F6 drops the ball.

In general, any umpire who sees it may call INT, and not just FPSR violations. Proper mechanics dictate that BU follow a throw to 1B to pick up the back end of an attempted DP. So with a throw, FPSR violations usually have to be grabbed by PU; with no throw to turn him, BU should have eyes on it and get it. That's a general guideline, not a hard-and-fast mechanic. As BU I have gotten an FPSR violation even though there was a throw, when R1 slid about 6 feet wide of the base to take out F6 covering. It was so obvious, I had killed it before the ball left F6's hand.

Pony, if you're looking for specific time-frames, like "2 years JV/frosh, then bad varsity for a few years, then better games if you're good," then you should inquire with your local association. Different groups have a hundred different ways of proceeding and very different expectations (I had pro training and semi-pro experience before starting HS ball and never did a season of JV). My advice to newer umpires is always the same, regardless of practices in their area: you'll move up when you move up. The only thing worse than getting stuck on games below your level is getting a game you're not ready for and having it blow up. Focus instead on what's under your control, like improving yourself: get the best gear and training you can afford (in time and money), improve yourself after every game, and strive for professionalism in every aspect of umpiring from uniform to interacting with participants. Make yourself great, and eventually someone will recognize it. Oh yeah, one more thing: when blowhards like me give you ponderous advice, file it away, say "thank you" even if you think it's crap, and take it for whatever it's worth.

Inside the line, sure, but was there INT? maven

FIFY.

Video?

It is a balk, but not for that reason. The relevant provision is 6-2-5: "It is also a balk if a runner or runners are on base and the pitcher, while he is not touching the pitcher's plate, makes any movement naturally ­associated with his pitch, or he places his feet on or astride the pitcher's plate, or positions himself within approximately five feet of the pitcher's plate without ­having the ball." Simulating a pitching motion occurs AFTER taking a position on the rubber; but even being near the rubber (FED) or taking position on the rubber (OBR) without the ball is sufficient for a balk.

If you rule BI on the batter who struck out, the runner is out. If not, play on. Prolly BI, from your description. maven

Without knowing 3-umpire mechanics, it's a tall order to pick up 4-umpire in 24 hours. You will go out more, especially with U2 inside. With U2 outside, you will rotate to 2B if U2 goes out. Communicate, pick up your keys, and don't leave 2B uncovered. And try not to permit an even number of umpires at a base. maven

R1, outs don't matter, runner goes on first movement, which happens to be a pickoff. I'm PU, so I read "pickle," and I bust up the 1BL to get my end. BUT, F3's throw to 2B is in the dirt, and starts to roll out to LF. R1 turns left. I glance at my partner, and he's near 2B, thoughtfully observing the ball rolling into the outfield. So I think, crap, better get my butt over to 3B! Which I do, but there's no play, as the ball is late. Did I need to do all that running? My partner moved about 9 feet on that damn play! Great game, too: 1-0, home team won with a walk-off sac fly, 7 innings, 84 minutes.