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.

Have you worked 3-umpire?

Oooh, rat fight!

Hey HHLA, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

YEP! Now see, guys are all set to jump on the pros for a botched call. But if in his judgment the fielder pushed the foot of the base, that runner is SAFE. I don't know what the call was (well, I know it was safe, but I don't know why). Hard to dispute if you don't know what the ruling was...

...unless it gets in the way of the ball. But I agree with everyone else, pulling the bat back is not striking at the pitch.

Isn't it the "out" call he disputed? Close enough to be out. Good play.

Did Wright push the foot off the base?

The BRD (2008: §432) recommends treating FED and NCAA as OBR, which specifies no penalty for this infraction. Fitzpatrick dictates warning before calling out; Evans and JR specify calling the runner out, but it's clear from all interps that they envision the runner leaving AFTER F1 takes his position on the rubber. In your play, it sounds as if the runner is heading back while the ball is still being thrown back. That's nothing: as long as he has left the base prior to F1 taking his position on the rubber, there is no infraction.

You're quite right, and I agree that the play you're envisioning is legal. In the post you quote, I misread the OP and thought F1 had made the throw to 1B, retiring the BR, and R3 tried to score on the throw. I apologize for muddying the waters.

This ^ The purpose of the safe/out mechanic is to signal a ruling on a play. No play, no ruling, no signal.

Another reason to never use a bucket. Which do you mean? The fact that lots of guys use 2 hands to remove it, or that Balkin' Bob uses one? I switched this year. Another MLB guy goes down in spring training with a bat to the head from a kid coming around with that 1-handed backswing. I've got a family to feed and opted to decrease the risk of a closed-head injury. YMMV And I use 1 hand — my left hand — to remove it.

In the OP, F1 fields the ball on or near the mound. The BR runs back toward the plate in the baseline. F1's throw from the mound area to F2 covering the plate hits the BR near the plate (whether he's out or not). If the BR is that close to that play, given the geometry as I'm envisioning it, he's out for interference. His putting himself in the middle of a play at the plate is sufficient evidence of intent to interfere. I don't believe I've changed anything from the OP to "get my way." You're welcome to disagree with my ruling, but your personal attack is peurile.

His head keeps getting bigger when he reflects on how good his calls have been.

So R3 is trying to score, F2 set up to receive the throw, and BR walks in between them and disrupts the play. Play on, you say? I respectfully disagree.

Sez you. That call is umpire judgment. If I see a BR turn around and run FORWARD into the middle of a play at the plate, that is sufficient for me to judge intent to interfere.

Some of us spend more time watching the umpires than others.

We've sung this song before. I'm not calling him out for continuing to run. I'm calling him out for failing to get out of the way of the defense. This is INT by a retired runner. As long as the topic has come up again, let me explain a little more how I'm interpreting the phrase "not, in and of itself, interference." Whom does this phrase protect? Here's a case where the phrase operates: PLAY: R1 stealing, no outs, batter bunts. F1 fields the ball and throws to F3 to retire the BR, who rounds the base toward 2B. Meanwhile, F3 loses the ball on the transfer, and the ball rolls into foul territory behind 1B. R1 rounds 2B, sees the ball on the ground, and starts to go to 3B. But F3 recovers the ball quickly, sees R1 change direction back into 2B, and throws there to try to retire him. The ball, however, pegs the retired BR in the back as he's running between 1B and 2B. RULING: no INT, play on. Continuing to run the bases is not, in and of itself, interference. Sorry, that's a long play, but it illustrates the point. The retired BR has vacated all space needed by the defense, and has done nothing besides continue to run the bases. How is that different from the OP? The difference is that in the OP the throw strikes a retired runner near a base. So although it is true that the retired runner may continue to move around the field — he is not expected to disappear — he must try to stay out of the way. A runner who does nothing to stay out of the space needed by the defense is liable for INT, not because he continues to exist, but because he negligently failed to get out of the way. The BR who turns around and heads toward the plate can SEE R3 coming home, and he ran into the middle of the play. To me, that does not sound like merely failing to get OUT of the way, it sounds like intentionally getting IN the way, which is INT in anyone's book. But even if he didn't see R3, he should have: and that's the reason to judge him negligent in failing to get out of the way. A more challenging case would involve an off-line throw. If the contact is away from a base, it's a higher bar for INT, since it's harder to predict where that ball will be and so harder for the player to know how to get out of the way. But a retired/scored runner still needs to do something, and might still be negligent in failing to get out of the way.

I can live with that one. Kinda scares me to have somebody staring daggers at me, but I can live with it.

My notes: BU should be at or near the 3B cutout for this call. (FED mechanics have PU there.) I can't support OBS here: F5 allows access to the base. I see no fake tag. The contact after BR slides does not prevent the BR from advancing. I could support a MC/INT call for the thrown elbow. Hard to tell from the angle, and it could be just the runner popping up from his slide. So I could support a no call too. I could understand an INT call for the pop-up slide, which is illegal due to contact with the fielder (2-32-2). On reflection, I don't think it hindered the defense, so ultimately I would not support it. I can't tell what BU signals. When the camera picks him up, it looks like the end of an out signal. Then I see him point home. The reaction of the offense suggests that the initial call was out, then OBS and an award. DC comes out to discuss/find out what the call was, and BU runs away. He needs to recognize that this is no garden variety safe/out, and there IS something to discuss here, especially given his somewhat unclear signals. At 1:58:13 both umpires are returning to their positions, and neither is explaining anything to the DC. DC then goes to PU, who is the only umpire remaining in range. PU should ask the DC to stand by a moment. The crew should get together briefly to make a call before discussing it with the coaches. The crew meeting is much too long. Go over the events together, each contributing what he saw and would rule on reflection. PU seems to be trying to talk BU into/out of something, and failing, and not letting it go. Any umpire may call OBS/INT/MC; if one has OBS and the other has MC/INT, the crew could have called both. The crew reaches consensus, and BU reports the call to the DC. Then BU heads back to 3B (to tell the OC?), while the DC talks to PU some more. Once the BU reports the crew's call, there's nothing more to discuss: PU should send the DC back to the dugout. 2:04:30, DC is in the PU's face over the call. Why? AFAICT PU made no call here. Very strange, could have been handled better, at least nobody was ejected.

Heh. Guess you don't work basketball.

Do you work football, BU? I do; a lot of baseball guys don't. Just curious.

I'm very cautious about these. Generally speaking, there are no secrets: good coaches pick up everything we do. In my experience, unusual signals cause more problems with coaches than they solve, and I cannot recommend them. Other than looking at PU and moving toward him a bit, I would not otherwise signal him. It's his call, and he will need to decide whether to get help and then what to do with it once he gets it.

If the ball was in fair territory when it struck R3, then you were correct to call INT. In general for this type of INT, the ball is dead, BR awarded 1B, other runners return to their TOI base unless forced to advance by the award to the BR. noumpere is right to point out that you don't need to judge whether the ball would have "gone through." Proper mechanic: "Time! That's interference (pointing to R3)! He's out! You (pointing to BR), first base!" Runner in fair territory? Coaching 101.

4 fouls = out. I like it! Not a rule... yet... but I like it!