maven

Huh? Pop-up to F5 in the coaching box that he catches? Seems like a caught foul ball to me... A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul terri- tory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.

OBR has a clause specific to this play, which Rich quoted above. In a FED game, I would rule that the pitch was legally caught prior to being dislodged by a retired batter(-runner). In this case, that's nothing — and what could it be?

The pitcher, not the catcher, has violated the rule, namely pitching while the catcher is not in his box. If the pitcher waits until he moves into the box, then there will be no infraction.

Proper.

Why wouldn't you have said that the first time, instead of the patently false claim that the bat is not equipment?

Nice try. OBR 1.17: "Playing equipment including but not limited to the bases, pitcher’s plate, baseball, bats, uniforms, catcher’s mitts, first baseman’s gloves, infielders and outfielders gloves and protective helmets..." FED 1-3-5.

I'm not dying on this hill--it's just a thought... However, when you look at the wording of 2-21-3, why not? Well, you (Matt) are correct that the scope of 2-21-3 is quite broad, but I (along with JM, it seems) would not regard ruling SPEC/INT in this case a logical extension of the verbal INT/OBS rule for players. At least not in the sense of being required. In any case, even if it might be permitted, superior enforcement options here would be (as already stated above): Ignore if it has no impact Call time to prevent any impact if needed ("He didn't balk, coach, I had already killed it!")

Ah, I see what you're asking now. Yes, if the removal of F1 from the game is required by rule (8.06b), then he may not move to another position. The same principle applies in FED.

Me too. ^

JM Ah, so the bat is part of the hands!?!

Every ball in play has one of three statuses: it's a pitched ball, a batted ball, or a thrown ball. Clearly, this ball was not batted (so no "catch and carry"). Since it was not a pitch, it is not a pitched ball. That means it's a thrown ball. Next question: who threw it? Once the fielder possess it, it's not the pitcher. Hence, it's the fielder. Treat it as if the fielder threw the ball out of play, similar to a fielder kicking such a ball OOP. Two bases from TOT.

The swap is legal. Consider: Jones is pitching. In the 3rd, the manager comes out and swaps Smith for Jones (Smith now pitching). In the same inning, the manager comes out again, the pitcher (Smith) is removed, and is done pitching for the day. Jones, or someone else, may pitch. For FED, it is false in general that a pitcher, having moved to another position, may not return to pitch. That's is so only when his removal is forced (coach's 4th+ visit, etc.).

Though you might be correct about what the actual call was, this can't be BI, since you have a BR not a batter. Edited: fixed by Dix! Kemp interfered twice: once by failing to move, and again when a fair batted ball hit him.

Runners can make that call really easy by sliding 2 feet wide of the base.

Two questions: 1. Was there a tag? 2. U3's positioning at the start of the play?

True enough, and that's precisely the sense in which FPSR is an extension of INT: had there been actual hindrance, you could simply call garden variety INT and would not need to extend the concept.

I think of it as an extension of INT for the sake of safety, so yes. :)

Thanks, JM, those are helpful for making my point that FPSR is an extension of the INT rules.

That's not the purpose of the FPSR, but rather a restatement of (your interpretation of) it. The purpose of the FPSR is to extend the INT rule in order to offer fielders on force plays additional protection. For me, that purpose informs my interpretation of the rule.

If he had a light bulb, it would be on. He's a pitcher. Just sayin'

John, what's the purpose of the FPSR? Followup quesiton: Is that purpose thwarted in your play?

Neglecting to verbalize is not bad, since it's sometimes correct (think: safe at 1B by a full second). But verbalizing in your situations would have been better.

That's not really the issue. JM regards any contact in an FPSR situation as illegal: given contact, no further judgment is required. My bar is slightly higher: for me, contact must affect the play (as we require for INT generally) to be illegal. In practice, we would call 99.999% of plays identically, so the dispute is quite minor.

This ^

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I use my judgment. If you're asking for criteria, I don't suppose I can offer anything hard and fast. In many cases, an attempt to avoid involves picking up the direction the play is going and moving in some other direction. Such an attempt can fail when the direction of play changes suddenly.