Jump to content

maven

Established Member
  • Posts

    9,076
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    331

Everything posted by maven

  1. You could make some money printing this on signs for posting on youth ball fields.
  2. No, don't ask. If he had been a real umpire, he'd have called it if he'd seen it. He didn't call it, so he didn't see it. No need to ask. And since he's a dad, we don't want to involve him. Let him call outs on the bases. Catcher INT is a call that belongs to PU. We'd never involve the BU, especially not with a dad volunteer. You missed it...it happens. Don't compound the error by trying to "fix" it or, worse, spreading the blame improperly.
  3. They probably needed to go wash their boats. Oh well.
  4. FED doesn't use that term, but it does depend on the BR's hindering the fielder taking (or "fielding," whatever that means—right Steve?) the throw at 1B. This rules out, for example, the no-throw situation. But it also implies that the provision still requires something like a quality throw, which OBR interprets as a throw that has a chance to retire the runner. Late throws, non-throws, clear overthrows—in none of these cases would we rule RLI. I'm not qualified to have an opinion about the play in the video.
  5. That's simplistic: there are THREE conditions for RLI, not one. It's not clear to me that this play meets all three. I doubt, for example, that this gets called in pro ball (whose rule might be different from NCAA's).
  6. The question went from "is this visual INT," to "what even is visual INT, and is it a thing," to "yes, visual INT is a thing, here are some rules." Nobody circled back to the question asked, which leaves open a naive response in the affirmative.
  7. When a poster asks a direct question—is THIS act "visual INT"—let's be clear what the answer is before we dive into a conceptual exploration. Yes, the rules conceive of hindrance broadly enough that some kinds of "visual" INT/OBS are possible. But we don't want to expand that possibility so that an eager newer umpire or coach could stretch it to cover a bunt.
  8. Wagging the bat over the plate—during a bunt, feinted bunt, or at any other time—is nothing, ever, at any level of baseball.
  9. Correct my partner? Hell no, she doesn't like that at all.
  10. Correct: score the run pending proper appeal. Here's why R1's not out for passing: he scored before the BR. True, he missed the plate, but when he passed the base he acquired it for the purpose of score, pending a proper appeal. At that point, R1 is no longer a runner, but a scored/retired runner. So the BR scoring is not passing another runner.
  11. maven

    Ejection

    I agree with this. In FED, MC supersedes just about everything. If a runner did this during the award for a home run, I would nullify that runner's run. Other runner's would be allowed to score, unless the disqualified player's out were the 3rd out. In that case, only preceding runners would score.
  12. OBS in all codes. A fielder without the ball hindered a runner. The penalty will be the same in all: advance R3 (scores). Other runners are unaffected (they should have moved up). It will now be R1, R2, with the same number of outs (presumably 1).
  13. A brief followup on my answer to #8: even FED recognizes legal collisions, as when a fielder who catches a thrown ball is drawn into the runner's path and they collide. This can't be OBS because the fielder has the ball; it can't be INT because the need to avoid developed too late; and I'm stipulating it's not MC. So, legal collision. Note that it's still legal even if the fielder drops the ball as a result of the contact: he was in possession of the ball at contact, so not guilty of OBS (but he also didn't tag the runner).
  14. Agree: this is INT. This is OBS, not INT, as the fielder hindered the runner. Agree Agree If the fielder has the ball, this is nothing. If not, it will depend on the code: nothing in OBR, but OBS in FED. I don't work LL. The requirements for F3 are no different from any other fielder or any other base, and they vary by code. The rule sets that carve out an exception for making a play include receiving a throw. There are legal collisions, but never legal intentional collisions, even in pro ball now. So, yes, runners must always attempt to avoid fielders, even when the fielder is obstructing the runner. Failure to do so generally results in either an INT call or MC or both. The onus is on umpires to call OBS properly so that runners don't get penalized for avoiding an obstructing fielder. If F3 collides with R1 on the way to 1B, that's almost certainly OBS. If the collision happens at the base, that's either nothing or, possibly, OBS depending on the code. This will depend on whether the contact hinders the BR: if he had a legitimate chance to advance—batted ball in the gap, for instance, or a substantial overthrow—then we should rule OBS. Otherwise, no hindrance = no OBS: if the runner could not have advanced, he wasn't hindered. If the fielder hasn't moved, then he shouldn't be in the runner's way or on the path back to the base. A runner who hinders himself by running out of his way (accidentally or not) and collides with a fielder shouldn't draw an OBS call. Did F4 have the ball? I'll guess the question assumes not, because a fielder with the ball can't be guilty of OBS. If he does not have the ball, it's nothing in OBR and OBS in FED.
  15. I don't think you know what 'authority' means.
  16. But this IS clearly defined, and the case book gives us relevant examples. Moreover, the rules are different—black letter different. I encourage you to look them up, rather than guess that MLB interps always apply to FED. That's seat-of-your-pants umpiring, which we discourage. The operative FED term is 'access'. Our state interpreter, who's authoritative for FED baseball in our state, wants a runner who has access to a base by sliding between a fielder's legs to be ruled NOT obstruction. And if that runner chooses to go around and gets tagged out, that's still not OBS (here).
  17. You're applying the wrong rule. This is the NFHS forum. Moreover, the term 'access' gets interpreted differently by different authorities.
  18. It's not an argument, it's an interpretation. It doesn't require defense, because it has authority. And that's what our pal in the forum lacks. You don't have to like the interpretation. I get that. The interpretation extends the concept. That's not unprecedented.
  19. What's the issue? His interpretation applies the RLI rule to a retired batter who is, also by interpretation, entitled to run to 1B even though he's out on the K.
  20. Remember that the requirements for CATCH are different from the requirements for TAG. A CATCH (of a fly ball) requires both of 2 separate acts: secure possession of the ball in hand or glove, AND voluntary release. A TAG requires secure possession of the ball in hand or glove throughout the tag. On a force play, that's long enough to touch the base. The brevity of that moment explains why pro umpires are so generous calling it "on the transfer" when a middle infielder drops the ball during a double play attempt. Thus, the retired runner causing the ball to pop out during the force play in the OP is nothing. Had it been a tag play and the ball popped out during the tag, that would be evidence that the ball was not held securely—IIRC, a comment in the book states as much.
  21. Retired runners are not guilty of interference for merely continuing to run the bases after being retired. That is, they may run, provided they don't hinder the defense. IIRC, Wendelstedt drops the bar for INT pretty fast once a runner is retired—I'm not sure he leaves any window of time there. He certainly seems to turn the switch from "INT must be intentional" for runners, to "INT may be negligent" for retired runners virtually instantly. I don't think I'd enforce it that way in amateur baseball.
  22. I'll add this: if the runner slides legally into the fielder's foot in this kind of situation, where the runner had access to the base, it's bad luck/bad technique (depending on your dugout) akin to the bad luck/technique of F2 who drops the ball in the other thread when a legally sliding runner contacts him on a force play.
  23. Not as described: legal slide at about the time of the tag. Now, if he had the opportunity to pull up after seeing that he had been retired, the situation might be different. But it might be different in approximately 10^7 ways, all of them irrelevant to the OP.
  24. Yes. As we teach it: the access that the fielder provides does not have to be the runner's "preferred" access.
×
×
  • Create New...