maven

The OBR definition of TAG (from 2019, but it hasn't changed): I've bolded the relevant pieces. For a tag play, where the fielder is tagging the runner (any context), the possession must survive the contact with the runner. But on any play where the fielder can retire a runner by tagging a base (force play, some appeal plays, etc.), secure possession while in contact with the base is sufficient. Subsequent contact with the runner that dislodges the ball is (generally) nothing. The exception would be the case where the contact is bang-bang, the fielder had sno-coned or otherwise barely held the ball, and the ball popped out. That could be ruled no tag, due to the lack of secure possession. But that doesn't sound like your play, Jeff.

You have the rule correct. We can't assess the judgment call without video. The definition of 'TAG' does not include the concept of 'voluntary release', only secure possession of the ball in hand or glove and contact with the base. You judged that those criteria were met prior to the runner touching the base. If your judgment was correct, then so was the call.

BR was out for the RLI before he was obstructed, so the latter didn't happen.

Two points to remember here: first, contact is neither necessary nor sufficient for hindrance. On a play where the BR can definitely take 2B on an overthrow (live ball), if he has to stop to go around F3 (no contact), that's still hindrance and OBS. And in a more common play, the BR rounds 1B on a long single (say) and bumps into F3 not paying attention. There, the BR has no reasonable chance to advance, and the contact is not hindrance (because BR cannot reasonably advance). So that wouldn't be OBS, despite significant contact. So it's possible to have OBS without contact and to have contact without OBS. That leaves it up to the umpire to see the action and judge hindrance.

The penalty for OBS is to award bases so as to nullify the act of obstruction. If the umpire judged that R2 would have scored on the play without the OBS, the award would be home. If he judged that R2 would reach only 3B, that would be the award. In the OP, R2 scored anyway. So evidently, that should have been the award. QED

duplicate

The coach is allowed to remain on the field, provided his doing so does not delay the warm up. I don't see why it matters where he stands. But this is a bit below level behavior, and surprising. The HS baseball in my area has pitchers who will be entering the draft, and we'd never see this.

Verbalizing is even more important there, as the 2 key people who need to know the ruling will generally have their backs to the PU.

If it had been a soft line drive to F3, which was caught, what would the answer be? Same same. Any runner who fails to retouch after a caught fly ball is subject to being called out on appeal. R1 was appealed when F3 tagged him. Had R3 failed to retouch, he would/should have been next.

In officiating any sport, we work for supervisors. They have views—sometimes strong views—about proper mechanics. If they tell you to do something a certain way that conflicts with other instruction or training that you've received, I recommend that you do it the supervisor's way for the games you work for that supervisor. To do otherwise would risk those assignments in future. As for the "that's nothing + safe signal" mechanic, it was part of my training in pro school (I don't recall it taught specifically for a batted ball through a fielder, but in general). The rationale for it is that we are making a call, and our job is communicate. Verbalizing and signaling communicates the no-call. That said, for some levels of youth ball, whenever an umpire verbalizes something, some players will stop and look at the umpire. That might be what "Bristol" is saying, that the cure is worse than the disease. Maybe so, for those levels. But we can use other/additional tools: we can modulate or lower our voices to be less distracting, add "play on, play on!" or the like, and continue to communicate after the initial ruling. For me, communication is like chocolate: more is generally better, at least to a point.

133 posts and counting. Nice!

No, not INT in any code. The rule prohibits "physically assisting" any runner (and I would, at least for the moment, include scored runners here). Because no play on the runner is possible until he has completed his base running responsibilities, the push from his teammates is not sufficiently 'assistance' to warrant an out. Even if the teammates were in the dugout and physically prevented the scored runner from entering, I would not rule INT. Had he entered, he could not legally retouch anyway. The actions of the offense would alert the defense, who could appeal the missed base. There might even be guidance that this kind of INT must occur during a live ball: when we call it, we leave the ball live. We can't do that if the ball is dead. But that's speculative.

Nothing illegal about the slide, but I agree with grayhawk and would rule the runner out for being tagged while not in contact.

I wasn't probing his ironic use of 'genius', but rather suggesting that social media here, as in so many other instances, is the root of the problem.

Well there's your mistake right there.

Welcome back!

And the ball remains live: the defense may play on other runners. This call is so rare, I recommend making it big. In 2-umpire mechanics, it belongs to PU (responsible for the retouch): he should point at R3 with his left hand, signal the out with his right, and verbalize, "He's out! He's out for running start! He's out!" Probably nobody will pay any attention, and they'll keep playing on R3; but at that point we've done what we can to communicate the call.

I don't like an abandonment call for this. Sounds like youth ball: if the 1BC is awol, just call time and ask the BR where he's going. No good ever came from allowing a clown rodeo.

I agree with noumpere and Richvee. Thanks for asking!

Yes. As I envision the play, he touches 3B and immediately retreats a couple steps toward 2B. He may not legally cut from there (the baseline between 2B and 3B) to HP without touching 3B on his way. The retreat from the base "undoes" his initial touch—had there been an R1 on the play, the force on R2 would have been reinstated by his retreat. I agree with your claim, but that might not be the OP's case. It's unclear whether R2 has passed 3B; we're told only that he touched it. If R2 touches and then retreats immediately, without passing, then he need not retouch 3B on his way back to 2B. It depends on whether his retreat takes him past 3B. As Velho says, if he touches 3B and rounds it, then cuts through the infield directly toward 2B, then he is liable to be out for a missed base appeal at 3B. If he has rounded 3B and takes 1–2 steps back toward 2B, then he need not retouch 3B. The umpire will need to judge whether his retreat takes him past 3B: roughly, if R2, having "rounded" 3B, crosses a line connecting 3B and the mound, then he has retreated from 3B and would need to retouch it or be liable for a missed base appeal.

A few practical differences: With a forced runner, if they remain on the base FROM which they are forced, they can be tagged for an out standing on the base. Not true for the BR, as there's no base from which he's forced. A force play ends when the forced runner reaches his advance base, or when a trailing runner is retired. None of that is true for the BR. A force play triggers the FPSR for codes that have that provision. Not true of the BR at 1B. When people refer to the play at 1B before the BR touches as a force play, it shows that they don't know the definition. This lack of knowledge can lead to confusion, for instance in thinking that a retouch appeal is a force play. It's the rule. There might be more. But what's the motivation for the question? Is it merely that you still want to call this a force play, when it isn't one? Inertia? Can't be arsed to use the correct terminology? Speaking of which...I wish a mod would fix the title of this thread...just sayin.

FIFY.

The IFF rule references the player (infield) not the location (infield). An infielder who goes out to the short outfield and catches an pop up with ordinary effort is still catching an IFF (see a World Series Game from a few years ago—Cardinals, IIRC).

For those unfamiliar with 1990's bulletin board customs, a blue font was often used to signal irony. This post is a facetious rendition of rules that seem to make IFF's quite rare.

First: if we can't explain what part of the balk rule F1 is violating, then we shouldn't be ruling it a balk. In fact, provided only that F1 isn't "freezing" for a significant time during this motion, it meets the pitching restrictions. No rule dictates what a pitcher's delivery must look like. "Huh, I never seen that one before..." isn't a reason for ruling a balk. Next: "how a lefty lifts his leg straight up, knee nor foot cross the plane of the rubber, then steps to third. But also using that same motion, slides and goes home"—this doesn't make sense. Either F1 picks up the knee to the balance point, OR he does a slide step. Can't be both: a slide step moves the free foot directly to the plate to start the pitch instead of lifting the knee. F1 sacrifices some power for speed of delivery. Last: you can't find a rule citation because no rule is violated here. Rule citations are required by those claiming that there is a violation, because in that case some specific provision has been violated.