maven

I know that you know this, but not everyone will: this actually used to happen, back when the rule required runners to retouch after a fly ball was caught. A rule change long before anyone here was born instituted the current requirement, that runners retouch on a caught fly ball after a fielder touches the ball.

Well, a passed ball gets past F2, right? 😵‍💫

The question about order of appeals presupposes that there were less than 2 outs on the play. The order doesn't matter. The first appeal will nullify that runner's run. The second appeal will nullify the other runner's run. The truth of this statement—and it is true—is an artifact of the BR missing 1B. Had he missed any other base, and there were 2 outs, R1's run would have counted when the appeal of the BR's miss made the third out. Of course, in that situation, R1's miss could still be appealed for an advantageous 4th out.

Yes, that's OBS. Good call, weak mechanics. Good call: F2 sets up in the base path and blocks the runner's access to HP. Not enough amateur umpires get this call. Weak mechanics: it's not clear that he's ruling OBS. Point at F2 and verbalize "That's OBS!" then signal safe. Maybe do all that twice (it's a scoring play).

That's true for a batted ball. My remark about contact was more general.

If the error is unrelated to the actions of the runner, then it is what it is. Unlike OBS, INT is generally not connected to the outcome of the play—either the runner hindered the fielder or he didn't. We don't go back and change our judgment because the fielder subsequently erred.

Even umpires don't know how to do a live-ball appeal.

Hindrance, of course. And what counts as hindrance is so heavily context, level, and situation dependent that it's difficult to offer even rough generalities regarding it. Contact? Sometimes but not always hindrance. "Alter the path?" Sometimes but not always. Etc. In that White Sox game, the umpire (U3, it seems) judged that the fielder was hindered. That would not have been my call, but I'm no MLB umpire.

That might be obvious, but it doesn't by itself justify INT. You're missing the key concept.

That's not correct. If a pitcher leaves the mound or the game for the wrong reason (pitcher, substitution, or charged conference rule violation), he cannot re-enter to pitch or return to the mound in that game. So not "unlimited reentry." And, as you've phrased it, he cannot re-enter twice in one inning. Indeed, he may re-enter the game only once: re-entry occurs when a starter is subbed out of the lineup. F1 may return to pitch—moving from another fielding position—at most once per inning (or twice per game in MN, apparently). You could have 2 pitchers switch back and forth 4 times in 1 inning legally: Smith (RHP) pitches to (RH) B1, Jones at F6. Then Jones (LHP) pitches to (LH) B2, Smith at F6. Then Smith returns and pitches to (RH) B3, Jones at F6—Smith has returned to the mound once. Then Jones returns and pitches to (LH) B4, Smith at F6—Jones has returned to the mound once. If the team must change pitchers again that inning, it cannot be Smith. These changes involve no substitutions and no re-entry of starters.

Yes, I'm aware of thread drift. It's a primary reason I stop reading threads after 6–8 posts.

As described, yes. Aaron Judge's Slide Into 2B - Was it Interference? Also yes. One of many reasons I don't work MLB.

This post, while correct, is not needed, as it is irrelevant to the OP. A complete (and simpler) answer to the OP need not mention appeal plays (or any other kind of play). The way to remember the scoring rule is that the default is a time play: did the run score before the 3rd out? In the OP, yes, so it counts. There are 3 exceptions to this default, and none of them applies here, including the exception for the BR making the 3rd out before legally touching 1B. This is, BTW, exactly how the rule is written in OBR, 5.08(a) + EXCEPTION.

"Electricity" ain't part of FED.

Although I'm grateful for the sentiment, I'm no authority and politely decline to be treated as one. We all need to poke our noses in the book, as often as possible.

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.