pnewton

I believe they are as babe Ruth uses OBR. At least we have always allowed them in my area.

The play is very much live, just like if strike 2 or ball 1 or any other pitch were not caught. If R1 was off the base he is out.

You almost figure it out as you go. Instead of following batter-runner up the line try to run toward a spot about half way between the mound and first base (you don't have to actually get that far, just far enough to have an angle.

Boston Globe website today has an entry on this, writer Alex Speier (a pretty good one) gives a clear explanation and even corrected the commentators that referred to this as a balk. Just nice to see someone caring about getting it right. Vazquez admitted after the game he had never heard of this rule, seems crazy to me. Video looks like plate umpire was a bit too excited to call this and called time, I believe this is one of those things you point at and see what happens. What should the verbal call be? It isn't interference or obstruction as defined.

I actually feel bad for the guys that will work in the area that sees that broadcast and has to deal with the daddy coaches that will believe what that commentator just said.

No, we play by obr

You assume people would read that post.

Received an email from IAABO today condemning actions of Addidas and requesting an apology.

If the runner reached 2nd before the pitcher started his motion he gets to stay there. I am assuming that you are saying that the runner got to 2nd before the pitch left the pitcher's hand, that isn't the actual standard for time of pitch.

Also note that your players cannot go into the opponents dugout and tag a player.

Batter-runner gets some leeway if he has been in the lane the whole way and come out of it at the very end, no leeway if he wasn't in the lane until he absolutely needed to leave it to reach the base. The way I read "to the left" and then "back near...the runners lane" I have this as interference.

Assuming that the runner from 3rd has scored before that appeal - the run counts

Did he come to a stop in the middle of this? Otherwise this reads like a normal windup to me, am I missing something?

Would this not be covered in OBR by the new "hybrid stance" ruling that the pitcher must declare they will wind up from what looks like a set position?

Don't feed the trolls

It doesn't matter that the pitch hit the ground other than it can't be called a strike (might still be a strike if swing and miss). Most likely it is batter hit by pitch and awarded first base.

Runners are never forced to retreat. R2 going back doesn't actually force R1 anywhere.

You are correct and it applies to at least baseball and basketball, the two sports I work. We fought it but really wasn't anything we could do once state decided it.

In this instance (ball hit bat rather than bat hit ball) the ball is either fair or foul depending on where it is either touched or comes to rest, per usual.

Assuming that this league or organization allows batters to attempt to reach base on an uncaught third strike the answer is yes. At that age some never allow batters to run on an uncaught third strike regardless of outs or other runners.

Agree on #1. For #2 the O.P. indicates a step off, after that I believe the pitcher, now acting as an infielder, could change hands to make a play just as any other infielder.

No.

Short answer is no. The runner from first is "forced" to advance. Because he was put out before reaching the base he was forced to for the third out no runs score on the play. The fact that he was tagged as opposed to tagging second base is meaningless.

The substitute assumes the count and finishes the at bat.

@stkjock if it were a legal pitch you would be correct. Once the delivery wasn't legal it becomes no pitch as long as ruled to be caused by the batter's ilegal action.