pnewton

I have the B-R out for passing R1 after legally touching 1B for out number 2. BR being out removes all force plays.

Train wreck - fielder had gained possession of the ball so OBS is off the table (can't obstruct while holding the ball). I also don't have INT because I don't have hindrance. The contact between players did not hinder the fielder, he was already falling/fallen down.

"Shallow" A position. That is pretty much the same place as without a runner there but a few steps closer to home which gives a better look at pickoff attempts. He will still have fair/foul responsibilities and other outfield coverage.

I love knowing what visitors would recommend in my home city, it really is interesting! Feel free to message me if you have any other questions or need more info. As others have pointed out it is a walking city, that's really the best way to find things, just walk around. The North End and South End (which is not South Boston) are both full of great little restaurants. A ton of history all over the city, you can walk freedom trail and see almost everything important from revolutionary era. Also tons of cool little restaurants and quirky things to check out in Cambridge in Harvard Square.

Important to remember that it is the sequence of batters that counts and not the spot in the order. Chris didn't hit in ollie's spot in the order because it was the second spot in the order, he hit in Nick's spot because it was after Ollie. This difference confuses almost everyone.

To disagree with @Jimurray, intent is not the point, the movement that hinders is. You may have a situation where a RHB is near the front of the batter's box (closer to F1) and with a steal of 3rd is attempting to get out of F2's way by moving further back in the box but actually gets in the catcher's way. I am not judging this is no int just because there was no intent, F2 was still interfered with by a movement that hindered F2's attempt to make a play.

Umpire (Dreckman?) and Ortiz had exchanged words after called strike earlier in the at bat, I am going to guess that Ortiz was told to give that up at that point and then brought it up again from first base.

You are correct. By definition the ball cannot become live in this scenario. It is wrong to penalize either team for such an error on the part of the umpire.

DiMuro had no choice but to "get help" as the catcher asked. You can see the catch point down to first before DiMuro does so. Just further points out the lack of rational thought.

7.05(g) approved ruling <<5.06(g) approved ruling in 2015>> "If all runners, including the batter-runner, have advanced at least one base when an infielder makes a wild throw on the first play after the pitch, the award shall be governed by the position of the runners when the wild throw was made." R2 had not reached 3rd and so it is still a time of pitch award. R2 scores and BR to 2nd.

For the sake of discussion... how do we handle this in OBR where there are no "verbal appeals"? I think my reaction would be to tell the coach that there is nothing for me to rule on without an appeal, and hope that he gets the hint.

The run does not score because the batter-runner would be called for the third out of the inning before legally reaching first base (I'm sure there is a more accurate way to say that). It is treated the same as it would if he had been thrown out at first on a ground ball to end the inning.

I may be a bit of a redass on this one but counting calls is showing you up - he doesn't get to do that. He didn't understand that the hand up is the warning, the shame is that no one will sit down with him after the emotions are gone and explain how his actions led to the ejection.

As long as the runner didn't go out of his way to run into the fielder (very rare and would need to be blatent) this is the correct call. Because there was a play being made on the obstructed runner he is awarded at least the next base. All other runners should be placed where they would have been had obstruction not occurred. Assuming those two runner weren't moving during the run down, they aren't going anywhere on the obstruction.

As a kid my dad used to umpire my games and I hated it! I am convinced that he called against me so as to not be accused of being biased. Lets just say it was an issue in the house. Take it for what it's worth but it may force your games to come home with you, not always a good thing.

No, there is no requirement for an injured player to actually go touch first base in this situation.

We had a similar problem when the economy tanked a few years ago. Lots of guys looking for supplemental income and more leagues struggling so they dropped to one umpire. It got better but still don't get the number of games I once did. Up here in the north there isn't anywhere near as much ball as the warmer climates.

We dealt with this in basketball a few years ago. Both were listed as head coaches by the school athletics dept and were both paid accordingly. Both wanted to be able to stand in the coaches box and address officials. We were eventually told by assignor to just T the second one to try and stand in the box (assistant coaches must remain seated on the bench other than during time outs). They worked something out where one acted as head coach for home games and the other away games. I think these guys can work out something similar.

Time limit games that I work the clock starts when the plate meeting ends

They got it right. Pitching to B1 (the second batter) they made B2 (the first batter) legal. It is too late to appeal his batting out of order. They may appeal that B2 was not the proper batter, have him declared out (which he already was). Because his at-bat is deemed illegal no other runners may advance due to his action, so the runner should be returned to first. This appeal states that the wrong person hit in the second spot in the order, the third spot in the order is now due up with 1 out and a runner on first.

Just saw that Ortiz has been suspended for 1 game and fined for the bump that @UMP45 mentioned. He is appealing the suspension. The guy is an idiot, and I'm a Red Sox fan! Been EJd 11 times in his career and he only bats, it's not like he had plays in the field to argue or a catcher that could have strike zone issues.

OBR 4.09 - "HOW A TEAM SCORES. (a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning. EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases" (Italic for my emphasis) In your situation the batter-runner had not yet touched first base.

This is still a force. Definition of force from OBR "A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner." This situation still meets this criteria. The defense shouldn't be punished for deciding to tag the runner rather than the base.

I can't find anything in OBR that covers this particular situation. The one base award with a fielder falling out of play only applies to a catch which this isn't because the ball bounced. I would call this a deflection and award two bases from time of pitch. Don't currently have my manual, can anyone cite an official interpretation to treat this more like a throw?

Dixie Youth reverts to OBR (Official Baseball Rules) if not specifically addressed in the Dixie book. Batter INT for Dixie is by OBRs definition which can be found under 6.06 ©: A batter is out when - he interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box OR making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base. You can also note the comment regarding backswing INT (for when batter 'swings too hard') which does not call the batter out but merely sends the runners back. It is umpire judgement on whether or not the batter moved in a way that hindered the catcher. If the batter stays still, then there would be no issue at all. It's pure judgement and the way you describe it sounds like a reasonable batter INT. Edit to add: you say Dixie boys? As in 13-14 year olds? That ruleset would be by NFHS (High School) if not addresed in the Dixie rule book. Same outcome applies to this situation - the backswing INT does not get a special case (it's still considered normal batter INT under HS rules) HS batter INT rule is 7-3-5 But is it not only interference if he is out of the box? He still possesses the box by having his right foot in there? It says he has to be out of the box. If he has one foot completely out of the box and hits the ball he may be called out for being out of the box. In other words having one foot in the box does not make you in the box. If a batter swings and misses, loses his balance and steps one foot across the plate when the catcher is throwing down to second, the batter is still liable to be called out for interference even if the other foot is still in the box. I believe you are incorrect that keeping one foot in the box is going to protect your batter in this case.