UmpJM

dleavitt, 1. Under FED rules, hurdling a fielder who is not lying on the ground is illegal ANYWHERE on the field, regardless of how far or close to a base that it occurs. 2. Yes, if the rules being played under call for it, you call the 10 year old out. That's how they learn. Note, the runner has to go "over the top" of the fielder to be illegal. If he hurdles/jumps over an outstretched arm or something, he is not in violation. JM FVB73

Warren, 1. John Wayne 2. A Clockwork Orange. JM

Rich, Seems to be some contradictory statements in the rules. B) What do you suppose the 6.08(a) Comment you cited actually MEANS? JM

txump, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but with the bases loaded, the runners are forced to advance as soon as the batter becomes a runner (i.e. as soon as the 4th ball is called in this sitch). They remain forced until either the BR is retired or they reach their advance base. JM

Jax, That is incorrect. A runner who is in contact with his base need not avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, but the base offers no safe haven from being called for interference by virtue of being hit by a fair batted ball - unless it's an Infield Fly. JM

Mr Umpire, Glad you took that in the spirit intended. This is a great "bar bet" question when you're hanging out with umpires. "Is there any rule in the OBR rulebook that says a tie goes to the runner in any circumstance?" Because 6.05(j) DOES say it. Another one is, "What is the one type of candy explicitly mentioned in the text of the OBR rules?" (no fair looking before you answer). JM

Mr Umpire, So, you would welsh on the bet? I completely agree that the rule does not really MEAN that, nor is it proper enforcement, nor is it consistent in principle with the 7.08(e) language. However, that was not the bet. The cite I gave refers to a Batter-Runner, who most certainly IS "a runner", and "says" that a tie goes to the runner. Which WAS the bet. I think it would be best if the umpire refrained from making such foolhardy bets rather than make them and then welsh on his proposition because he hasn't read the rulebook as carefully as he thought he had. Unseemly at best. (BTW, the FED rule book features the same contradiction between the BR and a forced runner as does the OBR language.)

dawg-man, Had I been the coach, I would have showed your partner 6.05(j): If it had been a FED game, I would have showed him 8-4-1f. JM

Rich, I concur with your observation about the difference in the wording of the rules. In the real world, there is precedent for retroactively "fixing" an "unannounced" infield fly in certain situations, even in OBR based games. If you just call it correctly, you don't have to worry about it. JM

Jax, You might want to try loosening the straps on your mask. JM

Warren, Sure. For FED, the most compelling reference is case play 7.3.5E. Especially the language from the "Ruling" part that says: From the JEA discussion of 6.06©, we have: From J/R (Chapter 13 - Offensive Interference. Section I: Batter Interference in my edition): There is also the plain text of the rule (my emphasis): which makes it clear that the batter must move to be liable for interference in this sitch. The FED rule that Brian referenced applies to the case where the pitch is a wild pitch or passed ball that gets away from the catcher, thereby allowing the batter time to remove himself from the vicinity of the plate should there be a subsequent throw by the defense attempting to retire a runner trying to score. This exception, where the pitch gets away from the catcher is covered by J/R in the section titled "Interference by an Offensive Teammate". I find it disingenuous taht he cites 7-3-5d while failing to mention 7-3-5a-c, which all make it clear that in the case where the catcher cleanly gloves the pitch and the batter does NOT have time, the batter is only liable if he MOVES in a way that hinders the catcher. All this discussion about HTBT, depends what the catcher does, safety, etc. is utter nonsense. If the catcher cleanly gloves the pitch with a runner attempting to steal home AND the batter "stands there like a statue" (as described in the OP) the batter cannot, by rule, be guilty of batter interference. JM

Brian, That is completely incorrect, contrary to the plain text of the rule, as well as all credible published interpretation on the question. By rule, the only way the batter can avoid liability for interference in this sitch is to remain in the batter's box and not make any unusual movement. JM

Chance & Semper Fi, This is a thrown ball, not a batted ball, and kcfan's award of 3B (i.e. a 2 base award) was correct. kcfan, In terms of your "mechanics", that sounds good to me and is pretty much what I (hope) I would do in a similar circumstance. I have never seen the proper mechanic for this demonstrated in any mechanics manual I have read or training I have attended. Your approach strikes me as consistent with what is taught for similar situations. JM

Jax, Don't take this the wrong way, but that's INSANE. MLB doesn't even have the top of the strike zone called that low. I would strongly encourage you to "open up the top" of your zone. I think you'll find you and everybody else will have a lot more fun. I find moblue's suggested top very appropriate for a 13U game. JM

Jax, At the first hint of bickering between opposing teams/coaches, shut it down immediately, with extreme prejudice. At the second hint, toss somebody - preferably, at least one from each team. Repeat as necessary. JM

I always verbalize called strikes and balls. I have been taught that strikes should be called loud enough for the stands to hear and balls loud enough for the dugouts to hear. If it's a wild pitch that goes to the backstop, I still verbalize it, though I may be the only one who knows I did. As others have mentioned, I feel it helps me with my timing. I will let each catcher know early in the game where a "close" pitch missed, as long as he's not acting like a jerk. JM

fbara, In addition to the Case play others have cited, the BRD references the following 2002 official interpretation from Elliot Hopkins: JM

Dan, See 8-4-2k. The base only provides a "safe haven" from a fair batted ball that has been ruled an IFF, as Mr Umpire suggested. JM

IHSAUmp08, I do some games for a Colt/Sr. Colt league in the area (B.G.) that has that rule as well. I don't care for the rule, so I worked out a "compromise" with the guy who assigns for the program. I don't call it "automatically" on any play, but if the defense "asks", then I "remember" - basically, the FED "verbal appeal" rule. I just said if he wasn't OK with that, then I wouldn't take any of his games, but if he were, then I would. JM

rog, Under FED rules, if the pitcher aborts his delivery with no runners on AND the offense did not cause him to (e.g. the batter tepping out and/or requesting time), a ball is properly awarded to the batter. 6-1-1/2/3 Penalty. JM

LeoDev, I think you raise a very good point about the opportunity for confusion in this sitch. What I tried to convey in my earlier post with the "big font" is that you say the NO very loudly and emphatically, and the catch in a much softer volume. I think I kind of shake my head "no" while I give the safe mechanic. No one has ever been the least bit confused about what my call is. I have never heard "play on" suggested as a proper verbal in anything I have ever been taught or read. It's ambiguous. Wouldn't you also "play on" if the catch were made? JM

carolinablue, The proper mechanic is to give an emphatic SAFE signal while verbalizing "NO Catch!". You can follow with a point to the ground for emphasis if you like. JM

bikerider, Not if I'm the umpire. Plus, the ball is already dead on the R3's malicious contact/interference, so there's really no issue with the coach coming out to look after his player. JM

semper_fi, That is not correct. See 3.2.4A JM

moblue, Fixed it for you. Only batted balls become foul or fair balls and this one wasn't batted. JM