ricka56

Let me clarify, I was talking about the BU briefing... isn't that what this thread is about. A seasoned umpire won't worry about repercussions for not following silly protocols. A less seasoned umpire that wants to keep getting assignments might.

Umpires shouldn't have to tell the new F1 the count/outs, that is his coach's job. But if you're the only one refusing this silliness, you may be the odd man out. The other umpires may think that you think you're too good to give count/outs. Your future assignments may be impacted by your refusal to go along with the status-doh. It may come down to do you really want to keep working their games or tilt at windmills.

I once saw a video where F2 threw to F5 when R2 bluffed stealing 3B. The umpire balked him for throwing to an unoccupied base.

You don't know the half of it.

You look good in that pose... here's why I won't follow your advice.

The OP is a Fed sitch it would not be a balk in OBR either. If F1's throw was to F5 not near enough to make a play, that is a balk in OBR, but not in Fed.

I'm sure it looks good to be in foul territory, getting the best view and making the call, but at some point before BR fully commits to 3B, you need to fully commit to foul territory. If there is going to be a close play at 3B for which you want the best view, then there is a chance that BR will retreat (realizes that he doesn't want to make the 1st out stretching a double into a triple). I don't think the benefit outweighs the risk. YMMV

Maybe for 3/4-man, but do you (BU) really go into foul territory from 'A' for a triple ? Aren't you risking 2B coverage if BR stops and retreats back to 2B

The OP must have meant F1 throws to F6, otherwise the balk question makes no sense. I think that this is about the balk myth that F1 can't throw to F6 unless he is close enough to make a play on the runner (that requirement is only for pickoffs to 1B in Fed rules).

If you are taking this play in foul ground, what do you do if the ball gets away and you have to cover HP ? If all of a sudden the ball gets away and you have to beat feet to get home, seems like PU would have a runner to his left and a throw coming from his right. In 2-man, I will take this play in the cutoff (fair territory) and have a clear lane in fair territory to get home where I can see both runner and throw.

Well, he could have communicated to you that he has it. When I have a runner rounding 2B, I peek to see if my partner is looking to poach my (previously pre-gamed) call and then signal to him that I have it. If Pokie is too slow to catch-up or signal, then that's on him.

Whether BU in 'A' is going to take him all the way around to 3B is a must in my pregame. PU taking this play at 3B is in some mechanics books. Without a pregame, with good communication (as you had), what you did, IMO, was acceptable. And I wouldn't let the immobile partner make you feel bad about taking it.

This is a typical umpire rule misapplication. Some umpires, who "think" they know baseball rules, "think" the option is there for a balk.

1. TV/radio broadcasters typically have a poor grasp of the rules. When something unusual happens, more often than not they butcher the rule and/or penalty. 2. "because his delivery is the same each time" is not supposed to mean anything. If its illegal, its illegal every time. 3. The pitcher in the video has no one on base. Balks are only issued with runners on base. 4. I don't know why the umpires let him get away with not adhering to the "continuous motion" pitching requirement. He appears to start and stop his delivery at least once, which is illegal. I'll bet that MLB officials have looked at what he's doing and either said that there is no advantage gained and let it slide, or tell him (and umpires) that what he's doing is illegal and will be called as such. The video is a month old, I wonder if he still winds-up the same way.

The first time this happened to me, above is what I did. But they ignored me...blew me off. I'd never contemplated players completely blowing me off and I started to lose it. I stormed up the line, yelling MOVE ... GET OUT OF MY WAY until they all had broken their stand at attention and it was done. It was ugly, it upset me very much and an inning later, I was still trying to put it out of my head. It was discussed and I believe NFHS stated that the umpire should threaten each coach with restriction/ejection to stop it. But that seemed over-the-top and would look terrible, so I devised my plan to simply take the ball away from F1/F2 and let HTHC know that their F1's routine is being impacted by this horse$#!+ and let him decide how much his team needed to win this standoff.

Not enough info yet. The hand movements are critical to understanding the legality. If this was accompanied with hands being brought together, then this is the "stop" part of the set position. So far legal. Two possible things could be happening here (need more info). 1 If he had previously completed his stop, then lifting/tapping his left foot, then without stopping completing his pitch delivery, is not a balk. If it was not a tap, but instead he lifted his foot, placed it back down and stopped again, that would be a balk. 2. If he had not yet completed his stop requirement, then the foot lifting followed by his requires stop and subsequent pitch delivery would be legal. You haven't given us enough info to give a definitive ruling.

Maybe you should reread the OP. Maybe F2 wouldn't have had a play if the batter wasn't out of his BB. HTBT, but F2 is still a protected fielder in the OP.

Here in Texas, coaches decide if they want a one-game series or best 2 out of 3. If they can't agree, they flip a coin to decide. Then the coaches decide if they want umpires from the chapters that usually work their games (2 from each) or a neutral crew. No agreement means the umpires will be from a neutral chapter. Our 2 out of 3 series was a neutral crew. We had not seen either 6A team (largest school) before. The same crew worked the entire series (SOP). I was the crew chief for our series. I set the game rotation (ex. me:U1, PU, U3). Because of demand for our guys, we had 35 members working that first playoff weekend. That's more than half of our chapter and the most that we'd ever had.

Sorry for reviving a dead thread, but I thought I'd tell my recent story. A few weeks ago, I have the dish for a Saturday Game 2 HS playoff game. After the NA, one yahoo from each team went for the standoff. F1/F2, as usual start warming up when I notice what's going on. I took the game ball from F2 and start walking towards the HTHC. And before I could get close enough to say, "that's your F1 standing out there without this baseball, waiting for this crap to be done". HTHC sees me coming and yells at his jackass to get off the field. Worked like a charm...not my monkeys, not my circus (which would have been a great comeback line if HTHC didn't fix it right away).

Batter interference is often unintentional, but just as illegal as the intentional kind. It is a judgment call, but intent is not pertinent ... hindrance of the catcher is the only criteria to be judged.

I can not believe you folks are trying to analyze that useless video... ...on second thought, yes I can.

Not only can that CR be used for the same pitcher later in the game, that same CR can be used for the relief pitcher as well. And that CR does not loose his eligibility to enter the game just like any other substitute.

F2 did move inside, but PU did not move into the kill zone. He stayed where he initially wanted to be. The pitch was exactly where F1 wanted to put it and he got the desired result (B swinging at a hard to hit well pitch). PU was in the right place (albeit an unfortunate one for this pitch). That was just one of those unavoidable pitches. If you say that you'd have moved somewhere different, IMO, you'd be in the wrong place on every pitch except this one (and probably hit more often than once). That's just an unavoidable occupational hazard.

Unless the runner on first was running on the pitch and there was no reasonable chance to make a play on him, this probably was batter interference.

If I was thinking, I would have asked the HT HC if that kid was well enough to stand in the BB and try to draw a game tying base-on-balls.