Larry in TN

Is there any additional guidance on what constitutes "voluntary release"?

I was expecting the result of the reply to be "call stands". I see the glove close around the ball then, when the throwing hand is coming in the get the transfer, the glove opens up and the ball drops out. I can see them not going with "call confirmed" but I don't see the evidence that there was not a voluntary release which would be needed for "overturned". And I agree, in this case, it took way too long.

I used the grass only to help describe the flight of the ball. If I were scoring the play I probably would have scored it L-4 but couldn't really argue with anyone calling it an F-4. The only problem I have with that definition is that a ball in flight can not travel parallel with the ground at anything less than an orbital velocity. That definition makes it very difficult to call anything a line drive. I like the comment above about what the ball would do if it fell untouched. In this case it would have continued rolling/bounding into the outflied at a good clip. That's why I would call it a liner. Of course, it's a judgement call so the BU, by definition, was correct.

I don't know. Freddie made up for it, though, with his two home runs later in the game.

No doubt! In our league, there isn't any training. Well, in the pre-season meetings the UIC goes over his list of things that he gets phone calls about but that's it. Right! Of course, I wasn't scoring that game, only watching it so I get to complain about the umpires like every other fan! We have an interesting collection of umpires in our league. Some are good, always trying to be better. Others are just out to make a few extra bucks at the ball park. The latter make for a lot of entertaining moments for those of us who pay attention. Saw one of them working an Intermediate game the other (chilly) evening in a light blue ump shirt and gray ump pants. That was pretty surprising to me as he's usually out there in cargo shorts (acceptable to our UIC). Of course, he's wearing a RED long-sleeve undershirt! As we say in the South, "Bless his heart..."

From the subject line I thought it was going to be this play. http://m.mlb.com/video/v31747209/atlmil-brewers-relay-nails-freeman-at-the-plate

I don't get to use MY judgement, I'm not an umpire! As a scorekeeper, there's an area in the line drive/fly ball transition that's always been questionable to me. When I'm scoring a line-out vs. a fly-out I look to see if the ball was more "up/down" or more "out/horizontal" but the distinction really isn't that important to my stats if I favor one too much over the other. In an IFF the umpire's judgement call is a lot more important. I like both of those descriptions. Was watching a LL Juniors game last night when the (laziest) base umpire (I've ever seen) called an IFF on a ball hit to F4 that I would have scored a line drive. The catch was almost on the grass and the ball probably peaked at no more than 25' high. Runners were all confused with R2 proceeding to, and standing on, 3B. Even the BU was confused as the DC had to come out to remind him that R2, now standing on 3B, was doubled-up for not tagging up. As far as the laziest BU goes... He's in C with a runner on 3B and the runner scores on a WP leaving the bases empty. He never makes it back to A only getting as far as B for the next batter. Another time he headed toward A but ended up in the outfield grass behind and between F3 and F4.

What's the Vegas odds on a Cubs WS win?

Seems like what you could have, if you judged the scored-runner to be trying to distract the defense, is interference and an out on the runner he was trying to protect?

Is there any guidance (other than the definitions in 2.00) on judging "fly ball" vs. "line drive" on an IFF call?

Very true! I emphasize chapter 2.00 with the players I coach and m fellow coaches. I think a lot of people see "definitions" and think the can just skip right by. Here it is... 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. Rule 2.00 (Force Play) Comment: Confusion regarding this play is removed by remembering that frequently the force situation is removed during the play. Example: Man on first, one out, ball hit sharply to first baseman who touches the bag and batter-runner is out. The force is removed at that moment and runner advancing to second must be tagged. If there had been a runner on third or second, and either of these runners scored before the tag-out at second, the run counts. Had the first baseman thrown to second and the ball then had been returned to first, the play at second was a force out, making two outs, and the return throw to first ahead of the runner would have made three outs. In that case, no run would score. Example: Not a force out. One out. Runner on first and third. Batter flies out. Two out. Runner on third tags up and scores. Runner on first tries to retouch before throw from fielder reaches first baseman, but does not get back in time and is out. Three outs. If, in umpires judgment, the runner from third touched home before the ball was held at first base, the run counts.

OBR: 6.08 - The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when -- (d) A fair ball touches an umpire or a runner on fair territory before touching a fielder. If a fair ball touches an umpire after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or having touched a fielder, including the pitcher, the ball is in play.

Is it any different from a case where a base-runner is hit by a hard batted-ball that he couldn't get away from in time? Couldn't he similarly argue that he couldn't just vanish?

Right. I should have known that. The award beyond 3B was a judgement call by the applicable umpire. Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

Do I have this right? This looks like Little League where the fielder is only protected from OBS when he is in possession of the thrown ball--not when he's is in the act of fielding it. For that reason I have OBS. Next question is Type A or Type B? The throw was an attempt to retire that runner but the ball had already gone past the fielder when the OBS occurred. Don't know if the BU was calling Type A or Type B. I'm leaning toward type A? Type A would be an award of home. Type B would be an award determined by the umpire and, considering that the ball was thrown to the outfield, an award of home doesn't seem unreasonable.

By rule (2.00), it is "a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt)..." So it must be a fly ball, not a line drive. A FLY BALL is a batted ball that goes high in the air in flight. A LINE DRIVE is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to a fielder without touching the ground. The key in your example is that it could not be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.

Right, and most of the players on defense are calling for "obstruction" while most of the players on offense are calling for "interference"! Yes, but to be more precise, he it out for interference when he "hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batter ball." Contact is not required, only that the defensive player is hindered. 7.08—Any runner is out when – (b) intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; (NOTE: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not);

Then why did the B/R change his path? He was running in foul territory then altered his path into fair territory which ensured the collision. If he had stepped the same distance to the right the collision would have been avoided and he likely would have been tagged out.

That's correct. Of course, at our league, they don't draw the catcher's box on the field (nor the running lane to 1B) which makes the call even more questionable.

No doubt about that. I spend a lot of time compiling the stats after each game.

Because that's the only time it applies. That's the only time it applies because the writers didn't want the defense to just be able to pitch the ball willy-nilly to get a walk. So it doesn't apply on a pitch-out that isn't part of an intentional walk? On the play I saw it was R1 & R3 (not R2 as I originally stated) and the pitch-out was an attempt to catch R1 stealing 2B. After the balk call you had only R2 so there was no reason to continue to pitch out nor was there every any apparent intention to issue an intentional walk.

Thanks. What about the "while giving an intentional base on balls" language? Why is that in there?

Saw a situation yesterday at a LL Junior division game. Balk was called by the HP umpire due to the catcher not being in the catcher's box at the time of the pitch. It looked like an intentional pitch-out but the batter was not being intentionally walked. I believe that there were R2 and R3 at that time. The umpire awarded each running their base on the balk and awarded a ball to the batter. The batter then completed his plate appearance without receiving any additional pitch-outs. Rule 8.05 (k) makes it a balk when "the pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher's box." That would seem to apply in this case except that it did not appear that the pitcher was giving an intentional base on balls. Was this a balk? If so, shouldn't the correct penalty have been runners advancing one base but with no pitch being recorded?

That's good to know. They either didn't have that last year or the person showing it to me didn't know how to do it.

No argument from me, but I have no authority to make changes. I'm just a parent and assistant-assistant-coach who does the scoring for my son's teams. When I'm appointed official scorer for tournament games it gets done correctly. Visiting team is currently responsible for providing an adult (12 yrs or older) to operate the scoreboard. What we usually get is some random kids running it as the coaches don't make sure that they have a parent running it. I think the main reason they have the base-umpire do it is so that there aren't any disagreements or accusations of favoritism.