Texas Manny

It may be but a throw hitting the batter and the player hitting the batter are not the same thing. Interference with a throw requires intent. Hindering a player with the ball does not. 7.09(d) specifically does not mention anything about intent. Hindering is defined as: Impeding the catcher in his attempt to tag a runner at the plate. Getting in the way of a throw from the catcher to another fielder to retire a runner at the plate. Hitting a throw to the plate from the pitcher after he has disengaged his pitching rubber, thinking it is a pitch. per the HW R&I book, as it applies to this situation. The batter's box belongs to the batter. A batter is not required to vacate his batting position in order to avoid hindering a play at the plate. A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere. According to the staff at Wendelstedt's, no interference on the play. The batter did nothing but stand in the box. Again, this is not one where your case play applies. The batter is not being called out for INT. The runner is being called out for it under 7.09(d). This has nothing to do with a batter. It has everything to do with a member of the offensive team. Big difference. He is no longer just the batter once the ball went past F2 and he has time to move out of the way. Incorrect. According to the Wendelstedt Rules Manual, pg 174, footnote 412: " A player becomes, and is, a batter for the purpose of this rule (6.06c, 7.08G, 7.09C) when he enters the batter's box after the previous batter's completed at-bat, and remains the batter until he completes his time at bat. Between the time of when the previous batter has completed his at bat, and when the new batter steps into the batter's box, they should be considered another offensive team member; and covered under those rules." The batter, once assuming his position in the batter's box, remains the batter until he reaches base, or is put out by the defense (6.04) and does not flip flop between being a batter, and an other offensive player status during his time at bat.

These are not my interpretations. This is straight from HW book and they are very specific and very clear.

I have been visiting the MLB website. Season coming to an end, and the world series is soon in sight. I am a Detroiter, waiting since 84 for another win. However, I don't like their tactics. Who owns baseball? Us or the conglomerates? I will not play baseball but maybe I will umpire baseball. I want to umpire baseball, but not iphone Steve Jobs Microsoft Bill gates Nike or Adidas baseball. I am the real deal and I want to umpire the real deal. Right now, MLB's marketing tactic is like adding an "s" to a cell phone in order to make the big bucks. What happened to the hot dogs? If you are true to baseball, promote the products of the city you umpire in. Don't go global. That's not what I meant by preserving the integrity of the game.

It may be but a throw hitting the batter and the player hitting the batter are not the same thing. Interference with a throw requires intent. Hindering a player with the ball does not. 7.09(d) specifically does not mention anything about intent. Hindering is defined as: Impeding the catcher in his attempt to tag a runner at the plate. Getting in the way of a throw from the catcher to another fielder to retire a runner at the plate. Hitting a throw to the plate from the pitcher after he has disengaged his pitching rubber, thinking it is a pitch. per the HW R&I book, as it applies to this situation. The batter's box belongs to the batter. A batter is not required to vacate his batting position in order to avoid hindering a play at the plate. A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere. According to the staff at Wendelstedt's, no interference on the play. The batter did nothing but stand in the box.

Case Play, HW Rules & Interpretations Book, pg 242, Play 378: R3, one out. 2-2 count. the next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. As R3 charges home, the catcher retrieves the ball and throws it to the pitcher covering the plate. The batter remained in the batter's box and did not make any other movement, but is accidentally hit with the throw allowing R3 to score. Ruling: The umpire should signal that it's nothing when the batter is hit, and R3's run scores. The case play is as specific to the OP as you can come to.

Because someone asked, In the 2013 MLB Umpire Case Book, there is no casebook reference for rules, 7.08G, 7.09C or 7.09D. According to the Harry Wendelstedt Rules & Interpretations book, pg 174, 9.9.2, The batter hinders a play at the plate on a runner attempting to score by stepping out of the batter's box, or making another movement inside the box, Harry's Hints: Hinders includes: Impeding the catcher in his attempt to tag a runner at the plate. Getting in the way of a throw from the catcher to another fielder to retire a runner at the plate. Hitting a throw to the plate from the pitcher after he has disengaged his pitching rubber, thinking it is a pitch. Harry also footnotes 9.2.2. See footnote #411: 411: A batter is not required to vacate his batting position in order to avoid hindering a play at the plate. A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere. End of resource. By the OP's description, it does not appear to qualify as interference.

The runner scoring has nothing to do with OBS or not... Is it OBS or not... dont look at the base, dont look at the ball is in the outfield, did the fielder Hinder, obstruct, or impede the runner... the answer is yes, you ( as the umpire) should call it so everyone knows you saw it... we need to call these and stop saying, ( well he was gonna score anyways, or he was gonna be safe). Haid, I know it was obstruction. I should have been clearer. The runner scored, so the obstruction was ignored, as it didn't affect anything else. Sorry. Should have clarified.

The same thing when people say players aren't as good as past players. So much more instruction, nutrition and physical training now days. There is no way Luciano can see the ball the way he is hiding behind the catcher. Especially with that balloon. What a pussy. Do you not have any respect for the dead? Or for a fellow brother in umpiring lost? Unbelievable. You need to fix your quotes because I didn't say that. I fixed the original thread. I do not know what happened. If the system doesn't correct yours, then I'll PM a mod to straighten it out.

Nothing, nothing, and nothing. No baserunner interference. No obstruction since the runner scored. It's ignored. 3BLE is correct for a throw coming to the catchers right. Randazzo was at the pivot point watching the play develop to determine his final angle. No real play developed. The throw was way late. Why move? Just let the play, play out.

Why would you turn your head when you point? Some times it is just involuntary as you normally follow where you point with your eyes. Where your eyes go, your head usually goes. Otherwise it is a unique style, that Jim Evans says is a bad habit because you are taking your eye of the ball for a moment and all heck can break loose. I know that. My point is he should not look away. Not hard to break that habit. I'm sorry. I was honestly answering your question. I didn't realize you were being rhetorical. My bad.

Why would you turn your head when you point? Some times it is just involuntary as you normally follow where you point with your eyes. Where your eyes go, your head usually goes. Otherwise it is a unique style, that Jim Evans says is a bad habit because you are taking your eye of the ball for a moment and all heck can break loose.

Do you not have any respect for the dead? Or for a fellow brother in umpiring lost? Unbelievable.

Here is the list that I have prepared in response to the question of my age: 1. I'm 43 years old, mature, and settled. 2. I'm a Veteran of the Armed Forces, Honorably Discharged, and a disabled veteran whose disabilities will not impact performance. My disabled status helps MiLB/PBUC in hiring under minority/disabled status. 3. I'm a college graduate (Associates Degree) and can pursue my Masters at no cost due toTexas Hazelwood Act benefits at any time. Benefits are guaranteed. 4. I own and operate a small business producing one of a kind, custom model railroad equipment for museums, companies, and individuals. 5. I am not going to quit because the lifestyle is under-estimated. I have lived on the road and out of a suitcase for years. 6. I am single, with no obligations, and am able to focus on the task at hand. 7. I have experienced many seasons of challenges (no legal trouble) that has taught and allowed me to deal effectively with people. 8. I am always ready to receive instruction. You will not need to worry about me arguing. If you say "Go", I go. "Do", I do. "Stop." I stop. 9. I understand and believe in preserving the integrity of the game. 10. There are players over 40 years old. There are MiLB Umpires over 35 in the system. Why not me? All I ask is for a legitimate chance to earn my place through professional behavior, hustle, heart, on and off the field. I know I will have to work hard to show at 43 I can do it. I am determined. I fully understand that I could take 6-8 seasons to reach the potential of MLB fill in games. I could be between 50-55 before entering the MLB. That being said, and no mandatory retirement, I have the potential for a 20+ year career in the majors, on top of the 6-8 in the minors. It is not without question or beyond the realm of possibility. I believe my entire life experience has led me to this point. It is in God's hands. That's the best place for it to be. His Will be done. Not mine. That's my story, and I'm definitely stickin' to it! AT 43, IF I CAN DO IT; AT 39, SO CAN YOU!

Thanks Blue, Some folks just don't understand me, so I find that at times I have to explain myself. Yep, you hit the nail on the head. That's how I write. I will work to get my point across more succinctly. Thanks for being understanding. If anyone has been frustrated with me because of my style of writing, my humblest apologies. I will work on it.

Although this true to a point, it's true ONLY to a point. I have had 2 newer umpires approach me recently about situations where they felt they lost control of the game. They had made a ruling -- possibly bad -- and when the coach came out they clammed up. Somebody had told them, "silence cannot be misquoted!" so they stood there, mute, while the coach ranted. At the limit, the "less said" is nothing at all. That's not good game management. When coach comes out, he's challenging either a rule or my judgment. I'm happy to explain any rule to him, and I try to keep it brief, and explain only the part that applies to what just happened. We don't get into hypotheticals, "what ifs," or "what abouts." "Coach, you asked for the basis of my ruling on this play, and I gave it to you." Partners who want to explain every rule they know drive me bananas! If he wants to argue judgment, I shut that down, at first politely. "Coach, that part of the call is judgment, and if you saw it differently, OK. I had him out." Partners who want to argue judgment with coaches drive me bananas! Coach is entitled to his opinion (and even to express it, once, if he's nice). If he doesn't get it, "that's enough." If that's not enough, then he can go argue with the bus driver. So, yes, brief and to the point. But staring silently at a ranting coach is not good game management. Agreed, you have to explain your call but it isn't the time for a doctoral dissertation either. You don't have to explain the balk rule in it's entirety, no stop, popped his leg, feint to first is all you need to say. I don't know where y'all think I have doctoral dissertations with every situation that develops between a manager and myself. I totally agree that the less you say, the better you are. It's not the quantity of your words, but it is the quality of those words. That being said, sometimes you have to take control of the befuddled angle that the manager takes, because he doesn't know how to argue. Focus his inquiry or send him back to the dugout. Different situations require different levels of communication. Again, that is were experience will be gained and exercised. But for real, I don't give the Gettysburg Address, read War and Peace, and issue the Magna Carta, before asking the manager what his issue is. So please give it a rest with riding my chops about saying too much. Mike, this isn't regarded towards you or your post. I'm just speaking collectively. Manny, and I will apologize before I even say this, but for me, it's probably the verbosity of your written comments on here. I will say this, that when I take the time to read all of what you write, I generally come away with valid points. I would hope that there is no correlation between the amount of words you write to explain your position vs the number of words you use in real live game situations to explain or defend your positions. I can understand that. When I write, I write so that any level of experience can understand what I am saying. Does it seem a little wordy? Yeah, I humbly admit it is, but I do that so I don't leave any question as to what I'm saying. If a question does arise, then I always remain open to discuss and answer. I try to get it right, but realize that sometimes, I blow it. If I do, I try to correct as far back as I can. I just want to try and pass along the knowledge I have and help where I can. No offense taken. But I hope you understand that with most threads, I view them as a teaching opportunity, just as much as I view them as a learning experience for me. I will work to simplify. How's that?

Although this true to a point, it's true ONLY to a point. I have had 2 newer umpires approach me recently about situations where they felt they lost control of the game. They had made a ruling -- possibly bad -- and when the coach came out they clammed up. Somebody had told them, "silence cannot be misquoted!" so they stood there, mute, while the coach ranted. At the limit, the "less said" is nothing at all. That's not good game management. When coach comes out, he's challenging either a rule or my judgment. I'm happy to explain any rule to him, and I try to keep it brief, and explain only the part that applies to what just happened. We don't get into hypotheticals, "what ifs," or "what abouts." "Coach, you asked for the basis of my ruling on this play, and I gave it to you." Partners who want to explain every rule they know drive me bananas! If he wants to argue judgment, I shut that down, at first politely. "Coach, that part of the call is judgment, and if you saw it differently, OK. I had him out." Partners who want to argue judgment with coaches drive me bananas! Coach is entitled to his opinion (and even to express it, once, if he's nice). If he doesn't get it, "that's enough." If that's not enough, then he can go argue with the bus driver. So, yes, brief and to the point. But staring silently at a ranting coach is not good game management. Agreed, you have to explain your call but it isn't the time for a doctoral dissertation either. You don't have to explain the balk rule in it's entirety, no stop, popped his leg, feint to first is all you need to say. I don't know where y'all think I have doctoral dissertations with every situation that develops between a manager and myself. I totally agree that the less you say, the better you are. It's not the quantity of your words, but it is the quality of those words. That being said, sometimes you have to take control of the befuddled angle that the manager takes, because he doesn't know how to argue. Focus his inquiry or send him back to the dugout. Different situations require different levels of communication. Again, that is were experience will be gained and exercised. But for real, I don't give the Gettysburg Address, read War and Peace, and issue the Magna Carta, before asking the manager what his issue is. So please give it a rest with riding my chops about saying too much. Mike, this isn't regarded towards you or your post. I'm just speaking collectively.

I am 43 and am attending umpire school this January. I fully discussed my age with the school staff frankly, and if my performance meets the criteria they will advance me to PBUC. They told me that if I were to be advanced that my age would be discussed. I have already put together a plan that shows I am a viable candidate and that all I ask for is a chance/shot at earning my way to MLB. Your age should not be a deciding factor to attend umpire school. Go for it. Do your best, and may God smile down on you. I know that HE is a big part of my decision to go,and I've been prayerful about it. I WILL NOT be defeated! Go for it!

They have furnaces in Texas? And air filters in them? We just make sure the coil is good for both the hot water and heat. Good call on the smoke detectors - don't forget CO monitors/detectors of you are using propane, natural gas or heating oil for heat. Sorry. I was trying to be nation wide. Here in Texas we have A/C which have heat pumps. At least here in San Antonio. In Northern Texas, on the panhandle, where it can get to 0* and lots of snow, yeah, furnaces. We have main body filters which run around 18x30's, and then small recirculating filters 12x12 or 14x14's.

Point, changing to Hammer.

MU, Thank you for having the common sense to ask me what I mean. I've been very frustrated because folks have taken what I said about trying to keep folks in the game, like I was a tournament director who speaks down to umpires. Nothing can be farther from the truth. If a manager, coach, or player does something that is ejectionable, then by all means, eject them. What I meant is that by controlling the situation you also control the argument. If you control the argument or discussion, you are keeping the manager, coach, or player in the game. The only one that will remove the manager, coach or player, is themselves, by their choice of word, deed, or action. If you control the situation, then most times, that will keep the argument from spiraling out of control. Only two things can cause loss of control: A) The manager, coach, or player says or does the magic words/deeds, which is deserving of an ejection. or B) The umpire says something which is misunderstood or is purposeful which flares the situation. If you prematurely end a discussion, as the umpire you may be creating a problem for yourself. If the manager has a legitimate question or argument, we are obliged to listen to them. If you choose not to, you risk getting a reputation as a hard ass. Grant it, there are some situations, like arguing balls and strikes, for example, that a discussion is not warranted. If a manager yells at you from the dugout and continues to yell at you, audible to the stands and surrounding players, as he walks and reaches your position, that doesn't bode well for him when he reaches you. Some may have a short fuse. Some longer than others. Some may want to deal with this manager. Some may not. With firmness and control, you maintain the integrity of the game, field, play, and argument. Unless you are a smart ass, and do something under (B) above, most problems will end without an ejection or disciplinary action. So simply saying, by controlling situations properly, you keep the game and its participants intact. With that said, I repeat, if the manager, coach, or player does something to warrant ejection, then oblige them. Umpires don't eject them. They eject themselves.

Hey Y'all, I was just thinking about this stuff since I'm staring at it. Time to change your furnace filters, air vent filters, and smoke alarm batteries. Check your fire extinguishers if you have any. Filters should be changed every 60-90 days depending on your dust conditions, but now is a good time to get on a schedule. If anyone has anything else to add, feel free.

Obviously you neither read or comprehended what I said...

Manny, Relax. Please Someone asked if anyone was surprised to see CB on the post season list. I said 'yes'.... So what? It's not like someone has called for a public flogging of the man ...... I've simply noticed a rash of bashing certain MLB umpires on the board lately and no one is saying anything to the contrary, so I decided to. My post was not directed at any one individual, and it wasn't that specific question that prompted the response. So rather than just assuming things, how 'bout asking me? I'm totally approachable and am always willing to listen and talk. I am as relaxed as can be, nor am I uptight. I am just principled, and I stand behind my beliefs. That's not to say anyone else is not.

Look, I understand that there are varying levels of efficieny with the MLB Umpires, but is it absolutely necessary to be unprofessional in speaking about one of our brothers? I'm not saying that you can't point out mistakes, or differences of opinions, but to personally chastise or worse against one or more, is not becoming of us as umpires. There is a way to discuss situations and plays without going personal, and to learn, rather than to just tear down and destroy. CB earned his way to the major leagues. He's there because he worked hard to get there. I don't think for one moment that when or if he kicks a call, it doesn't bother him. Just like they said in THE THIRD TEAM, there is a monkey running loose around the field and sometimes it just finds you. Well, aparently CB seems to be a target and it always finds him at the inopportune time. Discuss the mannerisms and the play, not the man. He deserves respect.

Why? Time was not called. What rule would you use to put the runner back? Why penalize the offense for taking advantage of the defenses stupidity? It's not defensive stupidity it's the offense who is being stupid! I am not rewarding them because they are arguing. If I'm engaged in an argument I have automatic time. I respectfully disagree. During an argument, unless you specifically call "Time", there can be no automatic time. Runners may advance at their own peril. If you put the runner back, and the manager protested, you would lose because there is no rule you could infer, and you didn't call time. Yes, the defense is being stupid for watching the batter argue with you, rather than watch the ball and the runners. The batter arguing can be considered stupid, but that is a separate issue.