Jump to content

Senor Azul

Established Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Senor Azul

  1. Mr. Sanjay Arwade, as Mr. Rich Ives so succinctly put it there is no such rule. So is it possible that there is simply a misunderstanding here? Perhaps what you were told is that it is permissible for the pitcher to step laterally in his delivery motion (i.e., can step instead of must step to the side). Little League rules are based on Official Baseball Rules (OBR). It used to be in OBR that it was prohibited for a pitcher to start with his free foot off to the side of the rubber or to step to the side during his delivery motion. They changed that rule in 2006 or 2007 but I don’t think Little League ever felt the need to amend the rule—I guess LL is not concerned about the step of a pitcher’s free foot because runners don’t take leads and so it couldn’t be a balk.
  2. I don’t know what levels Mr. flyingron works but if it includes high school then he could be right. Please note that the current FED rule 8-2-7 uses the language “does not attempt or feint an advance.” ART. 7 . . . A batter-runner who reaches first base safely and then overruns or overslides may immediately return without liability of being put out provided he does not attempt or feint an advance to second. 2018 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 1: With a runner on second base and one out, the batter attempts to check his swing on a 3-2 count. As the pitch skips by the catcher, the batter takes off for first base. The plate umpire eventually checks with the base umpire as to whether the batter checked his swing (in which case it would be ball four) or if the batter did swing at the pitch (in which case it would be strike three). As the batter runs through first base, the base umpire answers the plate umpire by announcing that the batter did not swing, that he successfully checked his swing. The catcher throws the ball to the first baseman, who tags the batter as he directly returns to first base. RULING: The batter is not out. A batter-runner who reaches first base safely and then overruns or overslides may immediately return without liability of being put out provided he does not attempt or feint an advance to second. This applies to base hits as well as a base on balls. (8-2-7)
  3. Mr. TOMUIC, what I posted about the history of the rule was definitely meant to support and agree with you. You are right and the others are wrong. A rule that has been in the books for 145 consecutive years would not be simply superseded by some mystery interpretation. And I, of course, also agree that it supports the fact that the order of appeals does matter with regard to negating runs. In fact, all three codes have a rule or interpretations saying precisely that. We’ve already posted the FED and pro rulings—here’s the NCAA rule: For the NCAA, the order of appeals does matter. It actually says so in its rule 8-6b9 Note-- 2021-2022 NCAA rule 8-6 b. The appeals made under this section must take place before the next pitch, play or attempted play or before the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the dugout, if it is an inning-ending or game-ending appeal. 9) If there are two outs before the appeal on a runner, the appeal becoming the third out, no runners following the appealed out shall score, and if the appeal is a force out, no runners preceding or following the appealed out shall score (see Rule 2 – Force Play). Note: If the defense will make more than one appeal, the defense must appeal in the correct order unless it is an advantageous “fourth out” appeal.
  4. Mr. TOMUIC, the current rule you cite has been a part of the rule book not just for the past 40 years but since the very beginning of pro ball. In other words it actually is a fundamental part of the game. As you know the National League played its first season in 1876. Here’s the rule for that season and a form of the rule has been in the book every year since then-- 1876 National League rule VI Sec. 2. No player running the bases shall be forced to vacate the base he occupies unless by the act of the batsman in striking a fair ball. Should the first base be occupied by a base-runner when a fair ball is struck, the base-runner shall cease to be entitled to hold said base until the player running to first base shall be put out. The same rule shall apply in the case of the occupancy of the other bases under similar circumstances. No base-runner shall be forced to vacate the base he occupies if the base-runner succeeding him is not thus obliged to vacate his base.
  5. From the 2016 BRD (section 13, p. 26): FED Official Interpretation: Hopkins: If the defense will make multiple appeals: When a force play situation is in effect, the appeals must be made in the proper order. 2003 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations SITUATION 4: With one out and runners on first and second bases, on a fair hit to short right field, R2 scores from second base and R1 misses second base, and the batter-runner overruns and misses first base. The defense calls time and appeals R1 missing second base first and the batter-runner missing first base. The umpire honors the appeals which results in the third out. Does R2's run count? RULING: No, R2's run would not count because the first appeal at second base and the latter appeal at first base is the third out. Due to the force at first base, the run cannot count. (9-1-1a) 2006 NFHS Baseball Interpretations SITUATION 12: With R1 on third and R2 on second base and one out, B4 hits a line drive into the gap in right center field. R1 scores easily. R2 misses third base as he advances, but does touch home plate. B4 makes it to second base on an apparent double, but missed first base on his advance. After playing action is over, the defensive head coach is granted time and first appeals B4 missing first base and then appeals R2 missing third base. RULING: This is a legal appeal by the defense as the coach may verbally appeal a base running infraction when the ball is dead and may make multiple appeals. B4 would be declared out for the second out and R2 would be the third out. R1’s run would count. (8-2-6c,f; 9-1-1) SITUATION 13: With R3 on third and R2 on second base and one out, B4 hits a line drive into the gap in right center field. R3 scores easily. R2 misses third base as he advances, but does touch home plate. B4 makes it to second base on an apparent double, but missed first base on his advance. After playing action is over, the defensive head coach is granted time and first appeals R2 missing third base and then appeals B4 missing first base. RULING: This is a legal appeal by the defense as the coach may verbally appeal a base running infraction when the ball is dead and may make multiple appeals. R2 would be declared out for out number two and B4 would be the third out. No runs would score as B4’s out is out number three and was made before he touched first base. The order in which appeals are made can be important in determining if runs will score. (8-2-6c,f, 9-1-1a)
  6. From the 2013 Wendelstedt Rules and Interpretations Manual (pp. 167-168): If at the moment a runner misses a base, he was forced to touch it by reason of the batter becoming a runner, it will be a force out upon appeal, even if a following runner is put out during the play or on appeal subsequent to the miss of the base… After the third out has been made, the defense may continue to make appeals on runners for missing bases or for not properly tagging up. They may replace any of these outs with the third out if it is advantageous in preventing runs from scoring. This is not the case if the appeals make for exactly three outs. If multiple appeals are made which only create three outs, the defense is restricted by the order in which they appeal. *** These interpretations also appear in the 2016 BRD. So if you are telling us that there is a newer interpretation that supersedes these two in a more recent Wendelstedt manual then it would have to have been after 2016. Still all we have is your assertion that there is a newer interpretation. Let’s see some evidence.
  7. The 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual defines a runner passing a base as follows (section 5.14, p. 55): A runner is considered to have passed a base if he has both feet on the ground beyond the back edge of the base or beyond the edge of the base in the direction to which he is advancing. The direction the runner is advancing determines the edges of the base when defining when a runner has passed a base. A runner returning to their original base is required to retouch that original base before advancing if both of their feet are on the ground beyond the original base. *** Two diagrams accompany the text and they have been reproduced here on U-E a few times (I cannot do so now since I do not have a scanner). The diagram in the book shows that two edges of second base would be considered passing and two would not be. For a runner coming from first base the left field side of second base and the third base side of second are the edges where an advancing runner is considered to have passed the base. As you describe it, you are correct—the Tampa runner Arozarena did not pass second base so he would be legal to continue his advance.
  8. To our guests, Daryl M and Billy, you are right that no one has addressed your question about the rationale behind the check swing appeal rule. That’s because we are not privy to the discussions that take place in rules committee’s meetings--the reason for most rules is not common knowledge. For the most part we do not hear about the reason for a rule change. In the recent past there have been rules that actually had a name attached to it such as the Buster Posey rule or the Chase Utley rule where we know what prompted the rule change. I can tell you that the check swing appeal rule is relatively new—it entered the rule book as a case book comment in 1976. Prior to that no appeal on a check swing was allowed—the plate umpire’s decision was final. Then all the case book interpretations were incorporated into the rule book proper in 1978 where it became rule 9.02(c) Comment. From the early 1900s to the early 1950s MLB used 2-man umpire crews--it wasn’t until 1952 that the MLB went to a 4-man crew for all regular season games. There was no rule that required the plate umpire to ask for help so he didn’t. The defense had no recourse if a home plate umpire’s vision was blocked or some other circumstance prevented him from gauging whether a batter swung at a pitch. I think this was the impetus for a change to the rule—it was perceived as a denial to the defense. Of course, there were probably other factors involved as well.
  9. Mr. Steven Tyler, when did you work high school games? In 2019 FED ruled the same as OBR on the deflection of a batted ball. I can tell you that this same play was in the 1983 case book. 2019 NFHS Case Book Play 8.3.3 Situation H: B1 hits a long fly ball to left field. F7 goes back to the fence, leaps, but is not able to touch the fly ball. The ball then rebounds off the fence, strikes the fielder’s glove and ricochets over the fence in fair territory. Is this a home run or a ground-rule double? RULING: This would be considered a ground-rule double. To be a home run, the ball must clear the fence in flight. Action secondary to the hit (ball ricocheting off the fence and then off the fielder’s glove) caused the ball to go into dead-ball area. Therefore, the hit shall be ruled a ground-rule double.
  10. Is the FED two-base award for the lodged ball determined from the TOP or TOT or time of infraction?
  11. From the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (p. 51): If a batted or thrown ball inadvertently goes inside a player’s or coach’s uniform, lodges in the catcher’s face mask or paraphernalia, or is intentionally placed inside a player’s uniform (e.g., in a pants pocket), the umpire shall call “Time.” The umpire will, using common sense and fair play, place all runners in such a manner that will nullify the action of the ball going out of play…Any outs recorded prior to the ball going into the player’s or coach’s uniform (or lodges in the catcher’s mask or paraphernalia) will stand.
  12. The first part of the current 5.06(b)(4)(G) Comment entered the rule book as part of the Notes—Case Book—Comment section in the back of the 1951 rules. It was exactly the same as it is today— In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stands. APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base. All the rest of what is today’s comment entered the rule book in 1976 and it was simply added to the end of the previous part of the Comment. Then the text (the exact same as today’s text) from the Case Book was added to the rule book proper in 1978. So for 45 years there has been no problem with the rule.
  13. From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (pp. 61-62): When it is a time-of-throw (TOT) award each runner is awarded two bases beyond the base occupied by the runner at the time the throw originated (left the fielder’s hand). The lead runner is always the first runner awarded his bases; such runner is never awarded three bases to allow a two-base award for a following runner. Example: TOT Award (second play) R1, one out, hit and run. A grounder is batted to the second baseman, who tosses to the shortstop, but the runner beats the throw and is safe at second. The shortstop overthrows past first: the force try at second is a play, so the throw to first was a second play, and the award is TOT. R1 awarded home (he had occupied second at TOT), batter-runner to second.
  14. Senor Azul


    Shortstop was going after a wild throw when the runner ran into him. From the 2013 Wendelstedt manual (p. 147): If a fielder is not in possession of a ball, nor in the act of fielding the ball, it is obstruction when... A runner gets “tangled up” with that fielder who has just tried to field a ball and missed or misplayed it, and either remains in his position without the ball immediately in front or beside him, or who is running after a deflection or an overthrow.
  15. From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (pp. 148-149): Pitch versus Throw to Home If an in-contact pitcher steps toward home, there cannot be a throw--there can only be a pitch or balk (or both). E.G.: R3 is stealing home. Without disengaging, the pitcher steps forward and pitches, whereupon the batter swings and contacts the catcher: defensive interference. Moreover, if a pitcher who is not in-contact (or has disengaged) steps and throws home, there cannot be a pitch (unless there is deceptive imitation of a motion to pitch). E.G.: The pitcher is in the windup position, his hands apart, and the batter is prepared to bat. As R3 dashes for home, the pitcher properly disengages the rubber and throws home. The batter swings at the ball, contacts the catcher (who is standing over home plate) and R3 slides into home without being tagged: the pitcher has not balked. The batter has interfered with the catcher's try to field the throw, and an out must be declared for his interference.
  16. A batter cannot hit a throw—only a pitch. It is interference by the batter when he swings at a throw. Unfortunately, OBR (pro rules) does not specifically address this question of pitch versus throw. There is a FED (high school rules) case play and even better there is an NCAA rule that spells out precisely that it is interference. 2019 NFHS Case Book Play 7.3.5 Situation G: With no outs and F1 in the set position, R3 attempts to steal home. F1 legally steps backward off the pitcher’s plate and throws home. B2 hits the ball. Ruling: Typically, batter’s interference is a delayed dead ball in order to give the defense an opportunity to make an out on the initial putout attempt. Since the batter hit the ball, the defense was not afforded an opportunity to make a play. Therefore, the ball is declared dead immediately, R3 is out because of B2’s interference. (5-1-2a and dead ball table #25, 7-3-5, 8-4-2l) 2021-2022 NCAA rule 7-11v. If the batter hits, or attempts to hit, a throw made to home plate by the pitcher who is not in contact with the pitching rubber, and is attempting to retire a runner stealing home, interference shall be called and the ball is dead. PENALTY for v.—With two outs, the batter is out. With fewer than two outs, the runner shall be out.
  17. As far as I can tell OBR is the only code that has an interpretation allowing a base runner to return to the vicinity of his original base after a dead ball. Here are the actual rules and the OBR interpretation found in the 2016 BRD (section 466, p. 311): 2019 NFHS rule 8 SECTION 2 TOUCHING, OCCUPYING AND RETURNING TO A BASE ART. 2 . . . A returning runner shall retouch the bases in reverse order. If the ball is dead because of an uncaught foul, it is not necessary for a returning runner to retouch intervening bases. The umpire will not make the ball live until the runner returns to the appropriate base. 2019-2020 NCAA rule 6 Immediate Dead Ball—Runners Return SECTION 2. The ball becomes dead and base runners return when: a. A foul is hit that is not caught. Runners return and the umpire shall not put the ball in play until all runners have retouched their bases; 2019 OBR rule 5.06 Running the Bases (b) Advancing Bases (1) In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order. If forced to return, he shall retouch all bases in reverse order, unless the ball is dead under any provision of Rule 5.06(c). In such cases, the runner may go directly to his original base. (c) Dead Balls The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when: (5) A foul ball is not caught, in which case runners return to their bases. The umpire-in-chief shall not put the ball in play until all runners have retouched their bases; OBR Official Interpretation: Wendelstedt: (1) The ball becomes dead after a foul. All runners must return to the VICINITY of their original bases. If runners attempt to take advantage of the “vicinity” allowance, the umpire should require that they retouch their original bases before the ball is put back into play. So you see, Rod, there is no penalty for not returning to retouch your base provided by the rules. In fact, the burden is on the umpire not to make the ball live again until all runners have returned to their time-of-pitch base.
  18. From the 2016 BRD (section 342, p. 224) OBR: “With a double play possible, two are out if the interference is obvious, willful and deliberate, and is designed to break up a double play, whether the umpire judges the double play could have been completed or not.” From the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.7, p. 97): …”Keep in mind the rules provide that the runner or batter-runner must interfere with the obvious attempt to break up a double play.” 2021 OBR rule 6.01(a) (6) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));
  19. Mr. Ted H, perhaps what you are looking for is actually in rule 5.10(m). It is the current rule that deals with mound visit limitations. It was added to the rule book in 2018... The Official Playing Rules Committee made the following changes that will be in effect for the 2018 season: • Established new Rule 5.10(m) limiting the number of mound visits per game. And there were several amendments to that rule in 2019. From the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (p. 88): Any mound visit during an inning break or pitching change… by managers or coaches shall result in that team being charged with a mound visit if they visit the mound during an inning break or after a new pitcher enters the game… For high school a coach can visit his pitcher between innings if he does not delay the start of the next half-inning (see case book play 3.4.1H).
  20. There is another caveat to consider. In OBR a runner may not return to touch a base or the plate after he has entered the dugout. In FED, a runner may not return if he has touched the steps of the dugout (see case book play 8.2.2M).
  21. From the 2016 BRD (section 397, p. 265): FED Official Interpretation: Hopkins: The pitcher may not turn his shoulders “during or after the stretch.” 2005 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations SITUATION 19: F1 is in the set position. Having taken his sign from the catcher, he brings his hands together and moves to become set. As he is still in the process of becoming set with his hands together, he turns his shoulders to check the runner at first base. RULING: This is a balk. The ball is dead and the runner on first will be awarded second base. Turning the shoulders in the set position after bringing the hands together during or after the stretch is a balk. (6-1-1) SITUATION 17: While in the set position, the pitcher has not yet come set. With his pitching hand at his side and his glove hand in front of his chest, he quickly turns his shoulder to check the runner at first base. RULING: This is a legal move. (6-1-1) 2019 NFHS Case Book Play 6.1.1 Situation G: The bases are loaded. F1, while on the pitcher’s plate (a) fakes a throw to first while in the windup position or (b) from the set position prior to beginning the stretch, turns his shoulder and glances at the runner. RULING: In (a) this would be a balk and (b) is legal.
  22. Senor Azul


    OBR rule 6.02(a)(2) tells us that it is a balk for an in-contact pitcher to feint a throw to first or third base. It should be noted that no arm motion is required when a pitcher feints to second base—only the legal step toward the base is required by rule. For FED a pitcher in the set position may feint to third with or without disengaging the rubber (see case play 6.2.4C). From the 2016 BRD (p. 266) FED Official Interpretation: Hopkins: The feint does not require arm motion. 2002 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations SITUATION 9: With runners on first and third bases, the pitcher is in the set position. The pitcher then attempts the third-to-first pick-off move by stepping towards third base, and turning around and throwing to first. The third-base coach claims this is a balk since the pitcher, in his feint to third, only stepped toward third with no arm movement. RULING: This pick-off move is legal. A feint is a movement that simulates the start of a pitch or a throw to a base. Arm movement by a pitcher during a feint is not mandatory. (2-28-5)
  23. From the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (p. 145) (from a list of 10 general principles): Standards for Removal from the Game The following general principles should be considered when deciding whether to eject a player, coach, manager or other person from the game… Any player, coach or manager throwing equipment in protest of an umpire’s call will be reported on an incident report. The umpire will notify the offender that he is being reported for an equipment violation. Umpires are encouraged to utilize equipment violation as an intermediary step to warn and discipline a player while attempting to keep the player in the game. However, if the throwing of equipment is flagrant, the umpire shall eject the person from the game. In addition, any player, coach or manager throwing equipment in a flagrant or unsportsmanlike manner and NOT in protest of an umpire’s call will be reported and may be subject to ejection. So, Mr. beerguy55, as umpires we are to watch for equipment being thrown but apparently it is OK to kick the ball.
  24. Mr. Catch18, it was not my intention to correct you or criticize you in any way. I was trying to show you that Mr. beerguy55 was alluding to an actual interpretation even though it seems as if everyone here (including me) thinks it is a completely wrongheaded interpretation. In fact, Carl Childress himself actually wrote in that entry that he thought it was the most irrational interpretation he has ever encountered. I knew what Mr. beerguy55 was talking about and it seemed to me that you thought he was way off base (pun intended) with his comment. You see, that interpretation has been a topic of discussion at least twice before. I tried to convey to you that I was trying to be helpful and not critical by the first words I typed—“For your reading pleasure.” Obviously, I failed at that. Please believe me—there were no intended implications that you were not rules knowledgeable.
  25. According to U-E’s brain trust the umpires in this game completely misapplied the rules. They say that a Type 2 obstruction is killed as soon as the obstructed runner is tagged out. The umpires were C.B. Bucknor behind the plate, Joe West at first, Ed Rapuano at second, and Ed Hickox at third. Because this was a Type 2 obstruction with the White Sox shortstop obstructing R1 Angel Pagan while the ball was in the outfield, the play was properly allowed to continue. But here is where they went horribly wrong. The obstructed runner R1 was then tagged out returning to second base so our resident experts say the play should have been killed at that point—the second tagout between home and third base should never have happened—right? But that is not how it was ruled. I wonder why? Since the game in question happened in June 2007 perhaps the rule interpretation has changed since then. If there was a change in the way this rule is applied then it is also a mistake on Gil Imber’s part to not mention that in his analysis. I can understand and accept that the White Sox broadcast team got this all wrong but four MLB umpires and two managers to get it wrong is totally unacceptable.
  • Create New...