Jump to content

Senor Azul

Established Member
  • Posts

    1,978
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by Senor Azul

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Senor Azul

    Interference

    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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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));
  8. 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).
  9. 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).
  10. 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.
  11. Senor Azul

    Balk?

    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)
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Mr. Jimurray, I am very disappointed that you chose to use our grumpy veterans’ main debate tactic of casting aspersions on the source/man (whichever expert or text is cited). You have already tried to disparage George Demetriou and his publisher Referee Enterprises so I am going to cite two more acknowledged experts for you to find fault with. In the Introduction to the 2019-2020 College Baseball Rules Study Guide we are told the following (emphasis added)— “Many people have contributed greatly over the years to the author’s understanding of the rules, and hence to the writing of this book. Very special thanks go to Larry Gallagher, Crystal, Minn., and Jim Paronto, the NCAA secretary-rules editor, who provided invaluable assistance by reviewing the manuscript and offering helpful comments…” Jim Paronto served as the Secretary-Rules Editor to the NCAA Baseball Rules Committee, from 2003 –September 2015. I must admit I did not know who Larry Gallagher is but after some research let’s just say he is eminently qualified after 59 years as an umpire to review a rules interpretation manual. But I am sure they have been wrong before since they are human after all.
  16. For your reading pleasure, Mr. Catch18. All of the following can be found in the 2016 BRD (section 3, p. 15) (this is the very first entry in the 2016 edition)… Here’s the official interpretation for FED: Hopkins: If the defense gains a third out during play but the batter-runner has not yet reached first at the time of the out, the defense may play on him at first for an advantageous fourth out. Play 2-3: R3, R2, 2 outs. B1 singles to the outfield but injures himself coming out of the box. He cannot continue. R3 scores easily, but R2 is thrown out at home: 3 outs. The catcher then fires to F3, who tags first in advance of BR. Ruling: In FED/NCAA, cancel R3’s run. In OBR, the run scores, as per OBR official interpretation 4-3… OBR Official Interpretation 4-3: Wendelstedt: Play 2-3 does not qualify to become an apparent (advantageous) fourth out. It is made on a runner who has not yet reached a base, not on one who has missed a base or has not properly tagged up from one. In addition, the 2019-2020 College Baseball Rules Study Guide by George Demetriou states the following… “Also, if the defense gains a third out during play and the batter-runner has not reached first at the time of the out, a fourth out appeal can negate all runs scored on the play.” Play 4-89 With runners on second and third and two out, B1 singles to right, but pulls his groin and cannot advance. R3 scores, but R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. Ruling: A fourth out appeal on B1 will cancel the run.
  17. Chris, you have received three very good answers to your question and now I would like to tell you how the scorekeepers count this in the book. The batter-runner in your scenario is considered to be left on base (LOB) by rule… 2021 OBR rule 9.02 The official score report prepared by the Official Scorer shall be in a form prescribed by the league and shall include… (g) Number of runners left on base by each team. This total shall include all runners who get on base by any means and who do not score and are not put out. The Official Scorer shall include in this total a batter-runner whose batted ball results in another runner being retired for the third out.
  18. Senor Azul

    Home Run

    Ordinarily on an out-of-the-park home run the runner(s) would be allowed to score even if the batter stopped at first. So the batter would receive credit for an RBI single. But circumstances can change the scoring of the play. For example, in the 1999 National League Championship Series (NLCS), Robin Ventura hit an out-of-the-park walkoff grand slam home run but received credit for only a single and one RBI. He was mobbed between first and second base and never proceeded any further with only the runner from third base actually crossing the plate before the celebration prevented the others to run the bases. According to Baseball-Reference.com, there have been at least two other instances of "grand slam singles." Both occurred when a batter hit a grand slam but subsequently passed the runner ahead of him on the base paths, which according to the rules of Major League Baseball causes the runner who passes his teammate to be called out. This happened on July 9, 1970, when Dalton Jones of the Detroit Tigers passed teammate Don Wert in a game against the Boston Red Sox, leaving him with a 3-RBI single. It also occurred on July 4, 1976, when Tim He-who-shall-not-be-named of the Philadelphia Phillies passed teammate Garry Maddox during a 10–5 win in the first game of a doubleheader against the Pittsburgh Pirates, leaving him with a 3-RBI single. In both cases, the other three runs still counted because only the player who passes his teammate is called out. The three baserunners are able to score. Both of these hits took place with fewer than two outs.
  19. From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual and then the actual rule (p. 146): A slip (as opposed to a pitch or throw) is a released baseball, intended to be a pitch or throw, but that lacks both aim and momentum. Any intended pitch that slips out of a pitcher’s hand and crosses (or, if it is touched, would have crossed) a foul line is a ball. An intended pitch that slips and does not cross a foul line is a balk if there is a runner, and no pitch if there is not a runner. (6.02b Comment) An intended pickoff throw (in-contact) to first or third base that slips is a balk if it does not reach the foul line or a fielder within reach of a tag attempt at the base. However, it is not a balk if a pitcher drops the ball or allows it to slip after a step to second base, which does not require a throw. 2021 OBR Rule 6.02(b) Comment: A ball which slips out of a pitcher’s hand and crosses the foul line shall be called a ball; otherwise it will be called no pitch. This would be a balk with men on base.
  20. Just for giggles here’s the Federation softball rule that has very similar language in its rule 8-6-4 about a following runner passing a preceding obstructed runner and their case play illustrating how that rule is applied in a game situation (and how I think it should be and probably is handled in baseball)-- ART. 4 . . . The runner physically passes a preceding runner before that runner has been put out. If this was the third out of the inning, any runs scoring prior to the out for passing a preceding runner would count. A runner(s) passing a preceding obstructed runner is not out. (8-4-3b PENALTY c) 2019 NFHS Softball Casebook 8.6.4 SITUATION E: With R2 on second and R1 on first, B3 hits a ball safely to the outfield fence. After R2 takes off from second, she is obstructed by F6 and knocked down and may be injured. The umpire signals obstruction on F6. Both R1 and B3 pass R2 (who is still on the ground) and subsequently score. F8 finally throws the ball to F6 who tags R2 between second and third base. RULING: There is no infraction assessed for passing an obstructed runner. Both R1 and B3 score on the play. R2 is also awarded home and scores, as this is the base she would have achieved had there been no obstruction.
  21. Mr. Jimurray, you may have noticed that the current NCAA baseball obstruction rule was nearly completely rewritten. The reason listed is clarification. Since the college study guide I was quoting from is the 2019-2020 edition I had to check the old NCAA rule books before telling you what your friend George wrote about Type 2 obstruction. As far as I can tell the NCAA did not actually change anything in the rule—they just rewrote it for clarification sake. So here are some quotes from the 2019-2020 College Baseball Study Guide. “If a play is subsequently made on the obstructed runner (after umpire allows play to continue) and such play results in the runner being tagged out before reaching the base he would have been awarded, the umpire shall not call time until all other playing action has ceased. He will then make the obstruction award.” “However, the ultimate decision in awarding bases shall not be made until all play has ceased…” “Following runners are allowed to retain whatever base they attain before playing action ceases. If a following runner is thrown out in action subsequent to the play on the obstructed runner, the out stands.”
  22. Mr. Jimurray, of course the Note you refer to is in the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual. You know as well as I do that the MiLBUM and the MLBUM use essentially the same text for most of its entries. I checked the 2007 and the 2015 MLBUM and the text has remained nearly identical for at least the past 14 years. It now comes down to how you interpret Note 1. The very first sentence of Note 1 refers to a runner (“if a runner is obstructed”). I think it is obvious that it is talking about when a single runner is obstructed and then later thrown out. Of course time will be called then because nothing else can possibly happen. If one continues to read Note 2 he will see the following sentence—“However, the ultimate decision in placing the runners shall not be made until all play has ceased and shall be based on the principle that the obstructed runner will be entitled to the base he would have reached had no obstruction occurred.” That makes three separate references in that section on Type 2 obstruction where we are told that the umpire is to allow play to continue until all runners have stopped. In addition to the already posted OBR and FED rulings, I can provide the NCAA ruling as well. In his 2020 College Baseball Study Guide, author George Demetriou states on page 113 that “the umpire shall allow play to continue until all action has ceased and then call time…”
  23. Now, Mr. agdz59, I can get to your tangential question. The answer can be found in FED rule 8-4-2g and its following subsection 1. As you describe it the fielder muffed the ball about 10 feet from third base and did not gain control until he was essentially even with the bag. So he had to move and now it is the runner who should get the protection from the fielder. I think the rule of thumb is a step and reach for the fielder to maintain the protection of being in the act of fielding. Here’s what Carl Childress says in his 2016 BRD (section 345, p. 227) and then the relevant rule: “When a fielder muffs a batted ball and he must move to re-field it, if contact occurs in the base path, the umpire will protect the runner unless the official declares deliberate interference.” 2019 NFHS rule 8-4 ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he: g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location;
  24. Mr. HokieUmp, I am not sure why you and Mr. Jimurray are arguing about an OBR ruling in the High School forum in a thread that clearly states its question concerns FED rules. However, let me clarify the answer to your question. It is not that the obstructed runner is out or safe on the call that determines when the umpire calls time. The umpire is to call time at the end of all possible play, i.e., when all runners have stopped. Here’s what the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual says (pp. 110-111) about calling time after a type 2 obstruction— …The ball is not dead, however, and the umpire shall allow play to continue until all play has ceased and no further action is possible. At that moment, he shall call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, that in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction. And…"This decision is made on the principle that the umpire, in making awards on this type of obstruction, shall allow play to continue until no further action is possible and then shall make awards"…
  25. Good golly, Mr. SH0102, you and Mr. maven sure have created a dilemma for me. Who should I believe?--you two or Carl Childress who said in his 2016 BRD (section 370, p. 246) that under FED rules, “The ball becomes dead (on obstruction) only after runners have gone as far as possible which allows the defense to record outs or commit overthrows.” That’s how he interprets the case play 8.3.2D that I posted earlier that actually tells us that the ball remains live as long as there are runners moving. After a second of deliberation I think I will go with the case play and Mr. Childress. And a question for you, Mr. maven. Some time in the recent past we had a thread that asked if runners could score out of order—I can’t find it at the moment. As I recall we established that the FED rule about runners passing, rule 8-4-2m, states the following runner is out when he passes an unobstructed preceding runner. So why couldn’t the B/R in the OP pass the obstructed R1 and score?
×
×
  • Create New...