Jump to content

Senor Azul

Established Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Senor Azul

  1. 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. In the OP situation R1 is forced leave first base by virtue of the fact the batter received a base on balls. Even though it is a game ending award, by Fed/NCAA rule R1 is forced to second base. So, if he does not go to second base he is liable to be put out on appeal and the appeal would be a force out. That is what the casebook play I posted says and I completely agree with it. It's a force out appeal--not abandonment.
  2. The comment following the definition of a FOUL BALL in rule 2.00 states: A batted ball not touched by a fielder, which hits the pitcher's rubber and rebounds into foul territory, between home and first, or between home and third base is a foul ball.
  3. Here's a casebook play from Carl Childress' BRD (2014 edition): In the home half of the final inning of the conference championship game, the score is tied and the bases are loaded with 2 outs when B1 receives ball four. He hurries to first and R3 crosses the plate, but R1 and R2 immediately join the victory celebration. RULING: In Fed/NCAA, on appeal either R1 or R2 is out (both failed to touch the next base). Since it is a force out, the run is canceled and play continues into extra innings. In OBR, the game is over. Also, under Fed rules if the defense wants to make an appeal on the last play of the game they must do so while an umpire is still on the field of play.
  4. Mr. Ump29, I can't agree with you completely. Mr. afaber12's answer is just a tad imperfect. You see he gave an incomplete citation. The relevant rule is 6.02(b) CMT and the pertinent text actually appears in the second of two additional paragraphs for the comment. And there is another applicable rule--4.06(a)(3): No manager, player, substitute, coach, trainer or batboy shall at any time, whether from the bench, the coach's box or on the playing field, or elsewhere-- (3) Call "time" or employ any other word or phrase or commit any act while the ball is alive and in play for the obvious purpose of trying to make the pitcher commit a balk. For further discussion about a batter trying to cause a pitcher to balk, please see the thread titled Trick play in the Ask the Umpire forum.
  5. Here's the PBUC policy for "hands on knees" for all its minor league umpires: In all Minor League Baseball leagues, the base umpire is to assume a "ready" position with his hands on his knees prior to each pitch. (The concept here is to have the umpire ready and in a set position when the pitch is delivered.) When runners are on base, it is recommended that the umpire assume this position when the pitcher takes his sign from the catcher. With no runners on base, the umpire should be in the "ready" position as the pitcher is preparing to deliver the ball to the batter. Following the pitch, if the batter does not hit the ball, the base umpire should come up out of his hands on knees position. ... This also has been the policy of my high school association (going back at least 20 years), my travel ball association (for approximately 10 years), and my rec league association.
  6. Mr. Ump29, The original poster in this thread, Mr. BaltimoreUmpire, explained in post number 5 that he was not referring to deliberately thrown equipment in disgust of an umpire's call. You play your baseball in Nova Scotia under modified OBR but we have the same interpretation here in the US for thrown equipment to show displeasure with an umpire's decision. All three major codes have essentially the same language prohibiting this kind of on-field behavior. Here's the OBR interpretation: Any player throwing equipment in disgust of an umpire's call shall be reported and subject to fine, and if flagrant, to ejection... NCAA: A player may be immediately ejected for intentionally throwing his bat or helmet because of his displeasure at an umpire's call or because of his disgust with himself. Fed: Players may not deliberately throw "a bat, helmet, etc." to show their disgust. (3-3-1m; 3.3.1x) PENALTY: ejection. And it was obvious to me what you meant to say about deliberately thrown bats i.e., to express disgust with a call.
  7. Mr. Tksjewelry, Shakespeare said "Brevity is the soul of wit" and you have captured what I wish I could have said in response to the previous post in just a few wisely chosen words. Bravo, sir!
  8. Here's the Federation interpretation: A fielder using detached equipment, including uniform items, may not deliberately interfere with a batted fair ball or a foul ball that in the opinion of the umpire might have become fair without the interference. PENALTY: All runners, including the batter-runner, are awarded three bases. The ball remains alive. If the batter-runner makes home safely or is thrown out at the plate, the play stands. (8-3-3b) NCAA rules the same as Federation. (8-2h; 83g) Every interpretation book I have supports the OBR ruling already discussed in this thread: J/R, PBUC, MLBUM, BRD, and the Wendelstedt manual.
  9. For Mr. siz, you might consider obtaining a current copy of the Official Baseball Rules. The text you quoted no longer exists. The rule that covers how to determine a winning and a losing pitcher is now found in rule 10.17 as quoted by Mr. noumpere. For guest Chad, if you are really interested in scorekeeping there is a website dedicated to the subject at baseballscorecard.com. And there is a truly thorough book about scorekeeping written by Andres Wirkmaa titled Baseball Scorekeeping: A Practical Guide to the Rules. Here is what Mr. Wirkmaa says about this question: "No particular guidance is given in this respect, except the instruction to decide the issue based on which relief pitcher was "the most effective." However, no objective criteria are set forth with which to measure which relief pitcher was the most effective. Given the lack of any particular standards, one can assume that the rulebook is content to rely on the scorekeeper's discretion. Nonetheless, the words "most effective" strongly suggest that some degree of objectivity should be employed in the making the decision. It may be the number of batters faced, the difficulties overcome, the overall quality of the pitching, or any other legitimate basis for making the choice. But when all is said and done, it's always a judgment call by the official scorer. Nonetheless, as long as the decision has a valid justification, it cannot be considered a bad determination or a choice that is contrary to the letter or the spirit of Rule 10.17(b)."
  10. Both the OBR and the Little League (LL) rule books make it abundantly clear who is in charge of the game and it is not the LL coach. Let's start at the beginning with rule 1.01: Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each...under jurisdiction of one or more umpires. Rule 4.01(e) tells us exactly when that jurisdiction begins: As soon as the home team's batting order is handed to the umpire-in-chief the umpires are in charge of the playing field... You have already mentioned 9.01(b) and c. Here's more from rule 9.00: 9.04(a) ...his duties shall be to: (1) Take full charge of, and be responsible for, the proper conduct of the game. As the only official representatives of baseball on the field, it is our duty as umpires to maintain the integrity of the game at all times. That's why the umpire is granted all authority to administer the game.
  11. Senor Azul

    Cast fiasco

    The manager in your situation was right--there is no provision for casts and splints in the OBR (pro rules). But casts and splints are allowed in both Fed and NCAA. Here's the NCAA interpretation: Any hard cast must be padded and covered. Federation rules also require casts and braces to be padded--"all hard and unyielding items must be padded with a closed-cell, slow-recovery foam padding no less than one-half inch thick." Also, take note that there are restrictions on pitchers in high school. He can only wear a padded cast on his non-pitching arm. And just like the restrictions on gloves, no white or gray casts are allowed on a pitcher. Fed rules also state that the umpire shall rule on the legality of casts or splints. Each official must decide for himself if the cast is "unreasonably" dangerous, hence illegal. For Little League, Mr. SJA is correct. Rule 1.11k prohibits casts: Casts may not be worn during the game by players and umpires.
  12. I think I transcribed the text from the BRD correctly and I, too, noticed the seemingly incongruent statements. In my opinion, the Wendelstedt interpretation did not make it clear that it is referring to a situation where the interference causes the infield fly to be missed. In other words, if the protected fielder recovers quickly enough after an interference and manages to make a catch, the batter is out only and the interference is ignored--a normal IFF outcome. If, after an interference, the infield fly is missed both the runner who committed the interference and the batter are out. At least, that is how I reconcile the two statements. And, yes, I realize it creates an incentive for the defense to let the fly ball drop and get two outs after an interference.
  13. There is an official interpretation from Harry Wendelstedt that appears in his manual and also in Carl Childress' BRD. It is just dated 2013 and reads as follows: If interference is called during an infield fly, the ball remains alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the batter are out. If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the batter returns to bat. Play 186-337: R1, R2, 0 out. B1 pops up on the first base line. The umpire declares: "Infield fly if fair." As F3 is waiting in fair territory to catch the fly, B1 (not maliciously) bumps into him. The umpire calls: "That's interference!" The ball remains alive. The first baseman touches the ball in (a) fair territory and makes the catch; or (b) foul territory and drops the ball. RULING: In (a) and (b), B1 is out. In (a) the ball remains alive: B1 is out on the infield fly, and the umpire ignores the interference. The defense may play on R1 or R2. In (b), B1 is out for interference, and the ball is immediately dead. Runners remain TOI.
  14. The original poster, tiger79, gave us further details in post 29. In it he added that the pitch not only was in the dirt but inside as well, thus making the batter move. The batter didn't just move in violation of rule 6.06c, he moved to avoid being hit by the pitch in accordance with rule 6.08b. Doesn't that change your call on the play to nothing and allow the run?
  15. The Major Leagues actually do have an official interpretation for carelessly thrown bats. It is from Harry Wendelstedt and it is dated July 2012 and it reads as follows: If the umpire is hit by a carelessly thrown bat, he is "almost certain" to warn the batter that such action must be stopped. On the second offense, the player is told he will be ejected if he continues. On a third offense, the umpire should eject the offender. The Fed interpretation says: A player may not carelessly throw his bat. PENALTY: Team warning/ejection. An interesting detail of the Fed's ruling is that it also applies to defensive players who are clearing bats from the field of play and accidentally hit someone (for example, the on-deck batter).
  16. Mr. NoCal Blue, do you have a copy of the Jaksa/Roder (J/R) manual? I have the 2010 edition (I think it's the most recent edition of the J/R). If that is the same as yours, I refer you to pp. 79-80 in the subsection Missed Base Appeals, Example 3: Batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop. On what appears to be the batter-runner's last stride before touching first base, his foot hits the ground just short of the base, failing to touch it. However, the batter-runner's body is over the top of first before the first baseman gloves the throw. The batter-runner overruns the base, the umpire signals "safe," and the first baseman steps on the base and appeals to the umpire that the batter-runner failed to touch first: the umpire has handled the play in the correct manner. The batter-runner had "touched or passed" first safely and it is the responsibility of the defensive team to recognize that he missed the base. The batter-runner is out on the appeal. [MLB 5.4 Ex. 12] That citation at the end refers to the Major League Baseball Umpire manual. I have the 2007 edition and in it section 5.4 appears on pp. 37-41. Example 12 reads as follows: Batter-runner hits a ground ball and beats the play at first base but misses the bag. RULING: The proper mechanic is for the umpire to call the runner safe, indicating he beat the play.... The example play from the J/R nearly matches your play. I wonder if you discussed that with your friends at PBUC?
  17. Mr. Richvee, the rule that supports the interpretations from the MLBUM and the BRD is the comment following 9.02c. The relevant part reads: "Baserunners must be alert to the possibility that the base umpire on appeal from the plate umpire may reverse the call of a ball to the call of a strike, in which event the runner is in jeopardy of being out by the catcher's throw.... The ball is in play on appeal on a half swing."
  18. Mr. Richvee, your exact play is also used in the BRD. It says that in both NCAA and OBR the runner is out. The reason given is that unlike the play in the original post where an umpire is correcting his own mistake, in your play it is the runner who made a mistake. This reasoning matches up with what Mr. Matt just posted in response to your question.
  19. Your scenario illustrates what is called "correctable umpire's error." The OBR supporting the action all your brethren recommend is 9.02c. Here's what that rule says as summarized by Carl Childress in his BRD: "The crew, after consultation, is explicitly empowered to take whatever steps they may deem necessary, in their discretion, to eliminate the results and consequences of an earlier call that they are reversing." Also, here is the PBUC interpretation for this rule: If a runner steps off a base as a result of an umpire's improper call, that is correctable umpire's error, and the umpire should nullify the out."
  20. Thank you for your responses. Your PBUC friends made the same argument I was leading up to that if the BR had a foot down past the bag then he could be considered as having past the base--then your call of safe would have been correct. Thank you for following up and I think we all can agree now on how to rule on this on the field. I applaud your courage to admit you booted it but think how many people will learn from this.
  21. Mr. NoCal Blue, could you give us a couple more details please. Where was the batter-runner's feet when his body was in midair over the bag? Did he already have a foot down past the bag when the throw was caught by the first baseman? When exactly did you make your call of safe? Was it when the runner was in midair over the bag?
  22. TomP144, are you still out there? You got the call right--batter is out. But for the wrong reason in my estimation. The offense is not supposed to handle the ball. The way you describe the situation the batter actually caught the ball and was holding it long enough that the catcher had time to react and actually take the ball from his hand. That handling of the ball by the batter is a form of interference. As soon as you recognize this you would call time and call the now batter-runner out for interference. With no runners on your call was sufficient but with runners it could have allowed them to advance illegally. I would like to recommend you visit our Rules forum and find a thread titled "kicked uncaught third strike." It has a more complete discussion of the topic of uncaught third strikes.
  23. There is an official interpretation for OBR given to us by Harry Wendelstedt: A bat left in the strike zone is not, in itself, an offer at a pitch. However, the intent of the batter should declare whether he offered at the pitch. NOTE: The perception of his actions should be taken into account as well. The NCAA adopts this as its official interpretation also. The Fed says: In bunting, any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate area is a strike. The mere holding of the bat in the strike zone is not an attempt to bunt.
  24. Yankees v Blue Jays, 2 out, Alex Rodriguez on second. B1 pops up between short and third. As A-Rod runs between the fielders, he yells at them. The ball falls to the ground. RULING: In Fed/NCAA, A-Rod is out. In OBR, there is no interference. That's the play verbatim from the BRD. The game was played on May 30, 2007, in Toronto. The umpires who worked the game were Eric Cooper, Mike Reilly, Jeff Kellogg, and Chad Fairchild. There were no ejections. To this day there is no verbal interference in OBR. I noticed a post that stated he would get an out in his games played under OBR and it even received two "likes." Even though it is technically a wrong answer, I would agree that there would be a very strong inclination to make the same call for all umpires. After all, the action taken by A-Rod was and is quite reprehensible (and there should be a rule against it). I am wondering, though, how you would justify such a call if an astute manager challenged your ruling
  25. The Wendelstedt manual has five plays illustrating how to rule on possible interference on an uncaught strike three. All of them start with the same proviso: The umpire should wait to see whether the batter's actions interfered with the catcher making a play. Carl Childress in his BRD refers to this as the introduction of basketball's "slow whistle" to baseball. No one mentioned it before but the NCAA rules the same way the Fed does--there has to be intent for interference to be called. I also want to take issue with a statement made in an earlier post: "if he intends to kick the ball, just brushes it, and it rolls closer to a fielder (thus helping rather hindering) no INT, play on." I strongly disagree with this interpretation. I would have, "Time! I have interference on the batter-runner. He's out!" The Jaksa/Roder manual says it pretty well: "A runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach and stay on a base safely. Actions that disregard this intent and show, rather, an intent to interfere... If a runner makes an attempt to kick the ball it does not matter if he is successful or not. His action alone shows his intent is to interfere. He is out immediately.
  • Create New...