ALStripes17

In NCAA football, kicking team first touching a scrimmage kick is considered a 'violation' and is listed under the 'Summary of Penalties' page - NCAA rule book defines 'foul' and 'violation' as both 'rules infractions' ... difference is a violation is without a prescribed penalty. Yes, in the NFHS rulebook, 'first touching' is mentioned as 'having results very similar to a penalty but is not classified as a foul' The point @maven was making is that there are prescriptions in the rule book that define the penalty of a violation. There are issues in the rule book that do not have a direct penalty associated with it and are typically the 'dont do that' prescriptions. As an aside, I would even challenge the applicability of your sidenote that says "flags mark penalties". Flags mark 'potential fouls'. The same way the whistle doesn't always make the ball dead.

BAHAHAH, he wants abandonment during a dead ball situation!!! Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Well people... Since my move to South Florida, I have decided to hang up the umpire mask, as I really don't have the time to travel and train for the avocation. But I can't go through Spring without baseball, so I decided to assist a local HS in the area. I have crossed that line! Oh no My first game with the team was yesterday, and I will say I made it through the whole game in the 1B coaches box without using the dreaded "I used to umpire" line. Actually probably used "good position" and "good timing" more than anything when our players were in disagreement with a call. Definitely miss donning the gear. I'll be back at some point. But for now, I have to be the big, bad wolf... I mean... Coach... Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

And I wouldn't even be surprised... Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I consider a batter saying he 'tipped it's as in, it was a foul tip (catcher caught it), so ball stays live and batter still isn't absolved of BI liability. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

No. No following runners can score on a play where a preceding runner is called out upon appeal for the 3rd out. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Although I agree with the logic of this post, the matter which the OP describes it is out of line. If he's going to challenge the idea of gas money and location change, it has to be more tactful with the assigner. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

No question was asked of who/how schedules .... Just if the $35/game as an independent was legit. Post #2 was an edgy double down. Perhaps maybe just a 1.5x. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Gave my responses. Checked out my score afterwards - got a 0/0 I guess I'm kicked out of the club Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I gave you the reply. See INT, call INT... Especially FPSR. We don't wait to see what happens on the back end. PU or BU, doesn't matter. PU has the responsibility for it when a throw is made by the middle infielder. If he sees a violation of FPSR, he kills all immediately, sells it heavily, and prescribes the remedy without hesitation. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

If BR is out at 1B, FPSR isn't applied? Where did you get this? If there is a violation of FPSR, call it immediately and apply the penalty. I don't give a hoot what happens on that throw to 1B. See FPSR, call FPSR. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I fail to see the 'funnyness' Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I only had issue with the fact that you said the PU would be mistaken if he ruled it a foul tip... You made it sound as if you were 100% sure it missed the mitt. The PU has to rule on something. Even with video replay, we aren't 100% sure here. I don't know what you're asking of this crew... Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

If you're two definites are true, then you have a foul tip strikeout Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

And you are 100% certain that the 'tipped pitch' doesn't hit the mitt AT ALL on its way to Contreras' armpit? I'm not seeing it. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I considered that necessary Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Please go back and read how you wrote your responses... Your statements made it seem like you were still rendering a call at 1B after calling FPSR at 2B. Cut the unnecessary sarcasm. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

His point was that if you are getting the illegal slide at 2B as the BU, you shouldn't be turning to even look at 1B... Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

If, in the umpires' judgement, the fly ball could have been caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, then it should be deemed an infield fly. Nothing in the rule book prescribes judging communications between fielders or their ensuing 3-stooges antics. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Haha, then how do you tell someone they are incorrect when they are, in fact, correct? This all only comes back to your Rich Ives directive, not your initial post, which contained no information on assumption. Your unmentioned assumption tells the OP that any batted ball that crosses fair > foul is immediately foul. That's a pretty tough one to swallow as umpires when WE know that's nowhere near enough information. One simply added variable tells the OP the answer... It's not creating 3rd world plays, it's answering the question. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Nowhere in the OP does it say that foul was called... And that summary statement is also still partially wrong as a verbal foul must be accompanied with the batted ball touching the ground also (think fly ball that is caught but umpire calls 'Foul'). But I digress. Coach was not wrong in his response. The OP is not clear by any means. The batted ball is not fair or foul as described in the OP until it meets the criteria for a fair or foul ball. It's THAT simple... Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

There is nothing in the rule book for fair/foul that says "and has no chance of becoming fair"... The batted ball must meet the definition of a fair ball or a foul ball before it is to be declared as such. A ball could be rolling in foul territory and hit a rock or a lip that sends it back into fair territory. That ball status is fair if it comes to rest or is touched there. @RichIves has it right. I don't know what you are citing here... Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

See the NCAA clip of HPU dealing with this situation last year in the CWS. Player reaction was down the list of factors that he used to judge HBP. It is possible to use player reactions as a secondary/tertiary way to judge action. My comment was for it not to be the DEFAULT way of thinking. Players are told to continue play and not anticipate a call. It's unfair to the defense to just default to 'well he kept playing it so it must have hit the ground' and it's unfair to the offense to say 'well he started running to 1B so he must have thought he swung' If that were the case, the players could umpire their own games based on reactions... Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

This should not be a default way of thinking. We need to get in position and do our jobs, not let the player response dictate it. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I honestly hate that line of thinking for a player or umpire. On close plays, it's a safe bet for a player to throw it to 1B and not leave a close play in the umpires judgment, which could be wrong. I've seen too many players stop playing on a ball they thought they caught but umpire thought otherwise. As an umpire, our job is to judge what we see on the play, not player reactions. He either caught it or he didn't. What he does after that, doesn't have a bearing on that Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk