Dash Riprock

And not one of them knows the proper way to hold your hat during the playing of the national anthem.

Not just a play, it must be a tag attempt.

His path to the base isn't relevant unless there is a tag attempt on him.

Tipped ball nicks the top of F2's mitt, caroms off his mask towards F3, then caroms off F3 and is caught by F2. Generally, the pitcher has to be throwing 180-190mph for this to happen.

One more thing: If a runner missed his advance base and was subsequently out on appeal, there would still be no option

Absent the RLI which, as others have said, immediately kills the ball, yes, the CI is ignored if all runners advance at least one base. There is no option for the coach even if a runner is put out beyond his advance base.

When the ice melts, they switch over to that silly game played with nets on sticks for kids who can't catch.

Maximizing The Two-Umpire System by Jim Evans and Dick Nelson will give you a good understanding of the basic mechanics you need to know.

When the detached mitt (with the ball in it) touched the ground, the ball ceased being in flight.

Here's one for you Geoff: The pitcher throws a fastball at the batter's head. The batter spins out of the box trying to save his life. You (PU) notice that the batter has one foot on the ground entirely out of the box when the ball hits his bat. A strict follower of the rules would bang the batter out for illegal action. That would upset a coach too. Sometimes you just have to umpire.

The batter hits a fly ball that passes over the center field fence, orbits the earth, and is caught by the pitcher. (It's a given.) HR or out?

It doesn't matter where the obstruction occurred. The BR has been obstructed, but he still has to follow the rules - the ball is live. R1 has not been obstructed and is passed by the BR. The rule only protects a runner from passing an unobstructed preceding runner, not the other way around. You can protect the BR to a base, but you can't protect him from violating a rule. I don't think you can wave off the passing.

You get a warning when you attempt to visit the new pitcher a 2nd time. If you ignore the warning and go out there anyway, you get ejected. The pitcher still has to pitch to the batter until he is retired or reaches base, but now he must be removed (by the new manager) after facing that batter. Edited to add: In other words, what Matt just said.

Dress for the bases and bring your plate gear. You can wear your chest and shins over your base uniform for cage work. No need for plate shoes.

We had a long thread on this, Dash. FED introduces the 4th out in the rule on appeal plays, defined explicitly as retouch or missed base appeals. A 4th out must be (a) advantageous (takes runs off the board) and (b) the result of a properly constituted appeal. I got it from the BRD (2011). According to Carl, The official (Hopkins) FED interp: "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 for an advantageous fourth out." Arguably, this interp does not apply to a forced runner who has not reached his advance base at the time of the 3rd out. Arguably, it does.

I think FED also allows this 4th out 'appeal'.

Had there been two outs at the start of the play, under NCAAs recent interp, assuming you do not call BR out for passing, no runs would score because the play at 2nd on R1 would be considered an appeal. It's not an appeal, It's just a force at 2nd for the 3rd out. I stated that if there were 2 outs when the play occurred, the third out would have come on R2 at the plate. Therefore a throw to second to retire R1 would be an appeal play upheld by the recent NCAA interp. Thanks for setting me straight on the number of outs, but It is still not an appeal. It is a basic force play for the 4th out! I (and others, including the Wendlestedt School of Professional Umpiring) ) do not agree with NCAA's interpretation, but if they want to give the D an advantageous 4th out on a non-appeal play, that is what they will get. Edited to add: My apologies UmpTTS43 - I didn't realize I was responding to the creator of the $100 challenge, which the NCAA has thus far failed to win.

It was simple BOO until the batter was ejected. Then it became not simple. Although it is true that a sub enters for a player not a lineup spot, and it is true that the "natural" substitution would be Chip for the ejected Claire, the question in my mind is whether we should put the "unannounced sub" in for a player who is violating the lineup or for the proper batter. If I put Chip in the game for Claire, then I would seem to be contributing to BOO, which I should avoid for the sake of preventive umpiring (assuming I'm aware of the problem). Of course, if I asked the coach, "Chip for Claire?" and he said yes, then it would be his fault that Chip was BOO, and Dash's preferred answer would be fine. The same result if Chip tells me, "21 [Chip's number] for 45 [Claire's number]." And in that case, of course, we have an announced sub, so that's really a different case. Claire having taken a strike is irrelevant: suppose Chip is subbed in for Claire per the coach, then they discovered the BOO before another pitch was thrown. Then we've got nothing: put the proper batter in the box, 0-1 count, and play on. That does not address my concern about whether we should be collaborating in BOO. Think of it this way: an unannounced sub leads off in a late inning. Do you put him in the lineup in the proper spot or two spots down, so that he's BOO? Why would the OP be any different, just because the offense had sent up the wrong batter initially? I have no problem with the PU clarifying the substitution. It is prudent (NCAA requires it). I have a big problem with the PU telling the OC the sub is hitting in the wrong spot in the order. The rule is 6.07 Comment.

Had there been two outs at the start of the play, under NCAAs recent interp, assuming you do not call BR out for passing, no runs would score because the play at 2nd on R1 would be considered an appeal. It's not an appeal, It's just a force at 2nd for the 3rd out.

Only if the replacement of Chip for Claire stayed unambiguous (as you stated 'Chip replaces Claire' was a given). If it was not a given and Chip was an unnannounced sub, then I don't think that Claire taking a pitch before being ejected would make 'd' the unambiguous answer (I don't understand the one pitch significance). Chip could still be a PH for Butch. The one pitch makes it clear that Claire has become an improper batter. If it isn't clear to you that Chip is replacing Claire, then feel free to ask the coach for whom Chip is subbing (you will probably get a strange look), but by rule, you are not permitted to bring up the BOO.

The question said Claire bats in Butch;s spot and Chip replaces Claire. Simple BOO. I thought it was clear. The 'before a pitch is thrown' stuff was in there for humor, but I am going to change it to Claire takes a strike and is ejected... Would that make d the unambiguous answer?

See 6.07 Comment Would your answer be different if Claire had taken strike one before being ejected?

Your point is well taken (ricka56), but the answer to the question is d because 'Chip replaces Claire' was a given. Rich - B was just an incorrect answer. If it said 'Adam is returned to 1st' there would be 2 correct answers. D is correct on its own.

When I wrote this question for my local association's rules test, I completely made up answer b and didn't give a thought that it might apply. You guys almost convinced me that it does. Almost. A substitution is a player for another player, not a position in the batting order. Chip replaced Claire. Butch is out, Chip bats again.

err on the side of safety! Unless it's a kid nobody likes.