UmpTTS43

Jason, I get that. The question that I posed is what basis per the rules, are there that support this particular interpretation? My stand is that there is no rule support. It is simply an interpretation based on opinion not rules. I would love to see the rule that supports this, hence the debate.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest. What I share is what I have been taught. This is meant to be a spirited and thoughtful debate concerning the ruleset and subsequent interpretations based on those rules. J/R has been wrong in the past and has had to subsequently change their position more than once. J/R says one thing, Harry's manual says the opposite. Take that as you wish. One scenario, different philosophies.

The phrase "advantageous 4th out" was derived and used exclusively for legal appeals. Absent an appeal, you cannot have this "advantageous 4th out". You will not find anywhere in the rulebook where it says you can have this 4th out without a valid appeal. At one time the J/R was the official interpretation manual and was used at the Brinkman school. In today's pro game it is no longer recognized as an official manual. It is just another manual and is not to be used in an official capacity. Although this manual is a great resource, it is not official.

I do not know of an official position on this. This is how I would handle it. Warn the scorekeeper. Allow the appeal. Denying the appeal could bring a protest that I will address later. Have conversation with opposing coach. Explain my ruling and let him know that if he feels I am ruling incorrectly, he had the right to protest. Ideally a protest would come out of this so a ruling could be made, on how to deal with this sitch, by the powers that be. I would rather have the opposing coach protest. If his protest is upheld, the game would resume at the point of said protest. I suspect the BOO appeal would be granted on a ruling so that is why I would allow it versus not allow it and having the game resume from that point of appeal.

I'm sure that's what it says but there is zero rule support for this interp. It is simply an interp. J/R is no longer an authoritative manual. J/R once said that a pitched ball that bounced could not be caught legally on a foul tip. They have since changed their stance on that. This does not qualify for the award since I stipulated that merely citing one's interps because they say so is not sufficient. You went to Harry's right? In the Wendelstedt Umpire School Manual they discuss this play on page 115 and it clearly states that this appeal is not allowed.

That's why I said cash. You can still enlighten us.

Thx Johnny. Good to be back.

Here's a little preseason fun. This came up on ABUA's forum and I subsequently made this offer. I now bring it here. This question is on the NCAA preseason test and has been a topic of debate prior. The question is whether or not this appeal is upheld thereby negating R3s run. FED/NCAA and, to the best of my knowledge, OBR, including Jim Evans, recognize this as a valid appeal. I have debated this interpretation with some of the most knowledgeable rules experts across the country. I have also researched and written about this extensively to the point of, "Gee, really?" Some consensus, some not. My standing is that this is not a valid "fourth out" appeal, hence the run will score. Here is my challenge. If you can demonstrate the validity of allowing this appeal through rule application, spirit of the game philosophy, and common sense, I will give you $100 cash. We will, of course, debate our positions. Simply saying that this is the accepted interpretation made by those that have the say so does not count. In fact I would be willing to debate them as well. This discussion is limited to OBR/NCAA rules. I have zero interest in how FED sees this. When and if anybody takes this up with me, after the debate, I will put up a poll with the participants and let the members decide. Let's have a little fun.

Just because the OBS occurred prior to the INT, that does not mean the OBS takes precedence. The OBS awards, if any, are made at the conclusion of the play. An obstructed runner must still play within the ruleset. An obstructed runner can be called out for INT, passing a preceding runner, running outside of the running lane during a tag attempt and the like. You cannot get hung up with the mind set that says since the OBS occurred first, you can disregard other infractions. I am discussing this taking the OBR and NCAA rulebook into account. FED, I'm sure, has some differing interps.

FED is DUM

OBR/NCAA. R2 out for INT. BR returns to last legally aquired base at the time of INT. I would suspect the same for FED.

If the runner is retired on the initial throw, provided the batter is not out on strikes, you do not call time since the interference is disregarded. That being said, chances are that you will have to grant time because one of the coaches are going to need/want an explanation. This is what I was taught and use for terminology after the INT was recognized and either the initial throw was made or the throw was aborted due to the INT: BI, runner safe, no strike out. "Time. That's interference (pointing at batter). Batter's out (out mechanic) You (pointing at runner) back to first (or appropriate base)." BI, runner safe, strike out. "Time. That's interference (pointing). Batter's out on strikes (out mechanic), runner is out for the interference (pointing at runner then out mechanic)"

this isnt een the same thing Troy..Doug got beat up over the use of the hammer and his out mechanic... Yes

That's the one. I guess the confusion came when he signaled strike after that which looked like an out call. Think maybe a verbal no catch would have prevented this?

Down in the south, they do like they do at MiLB and school.. with one arm out to avoid the mass confusion. .. But use what you want as long as you can explain your mechanics to the coach. Thanks for the advice. Not once in my 2000+ games have I ever had to explain my mechanics concerning dropped third strikes. Even the ones that had a no tag mechanic right after that. I do seem to recall however that there was quite a stir over these one armed mechanics during a MLB playoff game. I may consider to use this one armed simpler thing when there is an uncaught line drive that short hops an infielder where a tag might immediately follow. That way no one will be confused when I make the second call of out or safe, whichever it is.

Just got done discussing the why. The safe mechanic is saved in the event that there is a no tag after the dropped third strike. This eliminates the double safe mechanic in those situations. They still use the verbal of No Catch. When the ball is caught, the out mechanic with the verbal Batter's Out. That being said, I highly recommend that those working amateur ball use the safe mechanic on dropped third strikes. Everyone is on the same page at the pro level, including managers, players and umpires. This is not always the case in the amateur game and misinterpretations can happen, sometimes resulting in situations that could lead to arguments/ejections. Why place yourself in that situation when it could have easily been avoided? Again, each to his own. For the record, the accepted college mechanic is the safe signal.

I was incorrect. After a couple calls, both schools teach the one arm safe mechanic. Wasn't given the why's, didn't ask. That being said, when i went to school and every college clinic I have ever been to teach and want the regular safe mechanic. It is also what we teach for Indy ball. I believe this mechanic leaves much less for misinterpretation. I will not be working affiliated ball from this point forward so I will be using the safe mechanic.

Lol. I'm not the one that called anyone out.

Maybe it's changed.

I think I may have one of an umpire undressing on a patio during a rain storm. I'll check my files.

I have a routine during warmup pitches which is to primarily introduce myself to the catcher and to give and get information. Primarily I let him know what he should expect from me and I from him. Watching the release point and trying to pick up the rotation of the ball, along with tracking, helps get my eyes and brain engaged for my job for the next 2 12-3 hours. I take pitches from both sides in order to settle in to that perspective and kick in my muscle memory. I do this with both catchers. During a pitching change, I let at least two pitches go while I note changes on my lineup. These are usually fast balls anyway. When I step back there I again pick up release point, rotation of ball and break on his breaking pitches. I may watch one pitch or four depending on his pitching style. When two pitches are left I tell the pitcher. When one is left I let ondeck and pitcher know. Most experienced catchers will let you know what he's throwing. If the reliever has a traditional delivery I may step behind F2 just for that information. I find that getting back there during pregame warmups helps my mind and body prepare. Short story. This past fall I was asked to work scout day at a large DI school. Start time was to be 11. We arrive at 1015. As we were getting dressed asst asked if we could go early. No problem we needed five minutes. We hit the field in five minutes and they had already started. My first pitch had right batter crowding, F2 working inside and a pitch at least 95 on the inside corner. It sounded like a strike lol. I was only 2 weeks out of my regular season but it was like it was the first pitch of the year. This reinforced that getting my mind and body prepared during pregame is important for my game. Everyone has their own philosophy. This works for me.

8 stitch w low profile titanium. Zero problems.

Once the appeal is made, they can't go back and unappeal.

Point to the right like a no catch? Isn't a no catch a safe signal? I'm confused. That may be taught at Harry's but they fix it to the safe mechanic at PBUC.

This. The biggest pain in the rear complaint when working 3 man IMHO.