goody14

They could just be big Star Wars' fans... Like Yoda they speak. Feint to third legal you say.

Maybe not totally third world as I can see it happening, but fair warning for those who get annoyed at such plays - this one is probably more of a curiosity or academic exercise. R1 with no outs. B1 hits a home run. R1 misses 2B and subsequently touches 3B. After touching 3B, the coach tells him to go back and touch 2B. He retouches 3B and heads back to 2B. By the time he gets there B1 has already rounded 2B. B1 stops to let R1 go behind him to touch 2B and then run back in front of him. My question: Since the ball was dead, once R1 touched 3B he was not legally allowed to correct his missing of 2B. Sure, he can physically go back, but he would still be out on appeal. Even though he cannot legally go back, he did and created a passing situation. Is B1 still out for passing? Or is the passing negated since he passed a runner who was in a place he was not legally allowed to be? My gut would be B1 is out for passing and then the defense could appeal to get R1 out for missing the base. Am I right?

Case play 9.1.1 K suggests that timing does matter in FED. 9.1.1 SITUATION K: With no outs and the bases loaded, B1 grounds into a 6-4-3 double play as R1 and R2 score. R2 misses third base and is declared out for the third out upon proper appeal. RULING: R2’s out is not a force out for the third out, therefore, R1 scores.

I found the exact opposite when it came to the convertable jackets. Smitty XL from Ump-Attire fit great. A little big but sized to get a protector underneath it. The Honigs XL fit me like a night shirt. It hung down to my knees.

Found the old thread: Near the end the thread branches off into a discussion of whether a runner who goes behind 3B has to retouch. The one difference is that the plays being discussed in the thread all start with an R3. In that instance he cannot legally retreat so the argument was he would not have to retouch third if he went behind. In this play, the runner started at the plate. It would have been an interesting appeal.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/16285926/v576298483/?game_pk=446900 Watch the runner carefully. He slides headfirst into the backside of 3B. As he gets up he is behind 3B - behind as in towards left field. Then as he is awarded home, he walks back past 3B and does not touch it. Would he be out on proper appeal? I vaguely remember discussing a similar play last year and the rules gurus said he would not out on appeal in OBR but would be in FED. Am I remembering this correctly?

Illegal bat in FED.

Do you wear glasses? I was taped last year and noticed a slight outside drift as well. I figured out I was doing this so the ball would go from inside to outside the lens as it went low and away. I got slightly bigger lens and this helped. And coincidentally, I had an evaluator tell me almost verbatim what @ricka56 put in his post about the slot foot. It has helped me quite a bit.

Yesterday was sunny, beautiful and mid 50s in my part of the country. Yet my phone rang at 2:00 with the AD cancelling the game. Apparently the mound was still "soft" from previous rain. I will try to get game 1 in this afternoon.

Not only ejected, the Babe got off a punch that connected. The Babe did everything just a bit bigger than everyone else.

I agree. As stated in my message...I never fully understood this case play.

This play is in the BRD. As you can see Carl has it the same at all levels. I have read it before and frankly did not fully get it. My (turns out wrong) thinking was that if a runner has to run the bases correctly when awarded bases (as in touch them all) he would also be responsible to not commit any infractions while running out awarded bases. In this play, he interfered...usually the interferer is out, so R2 would be out. This is not the case. Another BRD play: Same concept...obstruction means he gets home and so the interference is technically by someone "who has already scored" like @Tksjewelry said.

Significant as to why the FED case plays are not as illogical as they seem. They clearly are drawing a line in the sand between the ball being deflected before the catcher has a chance to complete the catch and after the ball is on the ground. This is consistent with what has been shared here before. On a ball on the ground in FED we judge the intent of the BR, in OBR we judge whether the BR actually made the play harder. FED is just saying that intent does not matter if the catcher has not completed his attempt to catch the ball. So yes, I think the rulings might be different in some cases (not the OP). Say the ball hits the catcher's glove, pops into the air, and the batter hits it on the follow-through, but the ball goes straight down in front of the catcher. In OBR, not sure this is an out. In FED, it is an immediate dead ball per the case play.

I think a small but significant difference in these case plays is that in 7.3.5 F (and the video) the catcher has not failed to make the catch...yet. The ball is still in flight.

Thanks! I appreciate the kind words. We worked hard on it. It looks like all the distribution problems are solved. This is available in hard copy via Amazon and Barnes and Noble. E-versions available on Kindle, Nook, and iBooks. As I mentioned before, if you bought 1st edition, you can PM me and I will send you the tables in the back listing FED and NCAA differences.

While the test is sort of the ultimate answer unless they come out and say it was wrong, I still tend to notice the following. There are: Plenty of rules that are the same in all codes A handful of rules that are different in all 3 codes Numerous that are the same in OBR/NCAA but different in FED Few (and by few, I cannot think of one off the top of my head but am sure someone will find one) that are the same in FED/OBR but differ in NCAA This would be a black swan.

What level of baseball? That will drive the answer to conferences. A sub for the DH becomes the DH. That sub does not have to take the defensive player - but if any current of former DH take a spot on defense, then yes the position of DH is done (but the player who was the DH can re-enter in high school).

I am still in the camp of no interference. There are 4 potential rules that cover this: 6-1-c, 6-2-e, 8-2-g, and 8-5-k. 6-1-c: c. If a fair-hit ball passes by all infielders or it is touched by a fielder and then touches a runner or an umpire, the ball is in play and the runner is not out. If said ball should touch the runner or umpire while still in flight, thereafter it shall be considered a ground ball. It cannot be caught as a fly ball. This clearly states if a ball is touched by a fielder the ball is still in play and the runner is not out. 6-2-e: e. A fair-hit ball touches a runner in fair territory before touching an infielder or an umpire and before passing an infielder who has a chance to make a play on the ball, other than the pitcher. This one seems a bit muddier, but I think it is just bad sentence construction. I don't think the 'and' in this sentence is a Boolean 'and', I think it is just linking together examples of when the rule would not result in a dead ball. Rewritten as two sentences: "The ball is dead when a fair hit touches a runner before touching a fielder. The ball is dead when a fair hit touches a runner before passing an infielder who had a chance to make a play". You might say I am stretching the meaning of the word 'and' Bill Clinton style to fit my point, but note, that there is language in the book, attached as an exception and a note to this rule that states: Note:If a fair ball goes through or by an infielder and touches a runner immediately in back of him or touches the runner after having been deflected by fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. This section clearly states a runner being touched by a deflected ball causes the umpire to not declare the runner out. 8-2-g: g. If a fair ball touches a base runner in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed all infielders, other than the pitcher, the ball is dead, the runner is out and the batter-runner is awarded first base; or I think the phrase 'other than the pitcher' applies to the passed all infielder clause. So, I think this one is pretty clear. If the ball touches an infielder there is no interference. Although reading in isolation, I can see how one would think the 'other than the pitcher' clause applies to touching the ball as well. 8-2-k: k. The runner, including a runner in contact with a base, is hit while in fair territory by a batted ball before it has touched a fielder or passed all infielders who have a chance to make a play on the ball, other than the pitcher. If two runners are hit by the same fair ball, only the first runner is out In this one the phrase "other than the pitcher" clearly applies to the clause "passed all infielders who have a chance to make a play on the ball". In my opinion, this one is written in a way to easily see a touched ball hitting a runner is not out. Where does that leave us? 4 rules: 2 of them are written in a way that is reasonable to say a deflected ball striking a runner does not cause an out 1 rule written with an odd 'and' in the middle that could be read as the ball has to be deflected AND by all fielders with a chance to field it to not call a runner out. But, this rule has a sample play written in it that states a deflected ball does not cause it to be out 1 rule written in a sort of nebulous way but I still think supports deflected balls not subjecting a runner to be out if hit by it Add to it the BRD and I think the test is off. Of course, the test is the ultimate trump card so what do I know.

I don't think so (or at least I don't think it is supposed to - although it does look like they changed out 'or's for an 'and'). The note in 6-2-e Exception states: If a fair ball goes through or by an infielder and touches a runner immediately in back of him or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such a decision, the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the infielder and that no other infielder had a chance to make a play on the ball (emphasis mine). Carl has this to say in the BRD: 331 INTERFERENCE BY: RUNNER: w/BATTED BALL: AFTER IT: TOUCHES A FIELDER FED: After any infielder has touched a batted ball, interference shall not be called if the ball hits a runner, even when another fielder has a play on the ball. (8-4-2k) NCAA: Same as FED. (6-1c)

The OP has the ball hitting the runner not the runner hitting the fielder. Wouldn't 8-5-k be the relevant rule. Runner is only out if struck before it has touched a fielder.

We are live with the second edition of RuleGraphics http://redirect.viglink.com?key=d5c52a68c2da51223ae18eb8d086c977&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FRuleGraphics-Professional-Baseball-Dennis-Goodman%2Fdp%2F0996110526 RuleGraphics takes all the major components of a rule and boils it down to one page. It is designed to be a reference for the rules. New in the second edition: Tables in the back showing major rule differences between professional, college and high school baseball Numbering system completely updated based on new OBR format Cross reference table in the back to help find rules in the new format A ton of you on here supported the first edition through feedback, amazon reviews, blurbs, etc. I truly appreciate it. If you bought the first edition, and want a copy of the new reference tables - DM me your email and I will send them. Of course you could buy the second edition to get the same material If your association is interested in buying copies in bulk, DM me.

Of the choices...B is the most right in my opinion. Of course, that is probably not comforting in the least. My guess is they want you to know it is 2 bases instead of 1 in the other codes.

@Thunderheads Lock it up please.

How about $100 and no copy of my book Maybe the book is turning people off to the idea. $100 via Paypal and mask is yours

5.08 in the new