LRZ

So Carl says the same thing as all of us. Hope this is good enough for you. If the same discussion in the 2013 edition, see pages 204-2-5. CC says "OBR: point not covered," but adds an official interpretation from Wendelstadt (348-337): If fair, both runner and batter are out; if foul, even if caught, runner out, batter returns to bat). However, CC also postulates this play (I've redacted a bit, for simplicity): Play 188-337. Bases loaded, 1 out, 0-0 count. B1 hits a pop around third base. As F5 positions himself under the ball, umpire declares IIF. Just as ball is falling, R3 returning to 3d collides with F5 while (a) ball is over fair territory or (b) over foul territory. Ruling: umpire calls time immediately, R3 out for interference. In (a), batter also out on IF. In (b), batter returns to plate, 0-1 count. Does this suggest that the position of the ball when interference occurs is determinative? But CC states in an "added note" that (again, I simplify) the only time a batter could be out is if the ball is fair. There's interference, so somebody is generally out. If ball is touched foul, the batter cannot be out, and only the runner is "dinged." Parenthetically, in the example Mike cites, play 152-316, wouldn't the batter also be out "if F5 catches the ball"? I assume CC means "catches" the ball on the fly, not simply "touches it in foul territory." Wouldn't the catch negate the interference?

If the rule says "allowed to fall untouched...and bounces foul," tell me how that applies to F5's unintentional act, prevented by the runner's interference. That is the crux for me. Cite the language in OBR that seems so clear to you, that specifically covers this situation. I don't think MLBUM addresses this; does anyone with some claim to authority, like Carl Childress, deal with it? Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the IF rules, as written, do not address the interplay between the IF and interference rules. And if it takes a protest and overturned on-the-field ruling, well, that would provide some clarity, wouldn't it? One thing about rules--there is always some factual scenario not envisioned by them. OK, now I'm done, except to admit my error if shown the proof.

What makes you think the defense was going to get two outs absent the interference? On a play like this, 2 outs would be a major outlier. I don't see this as "unjust enrichment" to the defense. There are two acts, the batted ball and the interference. Rule 2.00 states, "If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball." That suggests an intentional act (of omission, if you will) by the fielder that is absent in the situation we are discussing. I simply don't see how the rules apply so clearly to this situation. As I've said, I'm troubled, but I see the sense of what you all argue, but I really don't know what I'd do in this situation. In any event, rather than rehash the same old same old, I will retire from the debate and hope I never have to deal with it.

"Not much of a reward" is a question of degree, but a reward nonetheless. Instead of two outs, the offense has just the one, a benefit of its interference. A very different story from a batted ball hitting a bird. Is this similar to a runner committing "an obviously...unsportsmanlike act...to commit an intentional act of interference"? [Not the same, but similar.] I hear you guys, but I remain troubled. If you want to talk about some explaining to do, imagine the storm if the BR hits one over the centerfield wall.

Under OBR, if the runner interferes with F5's play on the fair IF, so that the ball drops and rolls foul, what about calling the batter out by applying 9.01( c), as a point not specifically covered by the rules? I'm troubled by essentially rewarding the offense for its interference. Rule number edited. Thanks, maven.

Do folks think of the 3N2 plate shoes are primarily for softball and/or younger leagues?

I appreciate this procedure, a wonderful idea. It allows me to get a clear, simple answer without wading through all the chitchat and repetition. Thanks.

berns_97, here are several ways to augment your practical experience ("now I know what to do next time"). (1) Besides studying the rules, read casebooks and other material that outline plays and rulings. (2) If possible, attend clinics. (3) If there is an older/more experienced umpire you admire for his game management skills, good sense, or knowledge of the rules, see if he would mentor you, even if that just means asking him a question now and then. Good luck--it sounds like you are on the right track--you are thinking about what happens in your games and learning from those incidents.

I thought he had a decent angle, but it looked as if he turned from the catcher setting up for the tag to watch the runner touch home. I couldn't tell, but it looked like he turned too early. Maybe he was too close to see the swipe and the touch? And he did look at the catcher, then turned and looked at the runner, who had already crossed the plate.

Leagues eject themselves. I'm not sure what this means or if meant as a quip, but if the problem was caused by coaches and managers, the kids did not eject themselves.

As a lawyer (although I don't practice that kind of law), it occurred to me that throwing a kid with Tourette syndrome out for something he could not control might make the league and umpires liable, perhaps as a "public accommodations" issue, under the ADA, especially after receiving notice as in the OP. Even if an individual umpire were ultimately found not liable, a lawsuit (and expense of defending) would seem likely. I know that, if I had a kid with a disability, I'd want a league to consider making reasonable accommodations for that disability.

The adults screw up, so 700 kids pay the penalty? Now that's offensive, to me.

I have a slow trigger, so I would have little or no extra slack. But I see no real harm in being a bit more tolerant in big games, keeping in mind that mantra, ignore, acknowledge, warn, eject. I don't see that as changing in any substantial way how we umpire.

Not to hijack this thread, but isn't a mask with bent bars compromised? I would think so, but I am not a metallurgist.

Corey, when I started, I read a number of rules and mechanics manuals. Study them, as well as the rule book, of course. In the two-ump games you'll work, make sure you and your partner have a pre-game. If you work with someone whose game and approach you like, see if you can ask them questions afterwards. And have fun!

Adam, I live in a suburb of Philadelphia, but I don't work HS (PIAA). In PIAA, there are two city and eight suburban chapters. If you will be limited to the city, you might contact the presidents of the two city-based chapters: Philadelphia Chapter, Russell Lickfield, lick1227@gmail.com; Central Philadelphia Chapter, Arthur Chapman, chap24@netzero.net. Still snow on the ground, and fields must be swampy, so I'm not sure when the HS season will actually get underway. Although the season open, officially, March 21, it might start with a lot of cancellations. The American Legion season here begins mid/late May. --Roy

I came across this in an on-line article about the A-Rod/Arroyo case, which makes the point clearer (to me) than Rule 2.00 by itself: "According to Section 6.1 of the MLB Umpire Manual, 'While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act.'" It seems like this interpretation makes a distinction between a BR hitting the fielder's glove with his body* and what A-Rod did. *Again from the article, quoting A-Rod: "'I know he was coming and I know that the line is mine. They said I could've run him over, but I went out of my way. Looking back at it, I probably should've just run him over.'"

Lurker here. Can someone cite the OBR rule that applied to the A-Rod/Arroyo play? Thanks.