MooseLoop

Can someone please cite the OBR rule or interpretation that says catcher's interference on a steal of home is a balk? I neither see a balk here nor see an umpire calling a balk. The ball did not slip out of the pitcher's hand, he was not giving an intentional walk. Seems like straightforward CI, batter gets first, and all other runners advance as forced. Then the coach has an option to take the play instead of the penalty. Since the runner was out, the coach would take the penalty that forces his R3 to score.

Reread the definitions of fair and foul balls. Once the ball has touched the ground before passing third or first base untouched, its fair/foul status depends on whether any part of the ball is on or over fair territory as it bounds past the base. Umpire judgment as to when the ball passes the base, and where the ball is in midair as it passes. The fielder's position, or the ball's position when the fielder touches it, is irrelevant. If the ball touches the ground and then touches the fielder, including his glove, before bounding over or past the base, then the fair/foul status depends on the ball's position when it first touches a non-ground object. So if the fielder was leaning forward with his foot on third base, and the ball touched his glove while partially or wholly over fair territory before passing the base, the ball is fair, even if it ticks off the glove and passes the base in foul territory. But if the fielder is leaning behind the base, and the ball passes the base before touching his glove, then the position of the glove does not matter; only the position of the ball at the instant it passes the base matters. I notice both the FED and OBR definitions of fair and foul balls use the phrase "on or over". If a ball is adjudged to be partially over foul territory and partially over fair territory at the time of determining its fair/foul status, it is fair.

One balk warning per pitcher is a common local rule in my youth ballgames below age 12, and is discussed in the plate meeting. The rule is rarely written, and never deals with the nuances of not enforcing balks. I tell the coaches that if I think the balk affects a play, I'll place the runners, sort of like obstruction. (In my mind, "sort of" does not include an automatic one-base award.) They often get an oh-yeah look in their eyes, confirming that the issue never occurred to them. They then agree. Most balks do not involve a runner advancing or being put out, and I am surprised at how little I have to get involved. And I never have had an argument about runner placement on a balk warning. I do urge a "see a balk, call a balk" rule as being a more effective teaching tool, but most dad coaches feel that is too harsh.

I would think that the subsequent two-base time-of-throw award would discourage intentional throws out of play.

The case plays (e.g., 8.3.2.G) make it plain (to me) that a fielder in possession of the ball can legally hinder a runner. But the above is a situation where a fielder hinders a runner, fitting the inartful literal definition of obstruction. Whose apparent purpose is to protect fool runners who heed voices they do not know are on their side.

So FED rules, R1, less than 2 outs. B hits a sinking soft line drive deep between second base and F4. F4 makes a diving catch attempt, catches the ball on a short hop, then yells "back! back!" R1 responds by retreating to first. F4 gets up and runs over and steps on second. F4, while in possession of the ball, has obstructed R1. Thanks

But read literally, as I tend to do, a fielder in possession of the ball who does not deny the runner access to a base, but who does hinder the runner or changes the pattern of play, is still guilty of obstruction. I'm curious about whether there is a reason the language was left out of 2-22-1.

Okay, I see 2-22-3 also defines obstruction as "The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve."

Why does FED not include the words "while not in possession of the ball' in its definition of obstruction? (2-22-1: "Obstruction is an act . . . by a fielder . . . that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play . . ..") Does the possession exception only appear in the casebook?

Thank you for that, MidAmUmp! A lot of fellow umps tell me the navel is the very top in varsity high school. Of course, the sternum is a pretty long bone. For myself, I define the midpoint as where the lowest attached ribs connect to the sternum, right where the xyphoid process (that little finger-like doohickey at the bottom) attaches to the bottom of the body of the sternum. That's my rulebook top of the strike zone from which I adjust for the skill level of the game. As the batter first approaches the plate, I determine how high his xyphoid will be when he swings at a normal pitch. Then I note the batter's crouch as he prepares for the pitch to see how much lower his xyphoid gets (often four to six inches) to avoid being fooled by the crouch. When the ball passes the plate, I apply my expansion adjustment for that game. I sometimes can first doublecheck the top as the batter stands after the pitch. I then make my call. http://www.innerbody.com/image_chest1/skel16.html

Perhaps the test is designed to test our ability to make a decision in ambiguous confusing circumstances with incomplete information.

So if our F3 is set up in a position that allows R1 a clear path to the base, and the pitcher's or catcher's throw draws him into impeding the runner, then probably no obstruction? But if F3 is set up in an obstructing position, and he impedes the runner while receiving the throw, then possibly/probably obstruction? And if F3 unnecessarily moves into an obstructing position while receiving the throw (e.g., dropping the leg in front of the entire base), probably obstruction.

Since OBR defines obstruction to require that the fielder not be in the act of fielding the ball, can someone articulate how a first baseman obstructs an R1 returning to 1B on a pickoff from the pitcher or a throwdown by the catcher? Isn't F3 about to receive the throw the instant it is released?

Baseball for All is a national organization for bringing baseball to girls. http://www2.baseballforall.com/

Mason and Dixon's line turns southish when it gets to Delaware, so part of NJ is east of the Mason-Dixon line, although that part is south of MPBX (Maryland-Pennsylvania border extended).

I like the guy measuring the distance to the rubber starting from the front of the plate, rather than the point. Epitomizes their blithe belief in the accuracy of technology.

I would not have a strike. Batter did not rotate his hips enough into the pitch and the bat was still back as the ball passed through the back of the hitting zone. Did not feel like an attempt to strike the ball. Very close though. I would have no argument with a strike call.

FED 6-3-2: "The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout or putout made by the catcher, or to play on a base runner. PENALTY: The batter is awarded a ball." That would be ball 4 and a base on balls. Oh, wait. That's FED fast pitch softball, at least in 2014.

Not sure I understand your comment, but I think we are supposed to ignore the "Yeah". Would you deprive the defense of an out it deserved and give the offense a second chance it did not deserve? That being said, I might be tempted, depending on the actual situation, to adjudge that I could not say for sure that R1 would not have successfully retreated to first base, and therefore award him first.

And if, in the umpire's judgment, the runner was dead meat at the time of the balk call (in other words, runner likely would have been tagged out, even after a rundown), negating the balk and calling the out would be the right call.

OBR 6.01(a) Batter or Runner Interference: "It is interference by a batter or a runner when: (1) After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch; . . . . . . (5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate . . .; " [Emphasis added.] Since catcher was making a play on a runner already attempting to steal, runner is out, whereas if runner advanced as result of a U3K interference, then runner would return if not thrown out.

Small claims court would involve figuring out the how-to on small claims court, which county to file in, filling out the complaint, filing the complaint, paying the filing fee, hiring a process server, serving the defendant, preparing for and attending the hearing, putting on your case with documentation of your claims, maybe getting a judgment, and trying to enforce a judgment. His version of the transaction will be different than yours. Who knows what a judge will do with it. I'd guess you may get a judgment for $86.20, plus the filing and process-server fees. You might get nothing and be out the fees. It ain't worth it. You would be better off sending the guy a dozen red roses and forgetting about it.

OBR 8.01(d): Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field. . . . Is malicious contact not unsportsmanlike?

Angel Pagan is a hard-working, highly-skilled, clutch-hitting, quiet-strength, team-leader professional baseball player. Might currently be frustrated by his team's second-half swoon.

PU at third base first points to the contact, then glances at the ball, then (without signaling time) pump-points toward home, which is the same direction as the obstruction. U1 at home plate then points to the plate while walking away from any possible play call there. I deduce that PU called type 2 obstruction, saw the ball go into dead ball territory, and awarded BR home, perhaps simultaneously verbally calling time. A rotation and calls of beauty.