MooseLoop

Definitions of Terms 2016 Official Baseball Rules {same in all rulesets} A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that is on or over fair territory when bounding to the outfield past first or third base, or that touches first, second or third base, or that first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base, or that, while on or over fair territory touches the person of an umpire or player, or that, while over fair territory, passes out of the playing field in flight. A fair fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the fielder is on fair or foul territory at the time he touches the ball. Comment: If a fly ball lands in the infield between home and first base, or home and third base, and then bounces to foul territory without touching a player or umpire and before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball; or if the ball settles on foul territory or is touched by a player on foul territory, it is a foul ball. If a fly ball lands on or beyond first or third base and then bounces to foul territory, it is a fair hit. A batted ball not touched by a fielder, which hits the pitcher’s rubber and rebounds into foul territory, between home and first, or between home and third base is a foul ball. A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground. A foul fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the infielder is on foul or fair territory at the time he touches the ball. (Foul Ball) Comment: A batted ball not touched by a fielder, which hits the pitcher’s rubber and rebounds into foul territory, between home and first, or between home and third base is a foul ball. If a fly ball lands in the infield between home and first base, or home and third base, and then bounces to foul territory without touching a player or umpire and before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball; or if the ball settles on foul territory or is touched by a player on foul territory, it is a foul ball. If a fly ball lands on or beyond first or third base and then bounces to foul territory, it is a fair hit.

If you want a precise measurement guideline, IMHO, no more than two ballwidths outside at the belt, maybe no more than one ballwidth inside. The younger batters, like 9-10yo, often can't reach farther out than that. But the right strike zone balances out the quality of the pitching with the quality of the batting to achieve the appropriate balance between offense and defense. Determining appropriateness requires judgment, which requires experience. But if the pitching really sucks, . . .

I'm not sure what you mean by the "ball beats the runner to the bag" because the ball has to be caught, as that word is defined in the rules, by a fielder, and a tag, as that word is defined by the rules, must be made on a runner. Obstruction is also defined in the rules. Some rulesets, like high school fastpitch (FED) and I am guessing ASA slowpitch, allow a fielder to impede (including slowing down or changing the path) the progress of a runner only if the fielder has possession of the ball or is fielding a batted ball, as that term is defined in the rules. Other rulesets, like Major League Baseball's Official Baseball Rules, allow a fielder also to impede the progress of the runner if the fielder is in the act of fielding a thrown ball. Your league hires umpires to know and enforce these rules. So if you were playing under a ruleset that prohibits a fielder from impeding the progress of a runner without possession of the ball, and the runner slowed down or changed their path as a result of your fielder's position on the field without possession of the ball, that is obstruction. Even if the ball beats the runner to the bag, because maybe the obstruction is what allowed the ball to beat the runner to the bag. Maybe without the obstruction, the fielder would have lost the ball on the tag. Without a video, it is hard for anyone who was not there to make a better judgment. Your umpires' judgment was that it was obstruction. Their judgment calls are the judicial truth. That's why you hire them. Now go grab a beer.

I'm pretty sure that ASA softball rules define obstruction as possible even if the fielder taking a throw is in the process of fielding the ball, In other words, only actual possession of the ball immunizes the fielder from possible obstruction. If the fielder did not get possession until the runner was only six feet away and the fielder was straddling the basepath blocking the base, it is possible that the runner altered his or her progress to the base before the fielder got possession of the ball. This would be obstruction. Must have been, because both umpires called it. In Division D coed slow pitch softball, a player who sincerely believes that he or she was the victim of a wrong call is entitled to an extra beer.

Part of fixing a wrong call is placing the runners where they would have been but for the wrong call. If I'm the plate umpire and the home coach convinced me my out-at-home call was wrong, in correcting my error, I would place the runner from second back at third, since she almost certainly would not have scored if I had called the runner from third safe and the catcher was standing on home plate with the ball. So game tied, two outs, next batter.

Yeah, it's like the court hearing where wife's attorney is trying to prove adultery as grounds for a divorce: Lawyer: Isn't it true that you had sexual relations with Mr. Jones in Miami? Witness: No! Lawyer: Isn't it true you had sexual relations with Mr. Jones in Atlanta? Witness: No, that's not true! Lawyer: Isn't it true you had sexual relations with Mr. Jones in New Orleans? Witness: I refuse to answer that question!

And it's not measured when the ball is released, it's when the pitch begins. OBR 6.02(a)(12): " (12) The pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher’s box".

Aha. If a moving batted ball has enough momentum to make it to DBT even though it's not going in that direction, if the direction is unintentionally changed by a rock or a glove or a foot and the ball then goes into DBT, the award is still from time of pitch. But if the glove or the foot not only changes the direction, but also adds the needed momentum or impetus to reach DBT, then the award is time of throw (deflection). And any intentional deflection will be time of throw (deflection). So in my scenario (b), where R1 is rounding third and would have scored but F7 was lucky enough to have unintentionally deflected the ball into DBT instead of cleanly fielding it in LBT, the defense benefits from its misplay. I presume we give the offense the benefit of doubt.

Say you are on an open field where the ground rules specified that the extension of the backstop fence marks dead ball territory down both foul lines. Maybe the DBT line is even chalked. R1. B2 hits a slicing ground ball down the left field line. As F7 catches up to the ball, R1 is almost to third and will certainly cross the plate before a throw could get there. The ball, if left untouched, would roll into DBT. F7 (a) lets the ball roll dead, like an F5 letting a bunt roll foul, even though he could easily have fielded the ball; (b) in the process of trying to field the ball, unintentionally deflects it into DBT; or (c) intentionally slaps the ball into DBT. Or the ball, if left untouched, would have stopped in LBT. F7, without ever having "complete possession", (d) unintentionally provides the impetus to deflect the ball into dead ball territory; or (e) intentionally deflects the ball into DBT. Award two bases from time of pitch?

My comment was directed to Wild's question of "what the justification is for calling the FORCE out at 2nd since the batter never touched 1B." OBR's definition of "force play" covers that question thoroughly: "A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner. (Force Play) Comment: Confusion regarding this play is removed by remembering that frequently the “force” situation is removed during the play." The examples in the comment make clear that once the BR is out, the force is removed. The converse is that until the force is removed, the force play is still in effect. It's not a time play in the usual meaning of that term, to determine whether a run scored before the third out is made. But it does involve timing in the sense that if a fielder touches the forced-to base while in possession of the ball before the forced runner touches the base, the out stands even if the force is removed later in the play. As for the BR immediately abandoning/deserting before the force out, OBR 5.09(b)(2) and FED 8-4-2-p both require the BR to reach first base before he can be judged to have abandoned his baserunning responsibilities and ruled out. We had a thread this past spring about batter desertion in which the conclusion that I drew was that the BR (except on a D3K) is not out even if he goes into the dugout unless he delays the game. Apparently Jaska/Roder has an interpretation that would allow you to get an out for a BR failing to run, but that seems at best to be a minority view. The abandonment rules' specific prerequisite that the BR reach first base argues against that view. In your scenario, I would eventually say something like "that batter-runner is not out", maybe with a "that's nothing" mechanic. And then await further action or non-action. I cannot imagine that R1 will not have reached second before BR would be out for delaying the game. The last line of my post related to our then-recent discussion of force outs and advantageous fourth outs. Please note that my comment was a parody, intended to be sung to the tune of the theme from the 60's TV show "Mr. Ed". Although I was not consciously aware of it at the time of my post, I must have felt a disturbance in the Force, because Alan Young, Mr. Ed's co-star, had passed on to that Great Pasture in the Sky the day before. Here's a link to the theme song, but I must warn that it is an earworm; listen past the first verse at your peril.

Little League rules allow maximum of three visits per pitcher per game, with a maximum of two visits per pitcher per inning, at least for majors (12 years old) and below. USSSA uses OBR/MLB rules. FED has a maximum of three visits per regulation game, regardless of number of pitchers. I would suspect your umpire was applying LL rules.

See OBR Definition of Terms - Force Play: A force is a force, of course, of course. Until something happens to remove the force. That is, of course, unless the force is the famous advantageous fourth out.

Coach was testing the new ump. You passed the test.

Sounds right to me. FED 8-4-2-c: Any runner is out when he . . . does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him. Penalty: The runner is out, the ball remains live unless interference is called. I had this same play a couple of weeks ago, except the catcher held onto the ball. I called the runner out, thought about and decided against malicious contact. The runner has to slide, run around, or give himself up, as I understand it. Since runner was too far from plate to get there on a slide, and running around would likely violate the three-foot rule, his only choice was to give up. He essentially did this by running into the catcher without trying to injure or dislodge the ball. (My BU issued a team warning to the catcher's team, but that's another story.)

It is difficult for right-handed pitchers in the set position to step towards first base without the beginning of the non-pivot leg movement being towards home plate, which requires them to pitch the ball to the batter. So no rule requires the pitcher to step off before throwing to first base, but as a practical matter, the pitcher is flirting with a start-and-stop balk if he does not.

That is arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.

I had one yesterday where the right-handed batter fell back onto the wet dirt to avoid a way-inside wild pitch/passed ball and was getting up out of the mud as the catcher was throwing to third on R2 late stealing. Borderline hindrance and R2 probably would have been safe anyway. Low level varsity high school game where batter's team was getting trounced. I judged that the falling down was permissible, equivalent to a swing, but that the getting up was extraneous movement.

Me too. Their postgame wrap and Kruk & Kuip on Baseball are available as podcasts on the KNBR website, for anyone really interested.

Everybody knows that the BRD is the word.

If PU had said "no catch" instead of "out", catcher who picked the ball probably would either have tagged BR or thrown BR out at first. The out stands. Since I am not pretty damn sure that runners would have advanced, leave them on their bases.

Well, yes, in this timeline. Obviously someone from Biff Tannen's family went back to the future and altered history, apparently by finding out what pitches the Cubs were going to throw and tipping off Daniel Murphy.

My standard is: pretty damn sure. Pretty sure is not enough, damn sure is too much.

The calls are: ball, that's nothing, safe, and safe. The explanation is that the batter did not hinder or impede the catcher, in fact may have helped the catcher, in making a play, and that in my judgment, there was no play to be made anyway. So no interference, double steal.

Radio announcer Jon Miller said a few minutes after play resumed that the review umps let stand the no-call of spectator interference in a tone that implied official knowledge. I agree that the idiot fan did not touch the ball, that it caught the underneath of the pad. Anyone think running lane interference? BR running out of the lane in fair territory, ball was catchable, albeit maybe with extraordinary effort since it bounced right at the bag, and arguably F3 (a beat-up Brandon Belt) refrained from diving for it to avoid BR colliding with him. Is RLI reviewable?

I would not have called this a FPSR violation before reading this thread, but I will from now on. I did not appreciate that the whole body (legs trunk and arms) must slide directly into the base. The baseball fan in me does not like this rule. Trying to break up the double play, and the fielder turning a double play in spite of the runner's attempt, are things of beauty. So thanks for this post, and thanks RichVee for the link to the useful video.