Mr Umpire

I can't stand those announcers. Those 2 are some of the worst homers in the business. I have listened to them far too much. Not everything has to be verbal. Who cares if he didn't say anything, his actions did all of the talking. And, at this level, that little smirk does not go unnoticed. Especially if there is history with it. Cox is just a tool. That is pretty much how MLB managers are. Just tools used by the players so they don't get ejected themselves.

We are assuming that is what he is doing. That pitch may have been well out of his zone. F2 does have to bring the glove back in and up after catching the ball. When F2 frames a pitch, they are telling you they thought the pitch was a ball too.

3 easy EJ. And, a very lengthy report of the actions. And, if I knew about the video, I would insist on a copy. Then, file charges if for nothing more than to scare the hell out of these idiots of potential jail and lawsuit. Any medical cost will be handed to the coach and parents of these 2 morons. Also, I would not umpire softball. Too many things like this seem to happen when you mix guys into a girl's sport whether they are coaching or playing it.

Level of ball dictates how it is handled after the play is over. There is a HUGE difference between being a paid coach and being a volunteer coach. I am enforcing CI and explaining the options to the OC in anything below HS Varsity level (not age).

I agree no runs in OBR. It only matters if he missed a base he wasn't forced to.

Based on a time-consuming, waste of bandwidth thread started before, time to brush up that resume and send it in.

I am bowing as I type, which isn't easy because I am thick around the waist. Waiting for my new shin guards to come in and wanting to know how fat guys look in plate coats? I would say they look like fat guys in a plate coat? Like this if too small:

The only call to be made is if there is an appeal of if the batter touched HP or not. If he did, no out to be called still.

Hey, it isn't me this time.

This would be my reasoning as well. I saw nothing MC about it. R1 was based on reaction and how the play developed. I only see replacing him, not getting an out as well. How one interprets R1's actions depends on who is judging it.

I know this is a FED question but in OBR, B is the answer. Unless F2's initial throw retires the runner at 2B, no runners may advance. If he did, then the INT is ignored as if it didn't happen.

I agree to fix it only if the rules allow it. And, it didn't affect anything pertaining directly to the play. If either one is going to be violated (it sounds like FED would be in all situations), then leave it as foul.

Geez. It's the offseason.

Looks to me like it hit his glove first. The glove appears to move just as the ball is getting to it. Hard to tell.

Well, when I saw the video and stopped it at about 0:03, his foot is disengaging (in the act of lifting his pivot foot and possibly even moved it off the rubber some) as his body is still twisting with his hand in his glove. It's hard to get that precise moment but that is what I saw doing it frame by frame.

It may be in an interp but is not in the rules that I can find. The only one which comes close is 8.05(j) but he is throwing to a base. If there is an interp, then OK. But, otherwise, I don't see a balk for this. This happens a lot in snap throws to 1B by a left handed F1. In fact, most (if not all) pickoff moves are preceded with the hands separating as the feet begin to move. The only difference I see here is his upper body begins to twist just before the foot releases. It looks to me PU was asking if F1 actually stepped with his pivot foot back and didn't just spin on his pivot foot without stepping with his free foot. Basically, did his pivot foot gain distance to the back of the rubber or did he spin on his free foot? If he called it for spinning on free foot, I can see that as a balk if they said he didn't step back. But, if they said he stepped back, no balk.

Yes, he didn't deflect the ball and it is still a batted ball and not a deflected ball.

Not yet, we don't. Only MLB and PBUC.

Now, they don't need to look for the best of the group except who has a good strike zone. This will make the evaluators job a lot easier in PBUC.

I don't know. I wasn't there. The protest was probably held after the game was over and may not have been the same day when reviewed. Who knows.

And, that is what the umpires had on the field as well. From my understanding, if not for this video (who knows what paperwork said), this protest may not have been upheld. But, it was.

Watch the video again. Just before your still shot, BR does alter his running as F1 is beginning his slide to STILL chase the ball.

Who said that? I certainly don't believe obstruction requires contact. It requires only a change of motion or direction, which is what hindrance is, and that didn't occur with this play until the runner had to jump, and at that point the pitcher was fielding the ball. The Armbrister play is governed by an interpretation specific to the catcher and the batter-runner, so it doesn't apply. And there's nothing in that interpretation about occupying the spot or establishing position. PBUC 7.29 Batter-Runner and Catcher Collide When a catcher a batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. I didn't say it WAS the Armbrister play. I said it had very similar physics. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for the base. Same physics. However, a catcher coming from behind a runner is not the same thing as a fielder chasing a deflection from in front of the runner. Nothing the same about it. PHYSICS: Each player was doing what they were supposed to do. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for his base. No, F1 did not do what he was suppose to. He is suppose to avoid the runner when chasing his deflection.

Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable. There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed. You didn't say this? Who did?

The Armbrister play is governed by an interpretation specific to the catcher and the batter-runner, so it doesn't apply. And there's nothing in that interpretation about occupying the spot or establishing position. PBUC 7.29 Batter-Runner and Catcher Collide When a catcher a batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. I didn't say it WAS the Armbrister play. I said it had very similar physics. Pitcher going for the ball. Runner going for the base. Same physics. However, a catcher coming from behind a runner is not the same thing as a fielder chasing a deflection from in front of the runner. Nothing the same about it.