Mr Umpire

It may be but a throw hitting the batter and the player hitting the batter are not the same thing. Interference with a throw requires intent. Hindering a player with the ball does not. 7.09(d) specifically does not mention anything about intent. Hindering is defined as: Impeding the catcher in his attempt to tag a runner at the plate. Getting in the way of a throw from the catcher to another fielder to retire a runner at the plate. Hitting a throw to the plate from the pitcher after he has disengaged his pitching rubber, thinking it is a pitch. per the HW R&I book, as it applies to this situation. The batter's box belongs to the batter. A batter is not required to vacate his batting position in order to avoid hindering a play at the plate. A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere. According to the staff at Wendelstedt's, no interference on the play. The batter did nothing but stand in the box. Again, this is not one where your case play applies. The batter is not being called out for INT. The runner is being called out for it under 7.09(d). This has nothing to do with a batter. It has everything to do with a member of the offensive team. Big difference. He is no longer just the batter once the ball went past F2 and he has time to move out of the way.

It may be but a throw hitting the batter and the player hitting the batter are not the same thing. Interference with a throw requires intent. Hindering a player with the ball does not. 7.09(d) specifically does not mention anything about intent.

7.11 does not apply b/c there is no throw or batted ball. It is a passed ball and F2 already has the ball in hand. Cannot interfere with a throw or batted ball if there is not one or attempted one if a thrown ball. While the rule coincides closely with 7.09(d) for the same result, it does not mean the same thing. And, once it is a passed ball and no longer in the immediate vicinity of HP, 7.09© no longer applies either. The only reason I make these distinctions is for protest purposes. While the ruling of an out is the same, explaining it for a protest is not. If you cite the wrong rule, it stands a chance of the protest being upheld b/c the board is confused or doesn't agree the rule applies. But, if you cite the correct one (in this case, any member of the offensive team), then you are more likely to get the protest thrown out b/c there is no question he is a member of the offensive team and the runner was called out for his actions.

Not really, just stupid.

I don't. I let the fans and coaches call them for me. They know my zone better than me.

So be it. I'm thin-skinned.

The same thing when people say players aren't as good as past players. So much more instruction, nutrition and physical training now days. There is no way Luciano can see the ball the way he is hiding behind the catcher. Especially with that balloon. What a pussy. Do you not have any respect for the dead? Or for a fellow brother in umpiring lost? Unbelievable. Rats aren't the only ones without a sense of humor, apparently. Lighten up, Francis Well, if it was suppose to be funny, it was in poor taste.

Is there an article that shows there was any history? Any conversation? All I see is something that wasn't preventable but only by F1 as such in the OP unless there was rule violation about it. Again, saying something to the F2 about how he may get hit, ok. Saying something to the coach, ok. And, if I get questioned, yes, my answer will be "He was not doing anything against the rules." And, I will not lose any sleep over it b/c I was within the rules. How the players chose to handle it is on them, not me. Nothing to prevent b/c nothing has happened up to that point. The only thing which can be preventable is payback from the other team.

I guess you missed the part about EJ F1 and F2 immediately following the first time. There will only be 2 at that point and their coach if he argues any about it. It won't go on for very long. And, when it is handled then, the stars of the show will still be the 2 players leaving the field.

Again, it relies on making up something just to fit the situation. It is not unsportsmanlike to talk to the batter. What is unsportsmanlike is the umpire sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. If he wants to warn F2 of what may happen, fine. But, do not pose it as a "Knock it off" statement. And, do not try to extend a rule to fit just to make yourself sound like you know something or are itching to call something where nothing exists. When an umpire starts expanding rules where the rule does not apply, that is a slippery slope and where do you stop sliding down it.

The problem for CB isn't that he misses a call here and there. It just seems that he has a bad habit of stringing a few of them together either in the same game (which I know we have all done) or through several back to back games. Then, as media does, he gets singled out.

Well, the problem is MLB won't take anyone unless they have been to umpire school. In fact, I think Jim Evans might have even been the last one they took before making that standard. Not sure about that but I believe it was right about the same time he got in. That is why the school excuse comes up. Other professions don't all require that. It was an arbritrary decision with the best intentions of getting the best out there. But, it doesn't work that way since it is hard to get to the school due to finances or any other reason. So, the MLB gets the best available at the time of an opening. What I would like to see is a stat of how many calls are correct (using IR I know and it isn't fair) for the ones which are close to call. Then, we would get a much better idea of who is really good and who isn't at it. It's easy to get about 90% of the calls correct. Most umpires do b/c in that 90% are the really easy ones which can be called from the next state over. Getting to that extra 5% or more is the difficult part. Maybe even 93% is the easy part and getting just 2% more separates the descent from the best in the league at the time.

A conversation with the intent to distract is the exact same thing regardless who is saying it and what the responsibilities of the players at the moment are. This is a conversation between F2 and the batter. One is speaking and one is listening. Both do not have to be speaking. And, as I and Jocko said, if F2 doesn't stop, then what?

How is it not "fair play"? What is he doing which is not in accordance to the rules? The batter has the option to not listen. F3's talk to R1's all the time. There are MLB videos to show that. Should U1 be telling them to "knock it off" b/c it may be distracting R1 and he gets picked off? What about F6 hitting his glove to attempt to get the runner to think he is coming in for a pick off? This is a very slippery slope to start down.

My question is: What if he doesn't 'knock it off'? Then what? And, if this is what his coach wants him to do (though I find it hard to believe his coach would want him telling pitches), you are the umpire noticed. You just stuck your nose where it doesn't belong and the coach will probably let you know it. I think you are in a no-win situation especially if you feel the need to do something where the rules don't apply to you doing so. And, using the unsportsmanlike rule is a MAJOR stretch. Nothing unsporting about distracting the batter as long as he is not doing so illegally (Here, he is not unless you want to be a red-ass). I don't agree with letting things go without a warning but the OP missed the chance to send a real warning by not removing F1 and F2. I am getting rid of both of them without a second thought. And, one word from a coach and he will join them. Plus, as soon as the league gets my report, a warning from them may come as well to hit this team even more for their stupidity. I just don't think this is an area for an umpire to get involved in. Disregard the age, would you interfere with a college catcher? Again, disregard the age and think about it. Even though these are kids, there are still adults involved who may be teaching them this.

Manny, Relax. Please Someone asked if anyone was surprised to see CB on the post season list. I said 'yes'.... So what? It's not like someone has called for a public flogging of the man ...... I've simply noticed a rash of bashing certain MLB umpires on the board lately and no one is saying anything to the contrary, so I decided to. My post was not directed at any one individual, and it wasn't that specific question that prompted the response. So rather than just assuming things, how 'bout asking me? I'm totally approachable and am always willing to listen and talk. I am as relaxed as can be, nor am I uptight. I am just principled, and I stand behind my beliefs. That's not to say anyone else is not. If you have only just noticed a "rash of bashing" on CB, you haven't been here long enough.

I guess the defensive team name was fitting for this video.

Actually, I probably would award the other bases as well. Sending a runner out there to complete it is adding "insult to injury" no matter how you look at it. If it isn't the original runner doing so, it is another. And, to prevent any from saying something even to the replacement runner, I would not send another out. Especially since we do not work MLB games, we have no idea what some idiot player will do even if it isn't the one who hit the ball. These are professional players, we do not deal with professional players. An injury is one thing to send a runner out for. A potential brawl is not.

That's not the correct interpretation of that rule. The intent of 8.04 is pace-of-play. I would not/have not ever called it - but its there. All I was saysing was that IF that was the reason U1 called a ball it would have had rule support. Then, he better have a stop watch sitting on 12 seconds when he makes that call. No- This works equally well: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12 Yeah, pull that one and you won't make it out of any decent level game. And, may not call anymore for a while. There is a reason NCAA required U2 to have a stopwatch (if they still do that). Did not rely on any person's count due to any possible distractions and the count getting changed either too fast or too slow. It's called judgment. It's in the rules for a reason. I'm not saying you should get picky - but it is there. And I think I can count to 12 and tie my shoes at the same time Nothing judgment about it. Either it is 12 seconds or it isn't. You cannot judge 12 seconds. This is now way off topic and useless to the topic. I just suggest no umpire pull this nor think about it. Especially new umpires. Forget this thread or posts ever occurred. New umpires: DO NOT THINK ABOUT CALLING THIS EVER. Even NCAA umpires avoid this unless it just becomes REALLY bad by the pitcher.

Poor angle to be truly definitive. The question is, for me, did his back foot go behind the rubber or more towards 3B for a jab step? I think it went behind the rubber and thus, no balk. No way to tell in regular motion if both feet are moving at the same time or not. I have no balk b/c both movements don't appear to be simultaneous. The back foot appears to hit the ground before the front foot moves.

Only time will tell how a play like this will affect a game. That is why IR in baseball is not the same as it is in football. In football, it is usually a matter of did the ball get into the inzone or was it a catch. If overturned, the play still ends where the ball was. In baseball, as ricka points out, what do you do if the call is overturned? The play doesn't end where the ball is. It continues or could have if the play was not called a certain way.

Well, if we want to take the interpreted meaning of a play as being a legitimate chance to retire a runner, then Larry brings up a good point. The BR does have a chance to be put out (on appeal) if he doesn't touch all bases. Thus, it is a legitimate chance to retire a runner if he doesn't touch all bases and the defense did not allow him to touch all bases during the "play". The only thing which would nullify that is to disallow an appeal and score the run. As I mentioned before, the definition of OBS does not say it only applies to a "live" ball. And, if a play is defined as a legitimate chance to retire a runner (even on appeal), then this falls within the definition. Following that logic, OBS is absolutely the correct ruling.

Not unless there is a rule violation. Poor judgment is not a rule violation. He called him safe b/c he initially saw the runner as safe (or, poorly, assumed the runner safe). Either way, not a rules violation plus, if he gets that call overturned, he better hang it up. He will have no validation to be on the field anymore. Some would say he doesn't have it anyway but that is a different story.

with undue respect, IDGAF if you agree with me or not. My UIC and everyone that matters does. I only asked for this thread to be locked to avoid conflict. Chime in all you want. But don't get your feelings hurt at responses YOU may receive. Guaranteed I won't. Well, hmmm, ok. I'm going to guess "YOU" is not directed at me but someone else who took something personal as I have never taken anything personal from here or any other forum. It sounds like you are taking a disagreement personally, not me. All I was saying was how some may not agree but if I saw the circumstances, I may have agreed.

That's not the correct interpretation of that rule. The intent of 8.04 is pace-of-play. I would not/have not ever called it - but its there. All I was saysing was that IF that was the reason U1 called a ball it would have had rule support. Then, he better have a stop watch sitting on 12 seconds when he makes that call. No- This works equally well: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12 Yeah, pull that one and you won't make it out of any decent level game. And, may not call anymore for a while. There is a reason NCAA required U2 to have a stopwatch (if they still do that). Did not rely on any person's count due to any possible distractions and the count getting changed either too fast or too slow.