buckyswider

Thanks guys! Wasn't a particular call that made me think of it, so I was curious what it was in the different codes anyway. And yeah, now that you guys mention the 8.02(c) comment it rings a bell. I'm U(retired), so I don't read the rule book(s) religiously like I used to so my memory is failing. And I think this is the first time where I can say I like a FED rule better than OBR!! While it wasn't a "call", there was just a situation in an MLB game that made me curious, but I fabricated my play above as a "what if". In this scenario there was only a slight check swing, the U2 gave a half-hearted "safe" call then indicated that the batter had walked. Thanks again!

Hi all, I think the answer to this is the point B1 is ruled "out", but I'm not sure... 3-2, 0 or 1 outs, R1. R1 runs on the pitch. B1 checks his swing, HP ump rules a ball. F2 throws to 2nd anyway and the runner is tagged before touching second. 2B ump calls R1 "out". F2 appeals to the 1B ump who rules it a swing. So what is the correct ruling on R1, who may or may not have slowed his pace upon seeing/hearing the pitch ruled ball 4??

Thanks! I concede that there's nothing in the book that would make this anything other than what called; wondering if Barnery Dreary et. al would have opined on this in the past. IMH (and hopefully objective) O, the standard for INT for a coach should be much less in a play like this- akin to the "add to the difficulty of the fielder" as in 6.03(a)(4).

http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=659802383&topic_id=8879974&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0' Hi all, don't know if that link will work...if so, the play isn't until 2:30. Anyhow, R2 rounding third too far as coach goes into the baseline to stop him (that's not the issue). Then the ball gets thrown to 3b, F5 with ball starts chasing the runner towards home, and coach jumps out of the way and F5 does a little maneuver to avoid the 3B coach. 3U immediately gives the safe sign. R3 (formerly R2) gets caught in a rundown and is eventually tagged out. However, in the interim, R1 has advanced to 3B and scores the walkoff run on the next single. So the question is whether 3B coach is guilty of INT. Broadcaster talk (BAHAHA) was that no contact occurred so no INT. I would make the case that 6.01a(4) should apply as the coach "added to the difficultly" of F5 making the play and should've been banged dead at the time. As far as my slanted view is concerned, this play SHOULD be INT. Question is, based on current rules and interpretations, should it have been? Here's another article with an animated gif of the thing going down.... http://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/1021333 ...aha, and here's a vine loop of the play. at What say you all?? Thanks!

Ultimately? Yes. But this is a case of your head not thinking they could possibly be seeing what was happening, and defaulting to the 'accidental' diagnosis. But given the luxury of the replay from the different angle I think it's pretty certain that it was not accidental.

tomato, tomahto, but I see a pretty big difference in a hard slide and this gut punch. I've never worked that level (or anything higher than NCAA Division 3 for that matter) so I can't say for certain how I'd feel it I had that experience, but my gut tells me that I'd eject at any level (assuming I was able to interpret what was happening real time). If a guy exaggerates his backswing to crack a catcher over the head to prevent him from making a throw, does that also fall under 'just trying to gain an advantage'?

I think nothing happened. This happened in the 2nd, and the box shows Quintero getting 3ABs from the 7 hole. One of the sites mentioning this also says something about Quintero being involved in a bench-clearing brawl later in the game. No mentions of any ejection in the box, either.

Weirdness in Pawtucket the other night (or the other team's park!) R2 attempted steal of third.  Pitch is a called strike.  Catcher almost punches the batter in the gut as he throws the ball directly into his midsection.  Seems pretty obvious (at least from this vantage point and repeated viewings) that it was intentional.  Do you toss him?   And/or, if this is K3, do you have INT??    98034083 Your browser does not support iframes.   (not sure if MiLB video works with the embed code; here's the link:  http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=98034083 )

Thanks! Good conversation. I should really visit the forum regularly as I enjoy this type of rules picadilliea. And to be clear upfront, I'm not disagreeing- I do think this is definitely a no-call situation- but where does the precedent for the definition of the "hitting action" come from? And has MLB every issued any kind of approved ruling on this? It does have to be recent, because prior to reply in 2014 there is no possibility of this circumstance ever needing a ruling...

Thanks all. I do agree that the original intent of the rule is to deal with a bat on the ground, but that is not explicitly coded, nor is this situation is explicitly excluded. And yes, it's impossible to call with the naked eye, but replay changes this. I know if I was a manager and this happened at a critical time I'd probably challenge and/or protest based on the wording of the rule. So I was really wondering if this had ever been discussed and/or any official interpretations have been proffered.

Weirdest thing I've every seen (OK, may be a little hyperbole there ). PHL vs. Wash., 4/17/15, bottom 7. Washington batter (Zimmerman) swings, the ball hits the bat down lower on the handle, swing continues and the ball then hits the down near the end of the bat and into the outfield for a bloop single. The bat did break, but was still whole when the second contact occurred (and if the explanation wasn't obvious, it was still in the batter's hands). http://m.mlb.com/video/v80490683 6.05(h) says: After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play. If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 6.03, and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball; Now I know that there's no way a human umpire can see this and make a call. But would this play be reviewable? And if it was reviewed, could it/should it be ruled a foul ball under 6.05(h)? Thanks!

Interesting takes, thanks all. Doesn't look like we're going to come to a consensus on the final call, but I'd like to figure out where along the line we differ. I'm agreeing with richvee in #8- by the time the B/R gets to F1, the ball is a good 4-5 feet away towards F3 (powered by deflection, not a throw, it fhat means anything). Maven, reading through your sequence- If we consider F1's final deflection as "throwing" in your point #3, wouldn't protection end there , and as such F1 needs to "disappear" at that point also? I concur on Vanover's mechanics, though. Even though there are absolutely situations where a timely call is necessary, too many guys rush and try to do too much and end up tangled up in incidental mechanics or a premature call. Even if he had considered obstruction, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea there to wait a beat or two to let the entire scenario sink into your grey matter before signaling the DDB. Especially on situations like this that you'll only see once in a lifetime. Also, thanks guys for the affirmation about contact not being required for obstruction in any "baseball" code. My experience was from softball, and I actually got this (that contact is a necessity) from the ASA national umpire in chief at that time.

Thanks, OP here again, I finally checked my spam folder for my registration email. Wondering where the blurb I quoted from Jaksa/Roder came from. (other than that book, I mean. . Is it an interpretation or in a rule book somewhere? (1) Concerning obstruction and a batted ball: A fielder's "try to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing, or deflecting the ball, and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction (2.00) afaber12, yes, that is quite possible that Vanover thought that the pitcher was still playing the ball when initial 'obstruction' occurred. I don't think that's the case from the 2nd look, certainly understandable that that's how it would look live. Also, I'm wondering- does anyone know if contact *does* need to occur for obstruction to occur under MLB code? (at least in this circumstance, not considering things like verbal obstruction). I think my views on that might be from an official ruling I got from the ASA umpire-in-chief many years ago, but not sure if I ever confirmed it to also be true in other codes....