Mike Walsh

It might be a good idea to consider what was written after the highlighted area: or sink into the conception that all coaches are rats (which is going to be a self fulfilling prophecy). EXPECTATION OFTEN BECOMES REALITY. It may be a reality for you because of your expectations. Mike

Interference does not require intent. Mike

Good point. I can't see any way he didn't cross the back edge. It's just not possible. Mike

It was only the 2nd batter of the game. Im surprised they needed to go to replay. I would have expected some of the umpires on the crew to know the count.

I wasn't kidding about not enforcing it. If they return to the vicinity, they've met the intent of the rule. A long as they are ready, and have not gained an advantage, all is well. Mike

How about making runners retouch after a foul ball?

Football is a team sport. When they are penalized, they are as a team. I think you are 100% correct. It is in the best interest of the sport to give the team the death penalty for the season. There should be consequences for actions, and sometimes, those consequences affect others. Mike

I'd agree completely with you if he hadn't said, "Until then." This has to play out with due process. What you want is absolutely needed, and it should happen in a deliberate manner, without a rush to justice. In the meantime, the Internet is doing a preliminary job of getting a public outcry against the behavior. Mike

Also, if you don't call it and the runners end up where they would have been anyway, you can still have coaches yelling at you that it was obstruction, or interference, and they'll want you to act. If you called it, you say I had it, coach, and he was protected to 3rd, where he ended up. Mike

Rule 1, Section 3, Article 2.b.3. Barrel. The barrel is the area intended for contact with the pitch. The barrel shall be round, cylindrically symmetric and smooth. The barrel may be aluminum, wood or composite (made of two or more materials). The type of bat (wood, aluminum or composite) shall be determined by the composition of the barrel. So a bat with a composite handle and wood barrel is a wood bat. Rule 1, Section 3, Article 2.d. Bats that are not made of a single piece of wood shall meet the Batted Ball Coefficient of Restitution (BBCOR) performance standard... So, yes, a wood bat can require a BBCOR silk screen. Mike

I bet only one of them did! Mike

I'm not familiar with football rules, but the article said, "The penalties stemming from the incident gave Marble Falls a first down." It makes sense I guess, something like unsportsmanlike conduct, ejection, and a 15 yard penalty. In BB, all we would have is an ejection, but there wouldn't be any disadvantage to the defensive team.

I'd like to see the official press criminal assault charges against them. Mike

I don't think it was INT because, like Maven said, F2 was not hindered. But we don't apply judgment to how much he was hindered, and the fielder's weak tag attempt doesn't change that. If there is any hinderance at all, the batter is out, unless the any runner trying to advance is called out on the initial attempt. Mike

Thanks. I was inactive for quite a while. What brought me back (and got me posting) was an email from Warren inviting me to become active again. Mike

I haven't been able to find info on how this site works, although for the important aspects it's intuitive enough to figure out. I can follow posts, reply, start a new post, search, etc. But I haven't been able to figure out why my status shows up as inactive. Currently, I can see in the Who's Online info that there are: 17 Members, 0 Anonymous, 29 Guests . Since I joined, I assume I am not a guest. My name appears when I post, so I'm not anonymous. That leaves member, but since I am contributing every now and then, I feel active. I wondered if there is payment feature that would allow members who are active to participate on some higher level, but if there is, I can't find any reference to it. Any insight? Will I simply pass from inactive to active after a certain number of posts? Thanks. Mike

Since the umpire is outside, a step to the left improves the angle and gets him closer to 1st base. Even though the initial tag is the first priority, you can't put 100% of effort into it. Since the BU was in B, it's safe to assume 2-man mechanics. There may be a double play attempt, and even with 2 outs, if the tag is missed, there may be a play at 1st base. You need to be in position for the following play, too. Mike

It's not only a matter of timing. Only one umpire has the call, so waiting for your partner's call is not the answer, either. Without seeing the play, it's tough for anyone to say for sure, but there is another possibility. If it was touched over fair territory, it was fair. If the ball was over foul territory when F1 touched it, it was foul. If it first touched fair territory and rolled foul untouched before reaching 1st base, it would be a foul ball. Unless F1 had his back to you and touched the ball near his chest, you should have been in good position to see it. Were you straddling the line? If your were blocked by F2, did you step off the line just far enough to get a good look? Since it was your call, you should have been in position to get it right the first time. Correcting your mechanic in how you see the play may be the real answer to avoiding multiple, conflicting calls. Mike

It's a good idea to put your mask on before stepping into the slot. If F1's not going to wait for you, he could just as easily be pitching instead of trying a pick-off. Mike

In the OP the runners did not advance, so they were still on base when their advance bases were tagged. The IFF would be the only out. But why would you return runners to the TOP base if they were tagged off base? The 7.4.1 Situation G is clear. F4 unintentionally drops the ball but picks it up and tags R2 who is off the base. RULING: The half-inning is over as R2's out is the third out. Your ruling doesn't technically go against the FED ruling, it is diametrically opposed to it. We cannot make up rules, or worse, change rules we do not like. Mike

No, the 3rd out was recored after the 2nd out, which was the BR's fly ball being caught. Mike

​I teach umpires for my high school association. I like to know the intent of rules to help us understand how to implement them (e.g., IFF rule is to protect the runners). I agree that this is not the umpires' job, but I'm not sure just telling the so isn't overridden by hearing others suggest that nose to toes is something to strive for. I'll start using your logic as a way to explain it to the cadets starting next year. Don't get me wrong, I like strikes, but being consistent is not good if it means consistently wrong. Thanks. Mike Mike

​Upon further review... yes he did know. Nevertheless, I still want the HC to initiate the discussion with the calling umpire, and the calling umpire should be the one who goes to his partner. I understand that the goal is to get it right, but get it right the right way. Mike

​In the OP, the PU did not know it was a misapplication of the rule. It might have been a bad judgment call. The correct way to handle it is to let the defensive coach ask him why he called safe, and the DC could then remind him of the definition of a tag, or convince him to ask his partner for help. This was not an award of a base that by its nature is a rule application. This is closer to having a PU call a strike on a ball that was in the dirt, only to have the BU call time, assure the coach that we were going to talk, and then asking the PU where he thought the pitch was.

​No, not right. It was your partner's call, he made it, and he didn't ask you for help. But, even though you couldn't have made the call if you wanted to (You said, "The only "missing piece", or uncertainty, I have is whether or not F3 had control of the ball in his free hand."), you strolled up to his position, told the coaches you were going to discuss it, and initiated a conference with him. None of which was appropriate or necessary. You belonged back at the plate, getting ready for the next pitch. Only if your partner decided to discuss it with you should you have gotten involved. Mike