ElkOil

There are a few rules where delayed dead ball interference or obstruction are ignored, depending on the result of the play. In other words, the act alone doesn't always determine the outcome. And because this is a judgement call for the umpire, one will call it when another may not. Like @Mick said, regardless of the call, there's going to be some discussion that follows. There is no "ignore" for obstruction in FED as there is in other rule sets. You have to award the base. And call them when they happen or you'll just be having a discussion with a different coach. Sure there is: SECTION 3 BASERUNNING AWARDS ART. 1 . . . Each runner other than the batter-runner is awarded one base when: a. there is a balk (5-1-1a, 6-2-4) or a pitch strikes a runner (6-1-4); b. he is forced from the base he occupies by a following runner who must advance because a batter receives a fourth ball, or is hit by a pitched ball, or hits a fair ball which becomes dead (5-1-1f,g); c. he is attempting to steal or he is forced from the base he occupies by a batter-runner or runner who must advance because the catcher or any fielder obstructs the batter, such as stepping on or across home or pushing the batter to reach the pitch or touching the bat (8-1-1e). Instances may occur when the infraction may be ignored (8-1-1e). ART. 2 . . . When a runner is obstructed (2-22-1, 2-22-2, 2-22-3) while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored. In the OP's scenario, the runner had achieved the base, therefore, any obstruction should be ignored.

There are a few rules where delayed dead ball interference or obstruction are ignored, depending on the result of the play. In other words, the act alone doesn't always determine the outcome. And because this is a judgement call for the umpire, one will call it when another may not. Like @Mick said, regardless of the call, there's going to be some discussion that follows.

Then in FED we need to be judicious about when we call it. There's the spirit of the rule and changing the rule...by not awarding the base after we've called OBS in FED, we would be changing the rule. Don't change rules guys. Just try to use better judgment. Certainly if we call it, we need to award. But would you advocate calling it in this scenario? To me, since the runner wasn't prevented from doing anything, there isn't any OBS. No harm, no foul in this case.

Isn't the spirit of the rule ignored if you award 3b? My understanding is OBS is intended to award the runner the base he would have acquired if the OBS didn't occur, not to be punitive. Since he had no chance to advance to 3b, how could there be OBS? I mean, what was the runner prevented from doing by what the SS said?

You just made a new friend for life. That is EXACTLY what I needed! Thank you!

Done! And thanks for helping.

How so? What's illegal about it? If his non-pivot foot is entirely in front of the rubber, isn't he -- by definition -- in the set position? You could make a case for that if his pivot foot was entirely touching and parallel to the plate. The test question assumes you know that that is not the case when they state he is in the wind-up position. Is FED giving you trouble because you are familiar with other codes or are you new to baseball. I'm brand new. The only rules I ever paid attention to were OBR. Now that I'm learning FED, I'm realizing there are some very subtle differences -- particularly with pitching -- that are confusing me. Don't worry it confuses most people. Just ask our member @ALStripes17 ! I know that it'll make more sense as I gain experience. I'm sure it'll be bumpy early on.

How so? What's illegal about it? If his non-pivot foot is entirely in front of the rubber, isn't he -- by definition -- in the set position? You could make a case for that if his pivot foot was entirely touching and parallel to the plate. The test question assumes you know that that is not the case when they state he is in the wind-up position. Is FED giving you trouble because you are familiar with other codes or are you new to baseball. I'm brand new. The only rules I ever paid attention to were OBR. Now that I'm learning FED, I'm realizing there are some very subtle differences -- particularly with pitching -- that are confusing me.

How so? What's illegal about it? If his non-pivot foot is entirely in front of the rubber, isn't he -- by definition -- in the set position?

What are you trying to say? That question is obviously True Obvious, perhaps, to someone with experience, who is well-versed in the subtleties of the position of a high school pitcher's feet -- but not me (maybe you're being facetious?). My confusion lies in that the rule states the foot position determines if the pitcher is in the set or the wind-up, but the test says that since his foot is entirely in front of the plate, he's in the wind-up, despite the fact that the definition of the set is that his non-pivot foot has to be entirely in front of the rubber. So how can you say the pitcher is in one position when his feet dictate he is in the other?

Thanks, fellas. Between your explanations and some additional info from my instructor this morning, I get it now. He showed me some slides of excellent diagrams and clarified my big mental hurdle: the definition of set and wind-up is different in FED than OBR. And then we spent the whole day on two-umpire mechanics. Gawd, it's confusing. So... what's your personal experience with how long it took for these mechanics to become clear and second nature... or is there still a level of confusion?

My understanding is that by FED 6-1, foot placement determines whether or not the pitcher is pitching from the set or the wind-up: "The position of his feet determine whether he will pitch from the windup or the set position." But based on some of the test questions, that isn't so. For example, one of the test questions I had stated: "The pitcher is in the wind-up position with no runners on base. His non-pivot foot is entirely in front of the front edge of the pitcher’s plate. This is an illegal position and at the time of the pitch an illegal pitch is declared. The batter is awarded a ball. True or false." How can he be in the wind-up when his feet are positioned in the set?

Does the shift translate into lost revenue somehow? Does the game need to speed up for reasons real or imagined? What happens when you institute a time clock, eliminate the shift and whittle 30 minutes off a game? Doesn't the league or the teams care about 30 minutes less of television revenues, advertising dollars or lost concession sales? Plus more offense equals a longer game anyway. You'd think the league would be motivated to slow the game down even more than it already is... not that I'm advocating it -- I'm just bringing it up for discussion.

No, I'm straight-up confused.

Challenge accepted! I hope this works because I couldn't post the image. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8relWZUX_qodkZDYkN0c2toZzg/view?usp=sharing

Home Imaginary line____________________ | Rubber | Outfield Like this?

Please, somebody, give me visual for the following statement: "...the line extending through the front edge of the pitcher’s plate. " I cannot imagine what this looks like, so I can't quite my head around pitcher's foot placement. I cannot find a diagram anywhere. Until I started reading baseball rules, I thought I was a fairly intelligent person.

In that case, the penalty is different depending on whether or not the batter enters the box with the bat, correct? My understanding is that any illegal bat -- if discovered before the batter enters the box -- shall be removed from the game with no penalty. Otherwise, if the batter enters the box, he's out and the coach is restricted to the bench for a first offense. I was kind of applying that same logic to an illegal glove -- that unless it is used to field a ball, it is simply removed from the game. Otherwise, it's a three-base award. There are grayer areas in these rules than I realized...

Forgive me if this has already been posted -- I've searched and found nothing. I'm reading through the NFHS Case Book and saw this: 1.3.6 Situation F: F1 is wearing a glove that contains a white manufacturer’s logo. The glove has not been discovered by the umpires. B1 bunts to the pitcher, who fields the ball and throws B1 out at first base. The offensive coach brings the glove to attention of the umpire-in-chief and wants the penalty for an illegal glove enforced. RULING: Although a pitcher is not allowed to wear a glove that includes white and/or gray, the only penalty is that the glove shall be removed from play upon discovery. There is no additional penalty (base award). Why is there no penalty assessed, as there would be with any other batted ball fielded by an illegal glove?

After searching this forum and using the Google machine, I've seen surprising little on the Wilson WTA3017 mask. I'd like to know if anyone has opinions, recommendations or cautions for or against using one.

Hi, everyone. I'm taking an umpire clinic this winter and have been studying up on some things, as well as taking in a lot of great info on this forum. While watching the Royals game the other night -- forgive me, I can't remember which one or who the pitcher was -- a relief pitcher came in and had a strange motion while in the stretch with runners on. After he came set, he parted his hands while raising his lead foot -- like he was starting his motion. But then he'd place his foot back down and return his hand to his glove. Then he'd start his motion the same way, but proceeded to deliver the pitch. He did this regularly, although not every the time. Anyone else see or notice this? Why wasn't it called a balk?