webspinnre

I haven't had to work a game on the 90 foot basepaths solo in a couple of years, but I also took the approach of bringing it up in the pre-game. I'd tell them that I'd get the best vantage point I could and make the best call I could. I do try to take a few steps to the opposite of the batter. I love the advice of making the call and then taking a few more steps towards the base from a perception standpoint.

So, I'm pretty sure I've got this right, but coach is arguing rules interpretations with me, so wanted to verify. Working Babe Ruth 13-15, which uses slightly modified OBR. Twice called a pitcher for a balk when he disengaged by moving his pivot foot forward rather than backwards, and then threw to a base (once to 3rd, once to 1st). So far as I am aware, there are no situations in which a pitcher is allowed to disengage forward. 5.07(a)(2) says that the three options are to pitch, throw directly to a base, or step off backwards. However, coach is arguing that because pitcher was in the stretch prior to coming set, this portion of 5.07(a)(2) does not apply. I can see how, on a very strict reading, this might be the case. Did I actually miss this one?

Oh, you're right, poor reading on my part about going on to third. I was envisioning literally tripping over and it coming off and him there, not him scrambling to keep going on. /embarassed

What level of play is this? Just had this happen last night in a little league game, and they have a rule that a player that has a dislodged base cannot be out at that base on that play.

Great, thanks all, that was my understanding as well. The top seed in the playoffs got dropped to the loser's bracket, and is now in danger of not even making the championship game, and I know that this will come up tonight, so wanted to make sure to get it right.

We had a majors in-house playoff game tonight that ended up suspended after 3.5 innings due to darkness. I'm likely to end up having to do the plate for the resumption tomorrow night, as the one who did it tonight has to work late tomorrow. Already had a question or two about pitching rules. After review, I think what I'm seeing is: Pitcher of record can continue to pitch, so long as they didn't throw over 20. Any other pitcher cannot re-enter and pitch, regardless of how many pitches they threw (though it would be allowed in juniors). Pitcher to catcher and catcher to pitcher rules don't apply as it's the next day. Does this sound correct overall?

While I can't speak for others, the way I got into umpiring as a teenager was being paid for it. If it hadn't paid, I'm not sure I ever would've started doing it. These days, I'm willing to do it for free (though I don't object to being paid when that's an option), but I doubt I would've been willing to do it growing up, at least not at the level of activity I did. I made $500 a summer umpiring games starting at the age of 13. Now that I'm UIC of our small league, I can get an occasional teenage volunteer, but have very little success getting any kind of regular commitment from even 1 or 2 teenagers. I certainly understand the all-volunteer goal, but in most instances, the axiom "you get what you pay for" holds true, particularly for regular season games for 9 and 10 year olds.

I work in the West Regional, and for the past 2 years (since I started umpiring again after a 10 year break), they've been pushing the hammer very hard. Not that they won't let you do a point, but that they won't teach it. It won't necessarily prevent you from doing higher levels, but it could be a factor. Before last year I'd never used the hammer for a strike, but made the switch, figuring that if that was what they wanted, I'd comply. Growing up, LL always paid to umpire, and while they aren't prohibited from doing so, they're highly discouraged. Many District and Regional Administrators strongly, strongly discourage paying, and at the District Umpire meeting this year there was a 5+ minute presentation on why we shouldn't pay (including, as jester mentions, the insurance issue). That being said, there are at least a few leagues in our district who do pay, though mine doesn;t.

I can't tell if he left, or tripped, or what. In any case, Go Ms!

I don't mind ratings, but I really wish there were a way to set it that all posts automatically sort by date, and can be changed to sort by rating.

There's a guy in a league near us who uses one of these.

The only way I see to not call MC on this is due to not seeing the play (which, given the circumstances, seems fairly likely). Runner drops shoulder, leads with arm, and could have easily slid further to his right to touch the plate with minimal contact to the catcher.

Wow, that's just.... wow.

Anytime a coach asks me what "my" zone is, I tell him that the strike zone is what the rule book says it is.

I was working a game the other night, and the 3rd and 4th spot batters on the visiting team stepped up to the box and asked me for a "verbal." I had no idea what they were talking about, and the coach explained after the inning that they wanted me to call time as they stepped into the box every pitch, and then give a verbal play ball, apparently to prevent a pitcher from quick pitching them. I told them that if the pitcher quick pitches I'll deal with it, and to just step into the box as they normally would.

I wouldn't say he charged at me, just that he yells time and comes running out. While not good, that's not an ejectable offense. When I mention wrangling, I probably should've been more specific. This was after we'd discussed it, and he'd starting walking off, partially followed by the 3rd base umpire, who, when he decided he wanted to discuss it some more, was able to usher him back to his dugout. The reason I allowed the discussion was because I was able to calm him down, and so while he was upset, he was able to carry on a conversation, and the conversation wasn't about a judgment call, but about rules. I was explaining to him that his understanding of the rules was incorrect as he wanted to protest on the basis of rules that we weren't using (though as it turns out, apparently the rule I was using was misinterpreted by me, though noone else present seemed to have known that). In the good news, there were no further issues with him, and he was even able to pull out the win, so my apparent misinterpretation didn't cost him the game. In any case, the point of the post was to say thank you to the UE community for helping me to become a better umpire.

Googling found me a copy of a 2013 LL Rules Interpretations Manual. This appears to be the language we're discussing: Presumably this also applies to the plate, although it isn't stated. Additionally, if the intent is for this to also mean that if a player can touch the base, then anything goes, it's poorly written from a logic statement. This statement says, "If not-A, then B." The statement "If A, then not-B" doesn't actually logically follow. That being said, discussions of this interpretation seem to suggest that apparently the interpretation is, as you mention, that as long as you can touch the base, intent is irrelevant. It seems inconvenient as an umpire to have a rule book say one thing, but actually mean that one thing, unless some other things that aren't mentioned in the rule book, in which case, not that one thing.

Which applies to Little League?

Where do I find these 7.09e interpretations that say that it's okay to intentionally take out a fielder on a slide?

He intentionally took the catcher out, after he was already out on the force play. In the judgment of both umpires watching the play (the other one who has been doing district and section all-star games for 10+ years), he intentionally took out the catcher after he was already out. It was unsportsmanlike and dangerous. If you want me off the field you can take that up with the District Chief Umpire who assigned me to the game, and has me working two section all-star games this week. You can also take it up with the District President and the District Safety Officer, both of whom were in attendance. More importantly, the rule I quoted doesn't require intent, and doesn't say anything about if a slide is legal, it just says that a player who has been put out hinders or impedes. Him taking out the catcher hindered and impeded him from making a play in my judgment. All I'm asking is if I'm correctly applying the rule.

Like I said, judgment by both umpires who saw it was that the take-out slide was intentional ("he trucked him"). He intentionally took out the catcher after he was already out on the force play. Unless you're telling me that little league rules allow intentional take-out slides to break up a double-play, which would be news to me. My call has nothing to do with the LL slide or attempt to go around rule, as he wasn't called out on that, nor was the other player called out on that. As I said in the OP, we considered ejecting him for malicious contact under 9.01d for unsportsmanlike conduct. The only reason I even brought up the slide or attempt to go around rule 7.08a3 (which I directly quoted in the OP) was to point out that it doesn't apply to this situation as it specifically refers to a fielder with the ball waiting to make a tag. DVA suggests that R2 is out, not R1, which appears to be 7.09g, though that appears to apply to the batter-runner, and wouldn't apply to R3 in this situation. It also appears to only apply to fielding a batted ball. My question was whether or not 7.09e applies in this situation, given that it says: All I was asking is if this rule would apply in this circumstance, given that R3 "has just been put out" and by his intentional slide he hindered/impeded a following play made on a runner at first.

It was high as far as verticality (took the catcher on the shins instead of at the feet), and inside (meaning closer to the pitcher's side of the plate, as opposed to the fence side). In any case, I'm not asking on help on intentionality, both umpires who saw the play had it as intentional. Was just trying to figure out what rule this goes under, as the "must slide or attempt to avoid contact rule" appears to only apply to tag plays, and in this case he did slide. There is no FPSR in little league, hence the looking at the rules that do exist, as he clearly took out the catcher as the catcher was trying to throw to first for a chance at the double play.

Had a play last night at the plate (see rules discussion here). HTHC is livid and comes running out. However, thanks to the time I've spent on UE this season, reading about game management and dealing with managers, I was able to calm him down, and while we made it to the warn stage, we managed to avoid getting to the eject stage. I'm confident had I not managed this well he would've ended up making it all the way to ejection. Thanks to everyone for the valuable resources and discussions of game management here. (My third base umpire also did a great job of wrangling)

As mentioned in my OP, I probably could've tossed the kid for malicious contact. It was a late, high slide, at the inside of the plate, and took the catcher out at the shins, after the player was out on the force call. In the words of my third base umpire, "he trucked him" (both he and I had intentional).

I had a 9-10 game tonight with bases loaded and 1 out. Ball hit to third, thrown home for the force. As F2 turns to throw to 1st, R3 slides late and high and drops F2. I call time and interference and call out runner at 1st on the double play. This seems like it ought to be the right call, but I'm trying to find the rule to back it up. LL has a must attempt to avoid contact rule, but it doesn't appear to apply to force plays, but to tag plays (7.08a3 says "runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag"). Even if it did, that'd only result in the runner being out, and he was already out on the force. I probably could've even called malicious contact and tossed the kid, but that doesn't do anything other than remove the player, as he was already out at home. I'm leaning towards 7.09e - "any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of a teammate". Does this sound like an accurate interpretation? Is there a better one?