beerguy55

This is why we protest - no need to persistently prolong anything. Not really relevant, IMO. We allow all kinds of "normal" baserunning regardless of what the runner should have been able to hear or know. We allow R1 to return to first though he "should know" he was out at second. We allow B/R to continue all the way around the base though he "should know" the fly ball was caught. My understanding is, since this is NFHS, the obstructed runner in this scenario is "guaranteed" home, so the timing of the third out doesn't matter. Imagine a scenario where F2, without the ball, just completely plays halfback and blocks the runner who is trying to score, to give his team a chance to make a third out on another runner... I'm scoring R2 and calling R1 out. Nobody interfered with R1 - R1 ran the bases during a live ball and assumed the risks therein.

Rules aside, t can even get a little more nuanced A fake tag CAN be bush league - Especially if it's done to induce a slide, or worse, as an excuse to smack the runner with an empty glove. ESPECIALLY at any amateur level. The pros gotta do what the pros gotta do and this is their job. A Tuesday night men's league...we all gotta go to work the next morning...I don't need that in my life. High school kids have part time jobs, or class to attend...and I don't need a bunch of hormonal pubescent teens getting into a brawl over a fake tag either. Holding an empty glove to a runner that has already slid or is already stationary is a fake tag, but I wouldn't call it bush league. I'd call it smart. I'd rather it legal, but I understand the headache it creates in differentiating the scenarios. And then, of course, there is the tag that is made where the fielder actually believes he had the ball. So be careful calling that fake tag. Any player on my team that slapped a fag tag on a runner otherwise coming into a base standing up is getting splinters in their ass. However, I have indeed coached fake catches...especially on a throw from the outfield to the plate, I'd have my cutoff man slap the glove to pause the runner rounding first.

You need to be more specific to which element you wonder is legal or cheating. An appeal to challenge whether or not a player missed a base is a perfectly legal play. How else would we address missed bases? This must be done before the next pitch is thrown (among other things), so that aspect was also proper. Waiting until the runner left the field was also proper, because there is a point where the runner can/must have an opportunity to correct his mistake before the missed base appeal can be made. Once he's sat on the bench he can no longer fix his mistake. What do you mean "pressed the umpire"? Having the fielder touch the plate and saying "the runner missed the plate" is proper/legal and not "pressing" nor even arguing. Did the coach argue further? Yell? Get into the umpire's face? Did the umpire rule safe on the appeal, and then get bullied into changing to out? As to the original play - did the umpire signal "safe" or nothing at all? If he signals nothing at all that will generally mean, if he's doing things properly, that he did not see a tag of the runner AND he did not see a touch of the plate. A good coach will see that non-signal and know he has a case to appeal. The ump is not supposed to signal "safe" if the runner didn't touch the plate. I cannot comment to what was in the mind of the coach, to whether or not he believed/knew the runner missed/touched the base. The video evidence and testimony of people in the stands are both irrelevant. The umpire can't use them. I'm also willing to bet the video isn't nearly as conclusive as you describe, and that there are also multiple witnesses that say he missed the plate. That's how human behavior works.

Problem is I didn't say when "the last fielder touched it".

First - "ground rule double" is a misnomer. It's a two-base award for a fair batted ball that goes out of play in a certain set of situations...basically, anything but going over the fence in flight. Second, nobody cares if you think it was a single or a triple...that's a scorekeeping consideration and has no bearing on the play. Third, it does not matter if the ball went over, under or through the fence. The same rule applies for batted balls in how the runners are awarded their bases. It doesn't matter if the fielder made an error - it's still a batted ball...and a batted ball that goes out of play has the runners awarded based on time of pitch (ie. when the pitcher starts his motion). The fielder error would only matter if A) he picked it up and threw it out of play or B) he kicked/deflected the ball out of play where the impetus of the ball's motion was not the bat (ie. the batted ball was (almost) stopped when knocked out of play) - so, even if this scenario, if the ball had touched the fielder's glove before rolling all the way under the fence it's still a "batted ball". On a throw/deflection, the runners are awarded two bases at the time the ball last touched the fielder...NOT when it goes out of play. So, yes, if your batter has not yet reached first, and the outfield throws the ball wildly, and your batter manages to not only pass first, but also second base, by the time the ball goes out of play, he still only gets second base. Too bad so sad. Measuring runner awards from when the ball goes out of play is very rare - basically, it would be in a situation where the fielder carried the ball out of play. Otherwise, it's measured from when the ball was hit, pitched, thrown, kicked.

Not sure why you'd get such a huge reaction from the offensive team (maybe from the idiots in the stands)...you saved them from running into a double play. Did their coach actually want you to rule this "foul"???

Ask yourself these same questions where there is no safety base at all. It's the same answer.

Coming from a coach -This is not "appealing", this is "shopping". Sometimes it's bullying. Sometimes it's gaslighting. Don't put up with it. Only do this in scenarios where it's possible you had a terrible angle, or didn't see a dropped ball (or if your partner has given you a signal they have something). If you're certain of the call own it - tell the coach you have everything you need, my call is my call...appeasing the request (even if you have no intention of changing the call) just encourages more shopping/bullying. As an example, I had a play at first where F3 jumped in the air to make the catch, and BU, <15 feet away, called out. Our bench was on first base side, so I liked my view/angle - I went out and said, "They came off the base, can you ask your partner if he saw anything?" And he immediately said "yup, they came off the base and then came back down in time to beat the runner". End of discussion. No appeal. No shopping. He owned everything he saw. I say another word at that point and now I'm "arguing" not "asking", because now we're nitpicking on the fraction of a second to when F3 touched the bag. I don't care how right I believe I am at that point. He gets a "thumbs up" from me and I go back to the bench. I also know now that this guy is confident in his game, and he's not going to be nudged by any coach. Nothing is more frustrating as a coach to see the other coach doing this a dozen times a game, and getting away with it...and even getting a call or two go his way. I once got a warning for telling an umpire to "own your call - you had the call right before you changed it, and it wasn't close; stop letting him bully you"...guess he didn't like me challenging his manhood. It's not terrible - it's true. There may be better options, but sometimes the direct approach is better. Some coaches live under the fantasy that the PU has the power to overturn the BU's call...or the older ump can overturn the younger ump's call. I have no issue with educating a coach that the ump who made the call owns the call, and that the power he believes you have doesn't exist. Unfortunately, some umpires live under the fantasy that they can overturn their partner's call, for whatever reason riddles their imagination. (I do know that in some settings one ump is "the boss" - we can only hope their ego isn't so fragile they take that to heart) *this may lead to a debate to whether or not an ump should have made a particular call at all - that's a different discussion, for you to have with your partner - but don't be surprised to hear a coach ask "who's call is that?" or "why are you making that call from there?" I'll go with the first time an ump had to educate me about this process - "talk to the umpire who made the call".

R2 and R3 were forced until R1 was ruled out. Once R1 is out they are no longer forced. They get to return TOP. Where there ruling would apply is if R2 was hit by the ball. R1 would need to be put on second base because the batter gets first, forcing R1 to second. R3 would still go back to third.

Prior to this interpretation I expected a ball that was on/over fair territory, from touching the ground to the upper layers of the stratosphere, to be fair. The interpretation, in at least trying to create a boundary, is just one more example of the interpreters outsmarting themselves...and I think I said that exact thing when the interpretation first became public on this site a few years back. It's dumb because if you have that ball that is touching foul, but over the line (ie. fair territory), they want to rule it foul...but if you roll it parallel to the foul line towards the outfield, it will not be able to reach the outfield without touching the base, making it fair. I've also said many times on this board how easy it would be to correct the definitions of fair and foul so that balls aren't both fair and foul at the same time, and exactly how I would do it (regardless of how they are called in reality...a fundamentalist's brain would melt if they tried to call fair/foul by the book)

But what about these? A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground between home and first base A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, I know of no umpire that refuses to make a fair/foul call on a ball that has settled (ie. not moving) until someone touches it...you really waiting ten minutes for a stiff breeze?? IMO - the fielder grabbing and moving the ball quickly eliminated the ability of the umpire to see the ball's clear location, and he simply equated it to a catcher moving the mitt 15 inches to frame a pitch...eg. it must have been a ball if he moved it that far...it must have been fair if he felt the need to move the ball after he grabbed it. FAIR TERRITORY is that part of the playing field within, and including the first base and third base lines... FOUL TERRITORY is that part of the playing field outside the first and third base lines...

Until you demonstrate a battled ball that stops in the air and remains in stasis, a ball that is settled is in contact with the ground. The interpretation clarifies the requirements for a fair ball when the ball is either settled or rolling. (ie. touching the ground) Not really confusion...if the ball is touching the ground it needs to be touching fair to be fair. If it's bounding it need only be over fair to be fair. Contradiction yes, but not confusing. Contradiction isn't even the right word - just different standards for when the ball is on the ground vs in the air. The real problem is a bounding ball while it is in the air - whether when it passes the bag or is touched by the fielder - that is over both fair and foul at same time, is both fair and foul. I suppose the great part about that is the umpire can never be wrong. If nothing else, the "touching the ground" interpretation at least removes Schrodinger's Batted Ball for that scenario.

I think there is a "ready to hit" requirement somewhere. He can't be ready to hit without a bat. Regardless, if you've got two brain cells to rub together and an IQ above room temperature you shouldn't need to find explicit written instruction before quashing this kind of bullSH*#. I've not seen, but have heard about an asshat coach who did this exactly for that reason - 'cause the kid struck out looking the previous at bat. As a coach on the opposing team, I'm doing "something"...and that may end up being a full report to any appropriate league/association, but I probably won't do only that. I'm not interested in that farce. I'm asking the ump to make the kid bring a bat, and/or asking the ump to dump the coach. I'm either intentionally walking the kid, or if he did get a bat then we're grooving him a bunch of meatballs. I will literally fight the coach if he takes exception to my position. I'd be admonishing his team's parents for allowing that nonsense too. I'd implore any umpire to recognize that this is wrong, at any level high school or lower, and that you're the authority figure and you CAN do something, including tossing the coach.

The biggest mistake here was the fielder's, not the umpire's. He had no reason to touch the ball, let alone grab it and quickly move it foul, which only served to make it look like it was fair. The ball was stopped...B/R wasn't going anywhere...he could easily have just kept an eye on the BR while he let the umpire make the call unimpeded. Hell...the umpire could have called time, brought the entire crew over, examined the ball and made the right call. F5 made any chance of the umpire making the call he wanted impossible. In this context, we need to understand if the umpire judged the ball was touching the line...or misapplied the rule. If the latter, the crew could have had that conversation to WHY the ump called fair. As far as video replay review, my understanding is (and it would be a gap IMO) an unreviewable play (as this is) cannot be reviewed even if it's to clarify the rules. To the other debate - I think the MLBUM interpretation is a clarification, not a contradiction: A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground... FAIR TERRITORY is that part of the playing field within, and including the first base and third base lines... A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory... FOUL TERRITORY is that part of the playing field outside the first and third base lines... The MLBUM interpretation simply clarifies what "settling" means, as to the standard of touching the ground, and differentiates it from "over" for bounding balls....and fills the gap between settling and bounding (ie. rolling). If you want to argue that it contradicts between rolling and bounding standards, you're preaching to the choir. Without the "official" interpretation, this can be interpreted both ways, and is equally defensible...it's just not quite as bad as all bounding balls that pass third while over both fair and foul territory, which literally are both fair and foul. A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that...is on or over fair territory when bounding to the outfield past first or third base A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that...bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory

I'd agree with you if you can demonstrate this exact same thing wouldn't happen if the player got injured instead of ejected. I already stated how I would handle this lineup. Quite the opposite - the current NFHS "speed up" rules are not speeding up the game...they are thinly disguised ways to get more players into games in really stupid ways..."yeah, I'm gonna have this jackrabbit on my bench to do nothing but run for the catcher"...give me a F*#King break. I guarantee you the courtesy runner rules I've played/coached under for the past 4+ decades are far superior to this nonsense of having only bench players run for catchers or pitcher AND they don't put additional players into the lineup. In the end, having a scholastic rule set with dozens of guiding principles that explicitly and specifically gear towards that particular age group, only to not allow something as simple as splitting a DH/defense role after a series of unfortunate injuries occur is a moronic set of priorities.