beerguy55

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.

Don't get me wrong - whenever I had only ten players I always ensured someone was on the bench the entire game. I rarely went with a DH even when I had 11 players. Even if there are provisions for "involuntary" shortened benches, DH restricts your options too much. If you're doing this solely to get more players into the game you're doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons - if that's really your motivation, it's better to sub in players mid-game with the option to re-enter if something goes sideways. Give me a roster of 15+ players then I'll use DH to give me the bet hitting and defending lineup. Give me 12 or less, I'm going with nine fielders that all bat. No player who ever played for me ever got ejected - never, at any level, at any age - but injuries happen.

Sounds to like he was ejected and restricted. (as opposed to making him go to the parking lot without adult supervision). So in NFHS can a team end a game with 8 batters? Skipped or "Otto Out"? Seems a silly gap in the rules - completely understand wanting to prevent creating a float position...but you should be able to separate them with the caveat that there is no more DH for the remainder of the game if there are no other players. The difference here is the DH is no longer batting for said defensive player...the defensive player is hitting for himself...and once the DH enters defensively the DH role is terminated. They have all these rules to come up with nonsensical ways to get more players in the game (bench-based courtesy runners), but won't allow a situation to complete a 9-player batting lineup when there are no other options???

Maybe I'm missing something... Lineup is ABCDEFGHI - J is F9, defense only. A is DH. Nobody else on bench. C gets ejected. Lineup is now ABJDEFGHI. No bench. No DH. Nine players take whatever 9 positions the coach wants them to. Is that wrong? You're revoking the DH role...both players now bat and field. As far as the scorebook - enter J into C's former spot, just like you would a sub - assuming as F9. Update other player positions as appropriate....someone went to F2...I'm assuming A went into their position. You're only ever scoring in 9 batting positions, so the tenth position, formerly for the defensive player, doesn't really matter. I can't remember how you need to do it in Gamechanger, but I seem to recall it's pretty simple.

Though you may be right, there is nothing documented to demonstrate what MLB would do with a challenge "against interest"...ie. there is no upside to the challenge - the challenger either gets the pitch changed to the worse outcome, or they lose a challenge by confirming the pitch that was already called in their favor. The most common scenario I could see here is umpires who have a bit of a deliberate/delayed strike call...where F2 may challenge, wanting to ensure they don't wait too long, not realizing the ump is about to ring up the batter. MLB has, however, demonstrated they will proceed with accidental challenges, and, in some cases, actions that remotely resemble a challenge, no matter how blatantly obvious it is that the challenger will lose. Now, there is good reason for this, because there's already some gamesmanship going on with teams trying to induce the other team to challenge, or pitchers trying to discreetly signal their catcher. It is possible that, under this principle, umps might be instructed to accept challenges against interest.

By that logic...immediately before that paragraph: f. a fair batted ball: touches a runner or an umpire before touching any fielder and before passing any fielder other than the pitcher, touches a runner after passing through or by an infielder and another infielder could have made a play on the ball, touches a spectator, goes over or through or wedges in the field fence, or lodges in players equipment or uniform; or To my original post, applying the same standard, as the same language appears for both batted and thrown balls, the fly ball that goes over the fence and then blows back into play is dead, even if it lands fair. This, taken literally, would also disqualify anyone reaching over the fence to steal a home run. We know that simply isn't true. And the reason nothing is explicit under a foul batted ball about DBT is because the only condition really needed to make a foul batted ball dead is for it to hit anything but a fielder...so it doesn't matter if it's in DBT or not. The discussion would then be about what nullifies a catch, as a caught foul ball is live. If we want to get really silly nothing in 5.1.1f addresses the rare case of a fair batted ball going into the dugout, or any other designated dead ball area (except media in 5.1.1l). And if you read the Immediate Dead Ball Table just after 5.1.4 all the cases of a batted ball bounding or flying over a fence don't mention the requirement to touch DBT. So, again, by that same language, you'd need to treat thrown and batted balls the same...they're either both dead or neither or dead, when they simply pass the fenceline. "Rebound" requires the ball to hit something...if it said "continues to the field" you might have a case. Yup - FAFO.

Meh - I've stated my thoughts on the close ones...in the meantime I'll live with the 0.1 inch calls as they even out in the long run. I'm very happy to see the large number of called pitches that are wrong by the full width of the ball or more being corrected....up, down, left, right.

I did consider this in my original response and opted not to stand up a straw man to respond, and only deal with the response if it came up. My only argument is trying to fathom a scenario where an umpire would ever rule a wild throw "dead" even though the other player managed to reach their glove over (or beside) a fence with their glove in DBT to save the ball from touching DBT - ie. applying a different standard to those two plays based on batted vs thrown ball. Though pitched, batted and thrown balls all have their own provisions in the rules, I've seen nothing in the rules to indicated that a thrown ball only need to enter DBT's airspace to become dead where a batted ball needs to touch a person/object in DBT. Maybe there's an angle...I think it's more likely that following the non-drawn line from the point of the bullpen to the corner has probably created way too many problems/arguments about whether the ball did or did not enter DBT, not to mention a unnecessary number of GRD's, rather than simply using the fence as the boundary.

On a side note, advanced to gold medal game in a tourney in this exact scenario - bottom of last inning, bases loaded zero out, tying run on third - short hopped to F5, tagged R3 (who returned thinking it was caught), touched third, throw to second with R1 still standing on first base. First triple play I was ever part of in a game.