beerguy55

No, but as a coach I'd say it's just a good habit to have your pitcher step off to make the appeal. There are too many stupid things that can happen while engaged that can cause a legitimate balk (the appeal process can be confusing, distracting and simply unusual for the inexperienced), and there are too many umpires who believe the scenario you describe IS a balk. Right or wrong, just remove the variables. And if your code allows dead ball verbal appeals, use them.

They certainly are. They can be, when measured/assessed properly, an illustration of the practicality of the rule, its enforcement, or its judgment. The latter being the applicable problem to the RLI rule. RLI when called and not called is argued more than any other infraction/scenario in the rulebook...and it's not close. The umpire is required to judge whether or not the runner is in or out of the running lane (factual or not it is still a "judgment" call), and then is required to judge whether or not the fielder's ability to catch the throw was hindered (a true "judgment" call)....let alone the other elements (was a throw attempted, was a "good" throw made, etc, etc) And no matter which way it is called or not called, someone is upset, or confused...players, coaches, even umpires. And even in cases where we have the benefit of slow motion replay it is literally a coin flip to whether or not the umpire got it right (factually)...or, more often, it is a coin flip to what the general population of spectators, coaches, players or umpires would call RLI or not. In the end, the raison d'etre is irrelevant...the result is arbitrary. It's a coin flip, a toss of the dice, a spin of the wheel. As such, it makes the rule meaningless, and simply enters an element of luck into the game that is unnecessary, and creates an unneeded argument, frustration and tension among the people on the field. The "luck" being what particular whim crosses the umpire's mind at that particular time...for whatever reason to what he does or does not see, and conclude. You may as well have R1 and F3 play rock, paper scissors to determine the call, because that is truly how randomly it plays out, even at the professional level. Even if MLB expanded what was eligible for for video replay, RLI would NEVER be added to the list, for the simple reason that the call on the field could never be overturned...because there would never be consensus to the element of hindrance. The game is better served by dropping the rule, and letting the runner take whatever path he wants, and, like other bases, as long as he does not look back to see where the ball is to leap into it's path, just let it go.

Which was my original point. It's arbitrary. Worse yet, in the end the umpire's call on whether or not there is RLI is also almost always arbitrary. And arguably wrong as often as it's right. Flip a coin. And it ALWAYS creates an argument. The game would be better served by dropping the rule and applying the same approach/standard for INT on other bases.

The runner is creating the situation by reacting to it. It doesn't matter that the batter can intentionally cause it...that's not why the rule exists, and that is rarely the batter's intent, even when they do drag a bunt down the first base line. The intent only comes after the situation presents itself to where the batted ball ended up (whether a bunt or an "excuse me" swing) and in that respect the batter/runner's reaction/behavior is no different in principle than any other runner who finds himself between the throw and the base. It is not rare at all. Quite common for a ball hit to F3, who is making a throw to second to force R1...or hit to F5, who is throwing home to retire R3. Or for R1 returning to first on a line drive caught by F4/F6. I would suggest those are no more rare, to any notable degree, than any RLI scenario. In any given game you are just as likely to see any one of those scenarios, and none of them are really more prominent. More importantly, they are the same, in principle. In all those scenarios the runner is going to take a path that gives him the best chance of impeding the throw, especially in the often-likely scenario that running the direct path will not beat said throw.

You absolutely can do that - you just run at the glove, or where it looks like the fielder will likely receive the throw...and make no mistake, the guy running outside the running lane between home and first is effectively doing just that.

Just for something to say, there are countries (like South Korea) that require smartphones to keep the "click" sound on - to combat problems with uninvited upskirt pics.

This neither answers nor addresses the disparity in the standard.

I've said it before and I've said it again, it doesn't matter what you do to this rule, how you rewrite it, how you expand or shrink the running lane, or how you reinterpret it, it is ALWAYS going to be problematic. You will always have those who call it when they shouldn't, and those who don't when they should. Just get rid of the rule. I've never had a problem telling my runners to stay in the lane. The instinct is to have your catcher plant one in the back of the runner, due to the large number of amateur umpires who want an explicit and overt act of INT/OBS (be it contact with a fielder, with a runner, or a soccer/basketball/hockey player flopping like they got shot)...but even that doesn't always work...you can still hit the runner square in the back, while said runner is on the infield grass, and still have the umpire judge he was in the running lane! So unless you're going to start applying MLB replay review to RLI, it just doesn't f-ing matter...whatever call is or isn't made is going to be arbitrary. Better to not have it at all. We had a full debate here about whether or not Manny Machado interfered with Freddy Freeman's throw between first and second base when Machado clearly moved into the projected path of the throw...and the pro consensus was there was nothing to call there because he didn't actually look at the ball and was just guessing where the throw was doing...so wtf are we worrying about it between home and first? If the standard on the other bases is whether or not the runner was looking back at the ball to position himself, why isn't it the same between home and first?

I can buy this for the simple reason that it was a caught fly ball, saying he technically left second base early. But it gets dicey because he actually was on third at time of pitch - and this means his retouch requirement, for the caught fly ball, is third base. (not to mention it doesn't work if the ball isn't caught) We don't have a designation for "where he should have been TOP". It is the umpire's job to make sure runners are at (or at least reasonably close to) their origin base when the ball is made live - to get rid of the 89 foot lead off attempt. It is otherwise not a violation, per se. The defense has a responsibility here too, to at least be aware, much like MYTAB - the difference of course is one requires the umps to be proactive, the other reactive. And, much like MYTAB and appeals, there has to be some delineation point when it's too late to correct the error. Putting the runner back here only works because there was one pitch thrown, and nobody advanced. But the batter did complete his time at bat, and if it was me, and I'm writing a new set of rules, I'd say that makes it too late. IMO, I'd even go further and say it needs to be corrected before the next pitch or play....just like an appeal. Otherwise you have stupid scenarios where R1 is thrown out stealing second three pitches before any realizes second base should have been occupied. Or R3 scoring on a wild pitch three pitches before anyone realizes he shouldn't have been on third. You want to eject R3 and the coach the next inning after realizing what they did, go for it. But I think the matter of correcting the baserunner position needs to have a consistent line. And the only line that always works the same is the same one for appeals.

This is why you eject people.

I can see how this supports ejecting R2. But there's no "out" for being at the next base when the ball is made live again, that I know of. The other part of this is interesting - it says it may be corrected during a dead ball. But doesn't say when it's too late. When the ball is made live? After the next pitch? After the at bat is completed? Anytime before either runner scores or is put out? Starting at the wrong base isn't one of the appealable plays. He touched second. He went to third. He touched third. And if we're applying the "next play" standard for appeals it would be too late.

Like I said, I think they got lucky. Very easy to remediate as is. If R3 scores on a sac fly or an infield single then it gets really ugly. Or gets thrown out on a sac fly. I agree, it likely was just a brain cramp and he just went to the base next to him.

Saw a video of this - I think MiLB. R1/R2, 1 out. Time is called for a pitching change. R2 goes to talk to the third base coach....and then stays at third base. Pitcher finishes warmup, ball is made live. Nobody notices R2 is now on R3. First pitch, fly ball to shallow outfield caught. No runners advance. Now defense notices there's a runner mysteriously on third base and coach talks to ump. I'm assuming in any ruleset there really is no remediation - it's now R1/R3 with two out, and umps are thankful it wasn't an infield single? Do over seems the worst option. And putting R3 back to second base only really works if you get lucky and he's still on third base after the play - doesn't really apply if batter hit a sac fly. Especially problematic if R3 is thrown out at home on said sac fly. Umps need to make sure players are at their proper bases before making ball live, but it's a mistake that I can't see being able to remedy. Defense should be noticing something like this even if it's not "their job". What if we get lucky and the first pitch isn't swung at - do you return R2?

I don't disagree with the rule, depending on the level, but it's a tough break for a coach to get ejected when R3 goes on his own, and/or the batter either misses the steal sign...or has no idea the runner is going.

Yes

Not uncommon in the younger levels - say anything under 14 years old. Runner gets huge jump and oblivious pitcher just never notices...and then just simply pitches. Batter also likely doesn't know the runner is going...and may be simply that the runner just went on their own...which would explain why the batter still ended up swinging....also not uncommon in those younger groups....I'd be guessing these kids are under 10.

The same principle needs to be applied on foul balls and caught fly balls, to determine which base the runner must return.

Which rule is being violated? I don't see it. Seems to comply where applicable. ART. 4 . . . Balk. If there is a runner or runners, any of the following acts by a pitcher while he is touching the pitcher’s plate is a balk: a. any feinting toward the batter or first base, or any dropping of the ball (even though accidental) and the ball does not cross a foul line (6-1-4); b. failing to step with the non-pivot foot directly toward a base (occupied or unoccupied) when throwing or feinting there in an attempt to put out, or drive back a runner; or throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner; c. making an illegal pitch from any position (6-1, 6-2-1a-d); d. failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery; 1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request “Time,” it shall not be a balk. In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call “Time” and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and (c), if the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the umpire judges the batter’s action to be a deliberate attempt to create a balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1n. e. taking a hand off the ball while in a set position (6-1-3), unless he pitches to the batter or throws to a base or he steps toward and feints a throw to second or third base as in (b); or f. failing to pitch to the batter when the entire non-pivot foot passes behind the perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher’s plate, except when feinting or throwing to second base in an attempt to put out a runner.

With two outs, for the run to count, the runner would have to have crossed the plate before the pitcher started his delivery.

Your anecdotal experience is not enough to really assess, if you're truly being honest and unbiased about our approach in whether or not ejections are warranted. As said before, whether you umped 5 games or 205 games matters to your numbers. You might also want to compare how your numbers line up with your peers against, presumably and/or mostly, the same set of teams/players/coaches. None of these, on their own, really gives a complete answer, but the more comparisons in aggregate might tell a story. That story could be that coaches/players are getting worse, or not, and/or your peers are too lenient and/or that you are too strict and/or you are too lenient. Because there are really two possibilities, over the course of a season, and they should both be weighed with equal probability. One is your numbers are appropriate - properly handled, warned and administered, with the right amount of rope given to the ejected. One is they are not - they could be too high - either due to a perpetual short fuse, always looking for confrontation, always interpreting the worst case scenario, or some degree of dick measuring...or too low - because you're a pushover. In my experience, both scenarios are just as likely in any given game, but over the course of a season you start to see common denominators...you either see the same coaches showing up in ejection reports, or the same umpires. And, usually, that will tell you where the problem lies.

As stated by others, at the time Freeman started his throwing motion there was nobody in his way. Machado clearly altered his path to increase the likelihood that he can get between the ball and the receiver. And he did it as Freeman started his throwing motion. That MLB seemingly requires Machado to look back at the ball/thrower, where he simply needs to see the receiver's glove to achieve the same outcome, is an extreme deficiency of common sense.

Along similar lines, I believe Joel Youngblood is the only MLB player to get a hit for two different teams, in two different cities, on the same day. He was playing a day game for the Mets in Chicago, got a hit, and then got traded about the third inning. He flew to Philly to play a game for the Expos, subbed into the game late, and got a hit there too. The best part for me, is he got his hits off of Fergie Jenkins and Steve Carlton, two future HOFers.

It would be a really odd inside-the-park play (and from a scoring perspective could almost never be a "home run") if the defense is making appeal plays while the play is still live, and the b/r (let alone other the other runners) is still making his way around the bases. Beyond that, whether the ball be dead or alive, you would also, I think, have potential scenarios where the third out by a preceding runner on appeal would negate runs made by following runners.

Jesus Christ - you're all wrong. I can call the whole game perfectly from the dugout or sitting in the bleachers.

The same thing would also apply on a caught fly ball, in determining which base (if any) the runner is required to retouch.