beerguy55

INT does not ALWAYS require intent. Your exhaustive list is in 5.09 which details how to make an out. A batter is out when...A runner is out when...those instances include cases of INT. Because the list of scenarios where a runner is NOT out is infinite. Why would you write a rule book that details all the times someone isn't out? You'd never finish the book. A runner is not out when he picks his nose. A runner is not out when he sneezes. See the problem? The list of scenarios that causes a runner to be out is finite. They're listed in 5.09. 6.01 can help provide some clarity (eg. tangle/untangle with Batter and catcher)

At what point/levels are the coaches required to be certified to be on the bench? OK, I can get some rec level tourney. But would random parent be able to come coach for a high school team? State gold medal game? LL World Series? Hell, I've been in rec leagues where the daddy coaches had to have attended the league coach meeting, and get a background check, before being allowed to coach. At least one of those coaches had to be present for any game. I'm thinking there are some liability issues, if nothing else - as said above, that's got to be a TD decision. Having said that, when coaching club ball we had about six of our players (15/16/17 years old) certified to coach their level.

B spot might be a better for angle on SOME bang-bang plays at first. The A umpire is in foul territory reducing the risk of umpire interference on hard hit balls. The A umpire is not in F4's way. You accept that risk with R1...no need to accept it with no runners. The A umpire has a better view of fair/foul over and beyond the bag...if for no other reason than he doesn't have F2, F3, and BR between him and the ball. The A umpire has a better view of check swings. I'll say the same thing about your argument as I once said about a player I was evaluating - can't hit, can't run, can't catch, can't throw...besides that he's a pretty good ball player.

Only if it was not knocked down on purpose.

I think that should be viewed as guidance, to an example of what would constitute INT, but not an exhaustive list that implicitly defines what isn't INT. Breaking the wrists or crossing the plane of the plate might be guidance you can use to help you determine if a batter swung, but neither are they definitive markers of a swing, nor is their absence a definitive indicator of a non-swing. Likewise, if you really need an overt act of swinging arms and looking at the ball, you're failing to use common sense.

And what "view" is being blocked? That of a thrown ball. He's putting himself between the receiver and the thrower. The "intent" is to prevent the thrown ball from being caught - whether that is by putting up a good screen or by actually getting in the way of the ball, the purpose and outcome is the same...hindrance. He's not trying to block F6 from seeing the hot chick in row 2.

He doesn't have to - he can see the fielder getting ready to make the catch - he knows where the ball is going. And I ask again, when does the throw start for the purpose of this rule? When the throwing motion starts...or when the ball leaves the hand? I think it matters. The one and only film of it here shows the following: F3 has the ball in glove in the first shot- any notion made by anyone that R1 established his path before F3 had the ball is patently false then F3 has ball in hand and starts his throwing motion (R1 has taken three more steps at this point - all towards his original path directly from first to second) the very next step by R1 is to the left - this happens after the throwing motion starts, but before the ball is released as F3 releases the ball R1 is moving further left - he can see where F6 is lining up to receive the throw - he is now taking his third step left from his original path, and he's now on the grass at contact, he's moved further left - well onto the grass - again, presumably in line with F6's glove...he's just starting to move right towards the bag as he gets hit, because he knows he has to reach it on the slide. I can buy the non-call for a lot of reasons, but not for the logic that some have presented in this thread, because the facts of the video don't line up with the reasoning provided by some. R1 changed his path after/while F3 started his motion to throw towards F6. And it looks like he further adjusted his path as he saw F6 prepare to receive the throw. Wanting the runner to be waving his arms is tantamount to soccer referees wanting flops before calling a trip. Do we really need everything to be overt to know someone's intent? This is an intentional attempt to interfere with a thrown ball. Some is a bit proactive, some is guesswork on the part of the runner, but there's no debate to what he was attempting. We don't need him looking at the thrower to determine that. The only question is whether we need to wait for the ball to be out of hand before the runner forms his intent? We do know that "thrown ball" has a broader scope than batted and pitched balls. btw - under which rule was ARod called out for slapping the ball out of Arroyo's hand?

So is this based on when the throwing act/motion starts, or when the ball leaves his hand? When F3 starts the act of throwing R1 is not in the way of the throw, nor is his path between F3 and F6. R1's newly formed path (started after F3 had the ball in his glove) took him into the throwing path by the time the ball left F3's hand, but not before that. At 0:05 F3 has the ball in his glove. At 0:07 F3 has the ball in his bare hand and is starting the throw...at this point R1 has taken three full steps towards second since F3 fielded the ball and has not yet veered left. In short, at this point there's no runner in F3's way, and no reason to move left or right to make the throw. R1's very next step is about 45 degrees left, but still on the dirt, as F3's arm is back about to come forward with the throw. R1 then drifts further left into the grass, to align with F6's glove, as F3 releases the ball...then waits as long as he can to turn 45 degrees. or more, in order to have a bona fide slide into second base. He absolutely purposefully attempted to interfere with the ball - he altered his running path at least six feet to the left with that sole purpose in mind. To say otherwise is just silly. And it's plain to see he moves his path even further left as he can see where F6 is preparing to catch the throw...but that is not as drastic as the initial left turn. The question isn't his intent, which is plain to anyone with eyes...the question is whether or not it's allowed.

The ball may not have left Freeman's hand yet, but Machado CLEARLY alters his basepath after Freeman comes up with the ball, while he starts his throwing motion. After the throw is made Machado's newly chosen path takes him into the throw. It still may be a no call (after all, there's no RLI rule at 2nd, 3rd or home), but your description of what happened is not accurate.

Believe me, the last thing I think is they are lazy. It's situational and it has a time and place (until at least receiving becomes moot). It has a purpose. What I'm seeing are catchers who don't understand the purpose, and who are putting the knee down in scenarios where not only is the purpose not served, they are elevating the risk of a negative outcome for their team. You don't go OKD with the winning run on third when your closer has a swing/miss sweeper/slider/curve. You CAN go OKD if your closer paints the black with a 101 mph fastball, and is not at risk of overthrowing a slider. Your graph doesn't really demonstrate anything, except that as a whole WP's/PB's seem to have dropped. That can be attributed to many different things. Until you can demonstrate the data of one stance vs the other we have just our anecdotal and observational evidence. When the knee is down you're, to some degree, anchored...you will have a significantly more difficult time moving in that direction to block a pitch. It may or may not make any difference to pitches straight in front of you (though in my experience it is harder to lean forward and over the ball) and may or may not have a lesser impact on your ability to move to the opposite side of your knee down, but the ability to move laterally to the side where your knee down is self evident. Yes...I've caught...and I've down the knee down. It's great when the pitcher hits his spots. If this is something that gets resolved consistently in under 5 seconds, I can see a high limit in MLB...not unlimited, but I could see a high number of challenges if they continue to be right...but, yes, capping the wrong challenges in some way. The game gets along perfectly fine with unlimited check swing appeals...even when wrong...I don't see this being too far off that path.

They didn't do it every pitch. They did it selectively when it made sense. They didn't do it with the go ahead run on third base. Even Santiago who had as good an arm there ever was, and really revolutionized throwing out runners from his knees, was typically not OKD on those particular plays. It's even to the point now where OKD catchers don't even know why they're doing it. If your pitcher has a hard breaking ball that is looking for swing and miss, you don't go one knee down. The knee down is to better receive low strikes, and turn them into balls. Precision pitchers need OKD to get more called strikes. Swing and miss pitchers don't need low strikes stolen...but they do need U3K's blocked. Your point? Yes, sometimes catchers miss. That's been true for as long as the game has had catchers. It's not a binary outcome, it's about percentages. A traditional stance catcher will block pitches in the dirt, especially those that are left or right, far far more than OKD catchers will, simply because the difference in lateral mobility is significant. It most certainly is - as soon as ball/strike challenges are part of MLB - likely not 2025, but almost certainly 2026 - framing/receiving will become a less important aspect of the game. Once ball/strike challenges become the norm there, MiLB and NCAA there won't be a lot of point developing the receiving/framing. Fooling the ump will be a waste of time. It may be fun at the amateur levels, but will matter significantly less in the highest levels. No different than infielders who no longer swipe and sell the tag...they hold the tag because replay review incentivizes it. Catchers will evolve again to focus on popup time for steals/picks, and blocking...both of which are sacrificed by OKD.

That's my point...it hit the screen OR the player. You're guessing. On video replay review. With slow motion and zoom. And if it hit the player...that means it didn't hit the fan. Did the fan cause it to hit the player. Did the fan cause the player to miss. I know you don't need contact to have hindrance but typically fan interference does mean, if not explicitly in the rule but at least by anecdotal practice, that the fan has touched the ball or the player to prevent the catch. We have the fan reaching into the field and we have the player missing the ball. We don't have the fan contacting the player or ball. And we are not clear on whether or not the fan pushing the screen out 2-3 feet caused the ball to hit the screen. It's not even clear if the fan's arm caused the player to alter his path. This is interference by rule if we determine hindrance (ie. the fan's hand is over the field...doesn't matter if he's inside the screen)...but I just don't see anything definitive to show hindrance.

Meh - MLB history is full of cases where rules need to be changed because someone found a loophole that no one else anticipated. It happens. There's always the God rule if you don't think the scenario is covered in the rules. In the OP, what's unclear to me is whether or not the ball hit the netting. That would be clear cut in whether or not it's interference. if the ball didn't hit the netting (as a result of the fan pushing out the netting), then it's not so clear cut, and definitely judgment, to whether or not the fan reaching into the field hindered the fielder's ability to catch the ball.

I'd venture to guess that more people play adult slow pitch in North America (men's, women's, co-ed) than baseball (youth and adult) and fastpitch (youth and adult) combined. It's far more accessible to the casual player. And, the facilities will prioritize those adult slow pitch leagues because of the beer sales they generate. I think the mat has become pretty much the norm...5-10 foot or 6-12 foot arc...and even seeing leagues/tournaments that start all counts at 1-1. Third strike fouls are outs. HR's are capped. Commit lines and no tags at home. And many other variants. All designed to speed up the game and/or make it fun accessible for less skilled players...and to help co-ed considerations. (eg. penalties for walking a guy with a girl on deck) And the vast majority of these games are done by one ump...with perhaps gold medal games in tournaments getting the second official.

I'd say the opposite. If you see the same plate umpire over the course of a four-game series it would become quite evident that he's not favoring either team....or if there is a problem, then the sample size would be more defensible to demonstrate that. So your argument against specialization is that umpires need to all share the wealth on concussion risk? That's a new one. Be careful about that - because the logical progression of that concern is full time robo-calls on ball/strikes and having the plate ump effectively being just another base ump - he would stand five or six feet behind the batter and watch for swings, foot out of box, hbp, etc. Believe me...there are about 20 fantastic reasons to not specialize and not make the same guy ump the plate every night. Concussion communism is about 25th on that list.

For one or two I just can't think of any practical way that the batter is interfering by just staying in the box...if anything he's interfering with his own teammate, not the catcher. As a left-handed batter it's moot. As a right-handed batter, assuming it's still a play at the plate, the only exception I can think of is if the batter crosses the plate/dives across the other box on a pitchout but he still attempts to hit the ball...but even there I find it hard to see him interfering with the catcher just catching the pitch and applying the tag.

I'm on the fence about it. Other sports do have their officials specialize in areas. In hockey there are linesmen and referees with different responsibilities, and they don't rotate every game. Referees are always referees, linesmen are always linesmen. It don't know if specializing the umpires is a good idea, but I am not ready to say it's not a good idea. Balls and strikes is a unique skill, and I daresay it's a skill beyond the other elements and duties the umpires do, and I suspect you will see more disparate data in performance if you measure the top to bottom in ball/strike accuracy, vs the top to bottom of safe/out accuracy, for example. I am curious to see if there's a correlation in ball/strike performance to the other measures of performance. ie. are the umps in the bottom top/bottom 10%ile for ball/strikes also in the top/bottom for other areas? Or are otherwise competent (even great) umpires just SH*#ty at the plate? Should there be a standard...certainly. What it is - I'm not there yet. The equalizer here could simply be the ball/strike challenge framework. On a side note that may also get rid of these one knee catchers trying to steal low strikes and get them back to learning how to block balls in the dirt.

Malice doesn't require intent...it can also entail indifference, apathy, negligence, neglect or simply disregard. ie. the catcher isn't trying to hurt the batter, he just doesn't give a SH*# whether he hurts the batter or not. And the coach's reaction follows the same disregard. Throwing a bat would follow the same vein. So would just randomly swinging the bat without any care of who is around you.

I just don't understand how anyone could support the notion (whether you're solo or a four-man crew) of turning your back to the field when the ball is live. Isn't the prime directive to always be watching...the ball, the players, the play?

But we know that here...the runner on third wasn't jogging to home plate believing time had been called. He was trying to score and the defense reacted. None of this happens if either team believed the ball was dead.

I'm not sure I can speak for all coaches, because I might be in the minority here...I coach "play to the whistle"...there is only one thing that makes a batted ball foul, and it's not the rulebook definition...it's the umpire saying "foul". While you're there selling it you eliminated any shot at beating the throw. I know that selling and faking are two different things, but there's a fine line between accentuating and flopping. I think "most" umpires are not going to rule "it mustn't have hit him" just because the guy ran to first...no different than immediately running on a check swing U3K...I don't think the batter running influences the judgment for a swing/no-swing of MOST umpires. The ump(s) either saw it or they didn't...if you're natural reaction is limping or yelling in pain, then maybe you get the call...but it's not a "sell".

By rule and definition, the batter remains a batter until he is put out or becomes a runner - neither of those things happen in your scenario. Case in point, under the new MLB pitch clock rules, the batter must be in the box and alert to the pitcher, at 8 seconds, no matter where the pitcher is. The pitcher could be standing behind the mound counting blades of grass...if the clock has started the BATTER has his 8-second mandate.

The "can" is about the ability to call an IBB itself...in short, a manager can call an IBB, not must - they may still choose to pitch four intentional balls...or, say they want to maximize the time to warm up a reliever, they could have the pitcher use up the full 20 second clock each pitch. By saying "the manager can" it implies ONLY the manager...otherwise it would have been easy to say something like "a member of the defense can" or even "the pitcher or manager can"...in all three cases there is an invisible "only" in front. 5.05(b)(1) Comment also specifically says "following a signal from a manager". The intent on those statements is pretty clear - to lay accountability to one decision-maker and eliminate any case of the catcher saying one thing, the pitcher another, etc.

Questions about the new intentional walk rule (mlb.com) Players may not request this, and to my knowledge this hasn't been changed.

I find we get this question a lot more after football season starts. Unlike football, in baseball it doesn't matter where the fielder's feet are (for fair/foul), it matters where the ball is. In football, both toes inbounds, ball out of bounds, catch. One toe out of bounds while fielding a kickoff with the ball inbounds, penalty to the kicking team for kicking OB. Complete opposite in baseball.