beerguy55

To clarify what I was saying earlier - in softball and LL the runner must touching the base at TOP...doesn't matter if they're four steps towards second, or three steps into foul territory. (it's often inaccurately called a "lead off" rule). And it doesn't matter where the other foot is. Where this gets contentious is where there is a double bag, and the runner starts with their foot on the orange bag, and nothing touching the white bag.

Well, at the highest levels of baseball you're allowed to lead off. That's the reason you don't see it. On tag ups, it's more about risk reward, and practicality. It's just too difficult to see the fly ball and the catch to accurately time one step in the future. Yes, it would be foolish to do it on tag ups. In rule sets where you are required to contact the base during the pitch, the maneuver is used in a timing way, to start moving before the pitch and time it so you come off the base as the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. It's very easy for the runner to see and time this. This is an advantage to simply starting cold from the base, because you need a few steps to accelerate - having one step already behind means you are leaving the base with momentum, and you are already moving towards peak speed. Even if you don't have the time perfect and leave fractionally late you are going to have at least one more step running at full speed. It can easily mean 1/4 second over 60 feet - that's the difference between an easy out call and an easy safe call. The biggest risk, besides accidentally leaving early, is a home plate umpire sees movement out of the corner of their eye, sees that movement before the pitch is released, and concludes the runner left early. Yes, as long as the runner is touching the base at TOP. Are you really seeing this on tag up plays? Or just on pitches to time leaving the bag?

Yes, you are incorrect. A. What you are describing is not an "appeal" for the purposes of that rule - read Section 1 of that rule to understand the types of appeals that apply. (namely missed base or left early on tag up) If you are talking about a "protest" see rule 13. As mentioned above you may not protest judgment calls. Otherwise, you may ask the umpire to get help on the call and they are under no obligation to do so. B. You are conveniently omitting "and the ball becomes dead" - the rule isn't relevant here. C. Not relevant - the rule requires the umpire to determine whether or not an infielder COULD make the catch with ordinary effort, which is also a judgment call. That an outfielder made a great diving catch doesn't really matter...did he have to make such a catch because the second baseman was standing around with his thumb up his ass? As a coach, I can say that this is either risk/reward (and accept the consequences) or simply needing to coach better. If it looks like a catch to me I'm calling the players back to their base. Yes, we need umpires to communicate better in announcing the catch or no catch, but it's not always possible to do so as quickly as you'd like. However, sure, coach argues he couldn't send runners back not knowing if it was caught, if the reverse had happened, and he sent the runners back and then the outfielder threw to third then second to force them out, he'd simply make the opposite argument about not knowing it wasn't caught. It's a convenient position to be in. The reality is, an umpire can't make a call instantaneously, nor should he - they need to make sure the fielder maintains control, so in that second or two the runner does need to make a decision and live with it. Frankly, whether or not it's supported by rule or judgment, the umpires' ruling is the most "fair" - it's the most likely outcome if they had called IFF early...and it's a possible outcome if they had called a catch earlier. SH*# happens.

Sure it is...maybe indirectly, but it is. Why do you think these "SH*#bird coaches" call these plays at 10U rec ball? If you ask these kids they'll tell you they want to have fun, and that they're having fun. But if you ask them when it's the most fun they will almost invariably tell you it's when they win. They want to win. Kids at 6, 7, 8 years old playing in the schoolyard, or playing Hungry Hungry Hippos want to WIN*. At seven years old I didn't play the Game of Life to see how many kids I could accumulate, I played to win. As a coach at that level we can give them the short term gratification and give them the keys to winning in the easiest manner (ie. look for a walk, and then look for wild pitches on offense...on defense "just throw strikes")...OR, we can teach them how to play, give them fundamental skills, and provide them the tools they need to win in U12, U14, high school and beyond. To my point, D3K at U10 simply doesn't teach them anything, and it opens the doors for F*#Knut coaches to pull these "trick" plays...all for the win. Since the rule lets them do this, I simply have an additional job in explaining to my parents why I'm not doing this too, and that in the long run they're kids will be better off (most get it). *there can be a philosophical discussion, even at this age, to what constitutes a "win"...around setting goals and achieving them....some will equate winning to success...others think they're different and not mutually exclusive.

I wish more leagues would follow this line. Up until U10 this was very similar to my rule for the teams I coached, but I restricted it to batted balls and forced walks. Sure, take second and third on all the passed balls, but you're not scoring that way. I didn't even have signals at this level, so there were no steals, let alone double steals. Couldn't give two SH*#s if the other team was doing that...I wasn't. Strange thing was, my pitchers got good at hitting the mitt and catchers got good at blocking. It was like knowing that our team wasn't getting any free runs they weren't going to give the other team any. There were only 5-run limits per inning too. I didn't want five BB/WP/PB runs, I wanted my kids to l learn how to hit...and earn those five runs. It was pathetic to see other coaches teaching their kids to try to walk.

Yes and thank you - the OP scenario occurred under OBR.

Not really "holding", but I can see a set play where F3 kind of hides behind R1, with a pitchout on a RHB. With the short distance from rubber to home, and home to first, as R1 leads off when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand (or in some leagues crosses the plate) you can catch R1 still moving forward on their second or third step as the throw comes behind them. And since it's a set play F3 will have a tendency to want to be right of the bag. Frankly, I think the rule is dumb - if F3 wants to give away exactly what they're doing let them.

You're overcomplicating this. It's a (potential) foul tip. That was then dropped as the catcher made an attempt to retire a stealing runner. With the back of the catcher's glove to you, what guidelines are you using to help yourself determine if the ball was caught cleanly (making it a true foul tip) and was dropped on the transfer, vs it was never cleanly possessed after the foul (making it a foul ball)?

This is irrelevant - you need to talk to a spectator who is one of the best scorekeepers you know. Yes, scorekeeping is judgment on hits, errors, sac bunts, etc. This is why advanced sabrmetrics have become more important - they reduce the impact of a scorekeeper's judgment, which surprisingly can make quite the difference to batting average, ERA and even RBI counts over the course of a season. For your play in question. 1. Would R1 have reached second without the bobble? 2. Would BR have reached first without the bobble? (pretend there was no R1 at all) If so, it's a hit. You say if there was no bobble, F6 would have thrown to second, and it "out or safe" would be a fielder's choice....not necessarily. Yes, if R1 was retired it would be FC. But if R1 beat the throw then the same judgment applies for BR. Would BR have beaten the throw if F6 threw to first instead of second? If so, it's a hit. And to help you with your judgment, use F6's decision...in your non-bobble hypothetical he threw to second because he believed that was his best/only shot. If, in the OP, you determine that if F6 had fielded the ball cleanly he would have got either one of the runners, then it's an error. If not, it's a hit. It sounds like a hit to me. If it's really close, give the benefit of the doubt to the hitter...unless your kid is pitching.

30 seconds is an eternity for a bat boy to come over, even from the opposite dugout, to get the gear - either when the triple ended, or the very next play after the run scores. You think 30 seconds is fast? Stand outside in -40 for 30 seconds. Hold onto a one-goal lead in hockey for 30 seconds. Or the next time you're driving when the light turns green, wait for 30 seconds before you leave. You'll see how long 30 seconds really is. Football teams call plays, have huddles and substitute players in under 40 seconds, sometimes even running out a punting or placekicking unit. It's forever. Pockets, under back of shirt, use your other hand, etc. These are very minor obstacles and problems that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can solve. I simply go back to the lifetime you have for the bat boy to come get the gear from you. As far as signals to the batter/runners - I can do the most complicated signals with one arm tied behind my back. If their signals are so complex that they can't have an amputee coaching, the problem is the coach, not the lack of an arm. If a coach can't figure this out he's either short on cognition, or awfully lazy.

I have two answers - one as a coach and one as a half-assed interpreter of rules. From a rules basis, I would say it's nothing until it's something. If the player successfully crosses home plate and there is indeed no play, then it's nothing. If something happens with the gear he's carrying to impact the play, especially if he drops something, it might be something. As a coach, this is one of the most patently stupid things a coach could do. Not only to distract his own player, in the middle of a live play...to open the potential of something like the kid dropping the elbow bad, and then tripping on it...but what kind of message do you think you're setting for your players? If you're too F*#King lazy to trot this over to the dugout after the play, or hold onto it for a few more minutes, then call the batter who just got out over...or another player...or just wait until the inning is over you asshole.

This, like anything else is a "judgment" call. Just like those times where you didn't see a tag...it doesn't matter if everyone else in the park saw the tag, your judgment stands. You don't have to change any rules...if you didn't hear him swear you didn't hear him swear.

To add to the correct answer above, the runner can be tagged at any point before he gets back to first - including while he is on third base, or while he is on second base, on his way back to first. Now, practically speaking, if F4 is standing on second base with the ball, and R1 is still between second and third, he's going to have a hard time getting back to first. If he decides to take a shortcut across the infield, now you can appeal the runner missing second base by tagging second base.

No, but it doesn't really matter. MLB doesn't have pitch count restrictions. The only reason MLB coaches track pitches is to track the stamina of their player...so it would be pretty pointless to add four pitches for a no-pitch IBB. An intentionally walked batter is, however, counted for the 3-batter minimum.

How fast people are is relevant in determining where R2/R3 were at TOI. As described, R2 and R3 likely reached their next bases before R1 reached his next base (and interfered with F6). My "judgment" is likely that they did not, and unless we're playing under replay review rules, that's how it stands.

The way I try to explain it to younger players and coaches (and their parents) is "force" is NOT how you put the runner out...it is a status placed on the runner. As stated above, the runner on second is forced, because the runner on first is forced, because the batter is now a runner. If the batter or R1 is put out, then R2 is no longer forced. Otherwise, if R2 is put out in ANY method while he is forced, it is a force play.

It's no different than a banger - is he 2'10" away or 3'2"? Arguing it is pointless and it should really not happen. Ump saw likely what I saw...starting on dirt on fair side of running lane, and ended on left chalk of running lane. it's his judgment and outside official replay review (this one is not reviewable) his judgment is right...always. Argue egregious misses not 50/50 calls. If your argument is it needs to be more "obvious"...fine, argue it. U1 felt it was obvious, and he made his call "big" to illustrate it.

umm...what?

This isn't batter's interference. He's not a batter anymore. This is about the bat, not the batter.

Or just be really good. I was once picked off at third base by a catcher who threw the ball between the batter's arms, bat and head (a space not much bigger than the ball) - I literally watched the ball come out of that chute, go directly past my eyes, and into the third baseman's glove for the third out. Still standing there with a stupid look on my face, not yet understanding what happened, as the defense left the field.

So, what if he said forking, farging (Johnny Dangerously, anyone?), fricking or frigging? I get it, there's a rule about indecent language, and it needs to be enforced - not poking at you, but the system...and I wonder what leeway of judgment you get to have. I'm just wondering when we are going to stop pretending that the f word is so dangerous, and that those 8/9 year old kids aren't firing f-bombs at each other all day long. If someone says "shut the front door" to you, are you ignoring it? Is subtext allowed? See You Next Tuesday.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't give a SH*# if you think a bat flip is unsportsmanlike...safety is the issue, not whether or not it's nice. Bat Flip Gone Wrong

If it doesn't end an inning or game it doesn't matter, for the purposes of "does the run score?" And in OBR, on a game-ending walk only BR and R3 have to touch, so order doesn't matter. I would love to see a bases loaded walk in the third inning where R1 and R2 refuse to advance...and would further love to see what happens if R1 is called out first. Is this even an appeal play, or is this an umpire instruction play? So, give me your answers for these scenarios - in all cases R1 is forced at time of miss. In all cases R1 will be the third out, so it will matter to whether or not R3's run counts. (ie. if the force is removed, the run counts as R3 scored before third out) Is the force removed in all four scenarios? If not, which ones? I'm also considering continuous action, and live activity after the play is finished - after all runners have stopped trying to advance - to be the same (ie. the ball was never made dead). If they are different for the purposes of these rulings, let me know. 1. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - after live action, B/R is appealed, then R1. Yes 2. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - during live action B/R is appealed, then R1. 3. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - during live action B/R is appealed, R1 is appealed after live action. 4. Hit and run, R1 rounds and misses second & B/R is thrown out before reaching first; R1 advances to third on the throw. R1 then appealed. Does it matter whether any or all of the appeals are made during continuous action, during live action after the play, during a dead ball (FED), or after play is live again? It may be a corner play for consecutive appeals, but not sure about the "following live action" part, but would like to know your insight. Now, what are your answers with these slight changes - order of outs/appeals the same, R1 still misses second: 1. BR misses second base, not first 2. BR misses second base, not first 3. BR misses second base, not first 4. BR touches and rounds first, and is subsequently thrown out Because right now, unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'm now seeing three assertions here about when the force is removed: You - WUM is correct, except for consecutive appeals, which must be done in proper order? TomUIC - WUM is correct, except when following runner is put out while forced, whether "naturally" or by appeal (yes to first four, no to second four)? Me - WUM is incorrect, following runner being put out always removes force (yes to all eight) - my caveat here is, if WUM is correct, then it's 'no' to all eight....ie. either "time of miss" always dictates the force or "following runner out first" does

Not exactly. The scenario talks about the players "missing" or "never having arrived" to their forced bases, but the section is meant to address both game ending AND inning ending scenarios (and R1/R2 wouldn't walk off the field to celebrate the end of the inning - unless you really want to get into inning-based run limits) - the section concludes with a very definitive statement that appeals on game-ending AND inning-ending force situations must be done in the proper order, in order to keep the force alive. Again, it's just an example scenario (in fact, the section starts with "Let's say") - it is meant to be illustrative, not exclusive. I'm speculating this example is used simply to build on the example in scenario 2. But all other language in the section makes it pretty clear that it would also apply if R2/R3 simply missed their forced bases, which would be a more likely and relevant scenario for an inning-ending situation. I would also posit that the scenario presented is more likely than TWO players simply missing their forced base at the same time. The section very clearly says that if the following runner is put out first, the force on the preceding runner is negated (directly contradicting WUM)...what it does NOT say is that it is conditional on the following runner being forced when they are put out. The bottom line is one of these two positions is wrong.

Once again, you are viewing one position and somehow concluding that it excludes the other. There is no evidence that have you presented from anyway - Evans, Marazzi, Wendelstadt, God - that suggests your inference is correct or official. The issue isn't whether or not order of appeals removes the force on following runners...it's whether or not it ONLY does so when the following runner is forced. Marazzi and Wendelstadt have conflicting positions...I really don't care which one is right, and if I'm going with the one that makes the most sense it's Marazzi's. But what I'm not going to do is pick and choose where Marazzi's applies and doesn't apply. RM does not specifically say his scenario only applies when the following runner is forced. It simply seems to be the example he has chosen. Is the example you give for HW's notes your own, or does that exact example appear in the manual? And until I see evidence that HW, JE or RW have specifically and explicitly addressed the idea of when a following runner being put out does and does not remove a force, I'm not buying your interpretation, as it is yours and yours alone, and you've proven on more than a few occasions that you will misinterpret what you've exactly been told, even quoting emails you've been sent that you then misunderstood. You are presenting your own interpretation and trying to sell it as coming from an official source. You like to tell us what they're saying, but very little of what you're presenting are direct quotes from those people - they are your summaries and beliefs of what you think they meant.