beerguy55

They want to appeal anyway, to give it a shot...maybe he did leave early. After all, even if every player and coach on the field thinks he waited, it only matters what the umpire thinks. If this is they tying or go ahead run late in a game I'd appeal...doesn't hurt anyone.

Bloomers

It's the dirt or drawn circle, if they exist...if not, you're going to have to judge...no different than you judge what the batter's box is after the second inning of any standard game. Either these umpires are morons or you are misunderstanding the context. Why would they step to the third base dugout if all their teammates and equipment are in the first base dugout? And "one step" is Draconian. I can think of no good reason to arbitrarily select the third base dugout as the north star. Sure, the first base dugout is on the same side of the field, but it's not really "on the way" to first base. Except for the oddest of field designs, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can determine if a batter is walking towards the first base dugout, rather than first base. The "walking" is typically a giveaway. (although, I suppose a trick would be to run towards the dugout and veer to first base - after all, in order to run to first base you must leave the dirt circle around home plate). After a few steps of that demeanor, it's pretty clear the batter has given themselves up. Are they really doing U3K at 9 years old...IMO, to draw a line in the sand, U3K and IFF shouldn't be introduced until at least 12.

I can very easily have 12-14 kids on my roster. Doesn't mean all of them will be at the diamond. I understand this is addressed by mandating all players on the roster must bat...but now we're conflating a roster (which is typically seasonal) and a lineup, which is gameday. The purpose of having a 12 player roster is to ensure you can meet the minimum 9 player lineup. And it's pretty unreasonable to expect a team to report to every game with their complete roster. When I was that age, we'd be lucky if we had two or three games all season where every player was at the game. It's one thing to have the DA approve a roster of 11 players for the entire season...but what if I have an approved roster of 13 and two of them bow at last minute for a game...I now have to get sign off in triplicate to hand in an 11 player roster/lineup?? And I'd say it's even less reasonable to expect the coach to explain the absence of a player from their roster when they hand in an 11 player lineup...as long as players 12, 13 and 14 are sitting in the stands or the parking lot. A. the coach doesn't always know the specifics to why a player isn't there B. the coach may not even have any notice C. oftentimes it's none of the coach's business why the player isn't there D. It's always none of the DA's business And, are you complaining if a team shows up with 12 even though their full roster is 14? The same "day off" shenanigans can occur in that manner.

That is really the inference you're taking from all of this? Neither statement (RM or HW) specifically says anything about the forced/non-forced status of the following runner. One is a general statement about the status of the preceding runner at the time they missed the base - regardless of the timing/manner/method of the out of the following runner. The other is a statement using an example scenario that is likely to occur to illustrate a point - with no specific statement that this is only true if the following runner is forced...in fact, there's no emphasis on that point at all. And the Marazzi statement completely conflicts with the Wendelstadt statement, unless you draw this really odd inference to reconcile the difference. You are mind-reading...at best...or worst, to arbitrarily narrow the scope of when order of appeals matters when it comes to removing forces. You're making an assumption to why Marazzi chose that specific scenario to illustrate his point...and though Marazzi's point was specifically about the order or appeals, you have concluded that it was about the status of the following runner. Rather than trying to read between the lines to reconcile the two statements to both be true, the more reasonable conclusion is that one overrules the other - or without an official arbiter position of authority, it is simply differing opinions, and we don't have corroboration to which one is "correct". That is - Marazzi is simply saying that Wendelstadt is wrong, and that the following runner being put out first does matter...always. In short, if that's all you got, there's no there there.

And this is direct conflict with what you're presenting with the Marazzi article. Where in Harry's Hints (or anywhere else) does it specifically say that it only applies when the following runner is not forced when put out? Your picture specifically says it doesn't matter if the following runner was put out at all....let alone whether or not he has to be forced.

The "return at once" rule is about intent. If the batter/runner starts running to the dugout....or goes out to CF to play his position...or decides hit on the hot lady in the first row...lying on the field dead would not be covered under that rule.

Let's make it simple for illustrative purposes - R1. For the purposes of this discussion we'll call B/R at first a "force". To summarize your position...correct me if I'm wrong. The force is removed when: R1 not yet at second, BR gets out while forced R1 not yet at second, BR gets out while not forced R1 misses second, BR gets out while forced The force is not removed when: R1 misses second, BR gets out while not forced Why the selective use case of not removing the force in that one situation? What rule, case play, interpretation, MLBUM entry, umpire manifesto supports this position? And yes, my position is that R1 misses second and BR gets thrown out trying to stretch a double into a triple, R1 is no longer forced....because BR was put out first. I have still not found or seen anything to suggest anything other than the simple statement that the force is removed when a following runner is put out. If you have that information in the form or a link, or a copy/paste from something, I'd be much obliged.

Nobody is disputing this, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. It's pretty clear that appealing R1 for his missed base at second will remove the force for R2's missed base at third. Again, nobody is arguing this, so there's no need to keep bringing it up. What you have been unable to illustrate or support with any other case play, by Marazzi or anyone else, is how you have determined that this is limited to the following runner being out on a force only, whether by appeal or not. Marazzi case three does not in any way address that position.

ewww - I really hope we're not asking umpires to determine if the batter "threw" or "dropped" his bat, whether ball four, uncaught strike three, or a hit. I doubt any umpire is watching a batter for this action - so now your surmising a throw or drop based on where the bat went? And, for the record, technically speaking a bat accidentally flying out of your hands on a swing would be a "drop".

I wouldn't say I know best...I am, however, comfortable in saying that you know least. You continuously claim to have an authority with little evidence to back it up, making contrary and arbitrary claims, that often conflict with your own prior statements, and offer little corroboration that exists outside your imagination. And then you get disturbed when people don't blindly accept your statements as gospel and offer any kind of challenge...often met with "the evidence is out there, go find it yourself." And never have the maturity or security to admit when you've erred...you'd rather pretend you never said what you said instead. Unlike virtually anyone else here I feel I must apply an entire mine of salt to anything you say. You're the Joel Osteen of umpires.

And that makes zero sense. It's absurd.

Not according to your previous statements. R2 was forced when he missed third. Putting BR out at second (ie. not forced) would, according to you, NOT remove R2's force. R2 would then make the third out while forced, negating R3's run. According to everything you've said up to this point.

Here's the logical progression of what you are saying.... Bases loaded 1 out HR, R2 misses third, B/R misses first. Appeal R2 then BR - no runs score - makes sense Appeal BR then R2 - run scores - makes sense. Now, instead of missing first B/R misses second. Appeal R2 then BR - run scores - makes sense Appeal BR then R2 - no run scores???? Makes zero sense.

I'm not disputing this. I'm disputing the notion that this ONLY applies when the following runner is put out on a force, which I'm not seeing any support for - no case play, etc. Not to mention the underlying problem that a B/R cannot be put out on a "force play", by rule and definition. ie. the B/R is forced/required/mandated to advance to first, but it is not a "force play" Where is the supporting case play that suggests, supports or mandates your interpretation that limits the scope of when a force is removed? You have limited the scope to specifically during a missed base, and specifically to when the following runner is retired. Where is the supporting evidence for that? You've used 5.09(b)(6) as your reference for your inference, but that rule doesn't mention appeals...it's under the "a runner is out when" section. Otherwise, I repeat, if B/R is put out after rounding first, and R1 has not yet reached second base, then by your logic R1 is still forced to advance to second base. We KNOW that is wrong.

Doesn't matter. You've made an inference to apply a force play rule to an appeal, but are ignoring the same inference in a non-appeal scenario. The runner is either forced or they are not, and their force is either removed (by a following runner being put out) or it is not - when/how the following runner is put out, or his status at such time, is irrelevant. And if you think it is relevant, because of that odd language in 5.09(b)(6) then it is ALWAYS relevant. Let's get really silly - R2 passes but misses third...then R1 gets put out sliding back to second..., with R2 between third and home, is the force still on at third base? And let's say there's R3 who's already scored and R2 is going to be the third out if they complete the appeal in time.

Since the tournament rules require you to bat your entire lineup, then substitutions are not allowed, per se, ergo there can be no illegal substitutions. This is an addition, not a substitution. In the strictest sense of the rule, I'd say he can't play, and should be ejected, but I'm betting there are some reasonable provisions to avoid such a Draconian stance. It would be entirely tournament dependent. If noticed before he batted I'd say he should be added to the bottom of the lineup (many tourneys allow late entries until the lineup has rolled over). If substitutions were allowed I'd say this is true. And if this was simply batting out of order, this would be true. But neither of those things are true. By the time you realized things the order was correct again. If I'm summarizing right, his official lineup, as given to you and the umpire, was ABCDEFGHIJK, but unbeknownst to you (but knownst to him) he had another player #34 - we'll call him L....and then they batted ABCL in the first inning. Then D and E batted. F came to the plate and that's when you realized things were off, because you know you've faced six batters, and were expecting the seventh batter to be G...batter G was on deck when it should have been H. But, at that point, the lineup is "correct"...once D's at bat completed and E saw a pitch, then the order was re-established - E is the proper batter after D...and F then correctly follows E. IMO, assessing an out was incorrect...F was correctly up to bat...following E who also correctly batted in order. It still leaves what to do about L. I see three possibilities, and it's determined by whether or not the tourney allows late entries: - eject L (harsh) - let the lineup stand as it now is, with L (34) batting fourth. - put L at the bottom of the lineup - yes, he batted OOO in the first, but you missed it and the lineup is now re-established by you allowing D and E to bat without appeal. F is up, G is up next...HIJK....then L....then ABCD and so on. No, you can catch it anytime it is beneficial to you. eg, order is ABCDE....A and B get on base...then D comes to plate...he gets out...no need to appeal (unless he's so awful you'd love to see him bat again). C then comes up (once he sees a pitch, D's at bat is legitimized and it should now be E batting). C gets out. No need to appeal. E comes up (should be D again)...he gets out. No need to appeal. Now, the lineup comes around...A and B bat, then D comes up again and hits a home run...go ahead and appeal....C is called out, runners return, and D bats again. Doesn't matter that you let it go last time, the lineup is still ABCDE. This is laughable at best. Providing the lineup card to the umpire is required, and that is the official lineup. The umpire then provides a copy to the opposite manager, by rule. So, sure, technically, handing the lineup copy to the opposing team before the plate meeting is a courtesy.

A small point here - it's not when the out was "called", it's when the out happened that matters. Even if the ump took a few seconds to call the player out, it only matters if the player crossed home plate before the out at second base actually occurred - that is, when the shortstop/second baseman touched second base (or the player) while holding the ball.

This makes zero sense. I understand 5.09(b)(6) has the language about a following runner put out "on a force play" but I'm more inclined to think it's a mistake, or a conversational assumption, than a standard to apply. R1/R2...batter hits a bloop to the outfield that somehow confuses R2, who thinks it's caught...R2 never reaches third base, and R1 rounds second only to realize that R2 has stopped. R1 gets thrown out trying to get back to second base. By logical extension, your inference from 5.09(b)(6) is that R2 is still forced to advance to third, and can be put out by tagging third base. If you're inferring it for the order of appeals, you must infer it for this scenario too. Common sense would dictate that he would need to be tagged, and he could, if luck would have it, return to second base. A following runner has been put out - preceding runners are no longer forced. It should not matter the timing of when the based was missed. The runner is either forced or they are not. We either take the letter of this rule, or the common sense/spirit of the rule when a following runner is put out. Not to mention for the purists here and everywhere else - the batter/runner can never be put out on a force play.

In fact, here, you could argue that the OBS likely helped the runner - that is, without OBS he's likely further away from second base when he realizes he needs to return. There's further judgment if the runner fell to the ground with the collision, and so on and so on.

Yeah - I don't really care about lefty/lefty. Good hitters may not be as good against same side pitchers, but they're still good. (ie. it's not like the OC felt so strongly he put in a RHB) First base is open - I'm likely not intentionally walking him, but he's not getting anything in the strike zone...if I get him to 2-0 I'll put him on...yes, it puts the winning run on base, but if the batter is this hot I'll likely take my chances with the next guy. Having said that, they had put up 9 runs, so maybe the next guy was 3/4 at the plate and it doesn't really matter.

Whether you're catching a pitch, a throw or a batted ball the standards of determining if a catch was successfully completed is pretty much the same, in determining control and then how/when that control ended. To your first question - you don't need to be in the act of throwing to make a transfer. You could be moving the ball to your other hand, or simply removing the ball from the glove, for any number of reasons - you see in MLB the catcher throwing down to third even on the third out - like said above, he could be trying to roll it to the mound...he may just be carrying the ball to the dugout...doesn't matter. The point is the umpire felt that F2 successfully caught the third strike and that the ball going to the ground was the result of some secondary action.

This is an appeal - even during live action.

My daughter, who played club fastpitch, coaches high school fastpitch, runs pitching and catching clinics, and has her coaching certification, all in a volunteer capacity, said she won't umpire because there's too much bullSH*# for what you're paid.

Whether it's the most punitive is often irrelevant - the rules often don't care about that. There's even a debate to whether or not calling a player out or ejecting him is more punitive. Personally, I'd call the runner out on BI every single time, but those aren't the rules. On BI the batter is out and the runner is returned...the exception is a play at home with less than two outs. I'm making a decision based on who I think interfered. If they both interfere then, yes, it would get interesting, but I'm making my judgment on the act, not the punishment. Much like two fielders and a runner converging on a batted ball, only one of those fielders is protected at any time - use your judgment and pick one. Again, I'm picking up what you're putting down, but your arguments (as well as mine) do not fit perfectly into the rules as they are presented. So we do the best we can to do what makes the most sense...until a higher authority rules otherwise. I go back to my original statement - by rule and definition a batter remains a batter until they are put out or become a runner. Whether he clears the box or not, or how he manages to get out of, or in, the way doesn't really matter. Whether it's for the first play at home...or a subsequent play at third, or even, like the OP, at home again. He's still a batter by rule - he hasn't yet been put out, and he's not yet a runner. Without an exception to that standard, the OP is batter interference with two outs. The only question is whether there is (or should be) some kind of TOI exception to allow R3's run to count.