beerguy55

Once again, this distinction doesn't matter. I can think of at least two situations where the batter makes an out without ever becoming a batter-runner, where the ball is live, where the BATTER making the third out cancels the run. - R3 breaks for home, F1 starts delivery, R3 touches home, caught third strike - R3 crosses plate before a foul ball is caught (and no, we don't make the defense appeal...we nullify the run) Careful here - I see the logic and I think it makes the most sense...BUT...for example, when F2 catches a pitch and attempts to throw out R2 stealing third, which is a subsequent and separate play, that is no longer a pitch, the batter is still a batter who can be put out for BI, or if F2 simply makes a bad throw into the dugout the 2 bases TOT award applies. By rule and definition a batter remains a batter until they are put out or become a runner.

It was a response to Maven's assertion that the runner made the third out...which indeed would be a time play. But if the batter is out, it's not a time play (typically)...though we may have an exception in the OP. By rule, this is what we know (I think): - a run doesn't score if the batter makes the third out before safely reaching first base (doesn't have to be a batter/runner) - with two outs, BI results in the batter being out and R2's run not counting (R3 TBD) - with less than two outs, BI results in the runner being out and all other runners returned TOI (R3 scores) - If the batter/runner (eg. ball four) commits INT they are out and runners return TOI, but if they INT before reaching first base all runners return TOP?? (I assume this is applicable for both RLI - intervening play aside - AND the proverbial B/R sticking around with his thumb up his ass) In the OP, the batter makes the third out while still a batter, after R3 scores, but in interfering with a play on R2. All on continuing action from a WP. To go further, no play was made on R3 - they simply scored on the WP. If this was ball four, there seems to be consensus that neither run scores, because batter/runner made the third out before reaching first base (and maybe even because runners return TOP). If it's not ball four, meaning batter is still a batter...the batter made the third out before safely reaching first... - Does the first run score because of TOI? - Does the first run not score because batter made third out? - Does the first run not score because runners return TOP?

Thanks - I see many good umpires with the lack of play - I see many of them end up officiating many different sports without having played any of them. There are simply things that umpires like yourself never experienced that come to light in scenarios like this. Someone who played organized baseball learned this at a young age (as well as the "how do you get a triple play without the defense touching the ball" question) - there is a lot of free time on team buses, or even just sitting on the bench...and most of the time you talk baseball. There are definitely good things about having a fresh set of eyes looking at the game without a frame of reference - it allows you to have an agnostic and pragmatic approach to how you judge the game. On the other side there can be a disadvantage/learning curve in how you judge what a player can or can't do, or anticipating what will happen next, not ever having done it yourself.

I'd say this is very rare - some batters step towards the base on their swing with their front foot, but after the swing batters typically (almost always) step and fall towards the plate, not the base, if we're talking about full momentum of the continuation of the swing. If the batter stepped towards third base after the swing it's almost certainly an act after the swing has finished.

Considering the "how can you make four outs in an inning" is one of the standard questions that all baseball players get quizzed on before they turn 12 years old, you have an "umpire" that was either thrown in as a volunteer, or has decided to officiate a game for some extra money, while never having really played the game in his life. Technically, you don't get a fourth out (from a scorekeeping perspective) - you may appeal R3 leaving early, and if he is called out then the previous third out of R2 is nullified - it never happened - no putout or assist for those fielders.

One nit to pick - this is not a foul "tip". A foul tip MUST be caught by the catcher (and it remains live). I know baseball announcers say this all the time, because the pitch did tip/tick off the bat, but it does not meet the baseball definition of a "foul tip". It's a foul ball. Also - it's "passed ball" on a pitch that goes past the catcher. And no, MLB manager loses his challenge. He's not allowed to challenge a foul ball (bad rule), so unless really desperate he should not have challenged the pitch hitting the batter - but yes, if it's a late inning one-run game you've got nothing to lose on the Hail Mary challenge.

If an ump literally uses this language you know they're inexperienced/lacking some knowledge. Leaving the fact that there needs to be a tag attempt, the rule says "HIS base PATH".

With two out the batter is out, isn't he?

Nothing to do with what I was saying or disputing. You clearly made a point to say that the exception to the run scoring before the third out applies to the "batter-RUNNER" getting out before reaching first - your emphasis - to explain why R3's run would count. I was responding to that statement. There are very clearly times where the batter never becomes a runner for the third out, and the run most definitely does not score in those scenarios, even though they're not a batter-runner. (eg. caught third strike, caught foul ball, etc) So, there must be some other distinction in the OP (where it is not ball four) that allows the first run to score, even though the batter very clearly made the third out, while they were still a batter. I'm suspecting TOI. Or, there is no distinction, and no runs score. I'm even wondering if the run would count if there was less than two outs, provided this was ball four... If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch;

The distinction between batter and batter-runner is irrelevant here, and would lead to an incorrect interpretation of the rule. Due to 5.05(a) A batter does not become a runner on a caught third strike. A batter does not become a runner on an uncaught third strike if first is occupied with less than two out A batter does not become a runner on any foul ball, including one that is caught. In those cases the batter making the third out still nullifies the run. The run may indeed count in the OP, but not for the reason you specify. If R3's run counts it's due to some TOI provision.

I think it's pretty close to uniform...but maybe an advantage for the home team. Home team down by 5 in the 9th have won 70/8100...visitor down by 5 in the 9th won 30/8800...I suspect that's a result of home team pushing one more across in their come back, along with the visitors scoring 5 to tie, and then home team still winning.

Happened many years ago - 13 year old doesn't swing at strike three, so next time the kid is up to bat, in his infinite wisdom the coach sends the kid to the plate without a bat, to teach a lesson I guess. First question - besides the catch all "we haven't seen this before" rule, is there a rule in any baseball/softball rule set that requires the batter to be holding a bat? Second question - how many seconds before you eject the F*#Ker for doing that to his player?

For anyone who gives a SH*#, or finds this somewhat interesting, as I do - over the past 70 years or so teams have scored 5 or more runs in an inning about one in every 100 tries.

You'll see I acknowledged that about 45 minutes ago - I had missed that part of the exception the first couple of times I read the rule.

By rule (I may have an out of date version) it's not RLI because of this: 1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. To your second question...in real time, I can justify INT on now retired runner for his step/stomp towards F3 as he is catching/throwing the ball.

Holy SH*#! I missed that in the video. Good for him.

I would contend, in OBR, it's not RLI because he didn't interfere with the catch. The batter/runner being retired is simply evidence of that...not the reason, per se, that it's not RLI. I also acknowledge that point may be both semantical and academic. IF, monstrously large IF, this was somehow called RLI in OBR, that happens before the (eventual) put out, and the ball is dead.

Yes, but does that matter for the purposes of the OP? If this is OBR, this isn't RLI. If this is RLI anywhere it's an immediate dead ball, so it doesn't matter what happened next....except, yes, the runners would return TOP....which frankly would be the same as TOI here anyway.

I can see the argument - they make Brebbia pitch in a torrential downpour...it was raining hard just as he started warming up...it was monsoon by the time the second batter came to the plate. Brebbia pitched to three more batters, including a walk and a wild pitch, but managed to end the inning with no runs scoring...and then the Jays pitcher throws a single warmup pitch and the umps are saying to cover the field. Having said that, the Sox would complain if the umps suspended the game after the first or second batter - because after 45 minutes they would likely have to use another pitcher to finish the inning. They actually delated the start of the game by an hour too. Just kill the game after the downpour starts. It's 7-2. In MLB history there have been about 17000 games where a team was down by 5 going to their last at bat - Only 100 of them saw the comeback completed. It was pretty funny to see though - once the game resumed they counted 39 people left in the stands.

Is FED handled differently than OBR? In OBR it's about interfering with the catch (not the throw). In FED the rule simply says the batter/runner is out if he's running outside the lane when the throw to first is made. By strict interpretation of the letter of that rule, this is RLI in FED. Only if this is RLI. If this isn't RLI, then the batter/runner is retired at first on the U3K and then AFTER that it is judged he interfered with F3's throw to third. His step towards F3 doesn't look good in real time. It all comes down to whether or not this should be called RLI in FED

Not sure it's a fake tag - may be F2 just trying to stop his own momentum...but I still wonder if F2 altered the runner's path. You talk about umpires rotating...as a coach I'm going nuts on the players. Once we see F4 and F6 pursuing the ball to the left side of the field F3 should be going to second. F1 can go to first if we really want something for him to do. F5 has no business leaving his position here. Stupid stupid stupid.

Unfortunately, some will. Conversely, there are some umpires that want this too - ie. if there's no contact there's no INT/OBS. Agree with this 100%. Don't care if it was a missed sign. In the Nicholls/SamHouston video above, just show bunt...show a suicide squeeze...if you really think you need to do something to get ump to make the right call. Batter is also lucky he didn't have his ACL/MCL destroyed.

I frankly think simply declaring an IFF dead is the easiest...How often do you see IFF called...and how many of those does an uncaught IFF result in runners advancing (or being put out trying to) - sure, it happens once in a while...and the higher the level of ball the longer that while. At the MLB level an IFF is inconsequential 99.9% of the time (conservatively) - just call it dead and don't worry about those exceptions.

This would really suck if it was 3-2 before the home run. At 3-0 they lose no matter who missed home. Coaches need to stop arguing this - unless you are legitimately claiming the ump couldn't have seen/wasn't watching. As a coach you need to graduate from "I can't believe the ump called that" to "maybe I should coach my players better". I've seen players miss every base. I once saw a player miss home plate four times in one game, and got away with it every time. That's just terrible coaching on both sides. Our staff's message to the players was simple - you get on base less than 40% of the time...and then you work really hard to make your way around all the bases...it's hard enough to even just get to third...and, if you're lucky, every other game you will get to reach home plate....why on Earth wouldn't you make sure you've touched it??!!??!!

The proper process is to ask the umpire who made the call if he is willing to talk to his partner to see if they got a better angle/view. Said umpire can agree or refuse. And if he agrees, he may take the other umpire's information - if they have any - and then can determine if the original call should be changed. Then they have to determine what would have happened...or what did happen. At the very least, if they rule it a no catch then R1 should be out as F3 touched second base while holding the ball, which forces R1 out. Nothing to really argue there, because there's nothing to assume, deduce or suppose. It actually happened. Unfortunately, the events that played out indicate otherwise. F3 did NOT touch R1 who was standing right there...F3 decided to run all the way to second base instead. And even if he would have (hypothetically) gone after R1 and the batter, there are some eventualities that just can't be assumed to conclude he would have successfully got both players out. Bird in hand vs two in the bush. The most reasonable outcome should have been to place the batter/runner on first, R2 on third, and retire R1 on the force.