beerguy55

I guess he did indeed get to the base, so wasn't obstructed...and if the collision happened before the base then the award is the base.

I'm just curious - who argued that this wasn't obstruction? Or, what argument was presented to why it wouldn't be? I guess this is more important in FED where he'd be awarded second base regardless...I think. Even though F2 never threw the ball this is still Type 1/A, isn't it? ie. F3 is there because he was expecting a throw. So is he getting second base in OBR too?

Absolutely...a force is a force, and it doesn't matter where the ball was hit - and it sucks for the batter. It's one of many reasons some of the more advanced analytics/stats have become more prominent than batting average to give a more accurate read of a batter's quality/performance. This batter gets an oh-fer on a hard hit ball where the runner entirely screwed up. In SABRmetrics it would be the runner who is penalized for "causing" this out, not the batter. A little tip, though, if you're doing GameChanger, or any kind of informal scorekeeping, for just the team (not in an official capacity for a league/tourney) and you really want to give the batter his hit, to accurately record where the quality element of the play was, and where the mistake was made - simply record it as the runner rounding third and getting tagged out going back - it's still a 7-5 putout...it's still R1/R2 at the end of the day, but now the batter gets the hit he should have had, and your scoresheet reflects that the baserunner made a boneheaded play to get put out.

If there's an avenue to do so I'd report it to the league...if for no other reason than just simply giving them a heads up that this coach is going to get punched in the face - by another coach, or a parent. When I'm up 27-0 I'm going station to station, not bunting, not stealing, swinging at ball four, not advancing on passed balls/wild pitches/overthrows, etc, etc. And certainly no trick, or unconventional, plays of any kind. When I'm down 27-0 I'm looking for similar - not necessarily all of it - from other coaches...my reaction could range from confrontation, to petty revenge at a future game. The league, at this level, should be encouraging not only sportsmanship, but also learning as a priority, from their coaches - and they should be receptive to complaints about it, especially from umpires who not only see it first hand, but have an impartial slant on it. (as opposed to the coach whose team just got embarrassed) Teaching kids hidden ball tricks is not how they learn to play the game. Yes, they can be fun...and once in a blue moon they work...but if you're focusing any practice time on this over the fundamentals, at this age, you're not a "coach".

The bottom line is, the players need to know the rule. If that catcher knows the rule, he's not throwing. Period. I remember my twelve year old self, as a batter who just k'd with a runner on first, after being told to "run" by the fence yelling back "someone's on first, learn the rules". I don't think U3K should be in place much younger than that age group (same with IFF)....there's frankly no reason for it...the purpose for the rule (ie. protecting the offense) is a tremendously low risk at those age/skill levels. On the intent side...you're picking up a SH*#burger on that one. Yes, if you look really hard you could find a rule...maybe....to justify doing something if you are absolutely positively 100% certain this was a planned trick (and anything less you keep your mouth shut)...but you're opening a can of worms. This is a far different scenario than a baserunner yelling "I got it" as he nears a fielder tracking an easy fly ball, or someone yelling "balk". Another example - R1, nobody out...I'm F9...batter hits a sinking liner to me...I KNOW I can't catch it, but seeing R1 starting to advance to second I scream "I got it! I got it!"...R1 freezes, and I get a clean hop and throw him out at second to make the force. You telling me I've violated the rules for confusing/tricking the other team? Yes, you're not allowed to make a fake tag - that is a safety rule...but you're allowed to slap your glove to fake a catch...and you're allowed to make it look like you're tracking a fly ball. You're allowed to make it look like you didn't catch a ball, or you don't know where the ball is. Be careful going down the "fair play" rabbit hole. Especially in scenarios where the remedy to the situation is simply knowing the rules. There is legal deception and illegal deception. The rulebook covers the latter. Anything else and you're making it about you.

If R1 and B/R aren't there, this play is easy...F3 gets to this ball, with ordinary effort, and makes a routine catch. The route he had to take around R1, and then again to get around B/R, are what turned this into a difficult play. If F3 is able to take a straight route to the ball then he CAN make the catch with ordinary effort. Frankly, I think F1 can make this with ordinary effort. It looks to me like the sound of footsteps caused him to pull up, or maybe F3 called it. And those issues don't matter in assessing IFF. I agree with the umps on this one...definitely an IFF "if fair". The PU just missed on the fair/foul...brain cramp for sure, but it happens.

That's fine...not sure why you felt the need to quote the rule. "Ordinary effort" is a judgment call. You don't see it, I do. I think this catch is mind-numbingly easy for either F1 or F3 to make, at this level. You don't. That's it that's all.

I think this overturned call in last night's game puts the discussion to bed.

I'd speculate a lack/loss of focus. Lots of people cheering/yelling, caught up in the moment. Human stuff. He's watching to see if it's caught, or lands foul...he doesn't necessarily have IFF at that time (or isn't even registering the possibility)...then - and I'm purely speculating....just imagining a potential chain of events - he hears U3 come up loud with "infield fly if fair"...now he's distracted..."really? OK...I guess so" and then sees it land fair, and he's still thinking about the IFF call, and simply forgets himself on watching for fair/foul. Too much information to process at once, and he freezes. It happens.

Maybe U3 signaled IFF first? And PU reacted to it?

I guess you'd have INT on B/R at that point, he's out instead. And then I guess you technically have OBS on F3 before that...though R1 really can't go anywhere with R2/R3 in front of him...the OBS was on him returning to first...though initially hindered, he got back to first, and the ball ended up foul anyway. So nothing to administer there.

Interesting...I have IFF "if fair", and this is what the Plate ump called...he simply missed it going foul. I have INT on R1 as well...and yes, I could say that both R1 and BR interfered with F3...and I believe without that INT (by either or both) it's a routine catch...which leads me back to my original thought of IFF. In the end, for me, R1 out, runners return, strike added to batter's count.

At the very least, I think they'd want to see F1 a LOT closer to the B/R...getting trucked would do that, but I think they'd want to see at least the glove hand reaching into the path of the runner, rather than pulling up 10 feet away from the base line.

No rule book that I know of - I pulled that out of my ass.

LOL - thank you sir. The challenge in the current wording, taken literally, is a ball not yet passed first/third that is still moving is NEITHER foul or fair (this is fine...umpires know to wait)...and that a ball that bounds over first/third base, or settles, halfway over fair/foul territory is BOTH fair and foul. I will just requote myself to two possible solutions to correcting the rule book conflict between the FAIR and FOUL definitions... A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles completely on foul territory between home and first base or between home and third base and has not first touched fair territory beyond first or third base, or that bounds past first or third base completely on or over foul territory, or that first falls completely on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while completely on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground. OR A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that is not FAIR. New umpires should have this guidance: Until a batted ball settles, is touched, or bounds/lands past first/third it is neither fair nor foul.

Think of it this way - and it's a good way to explain it to anyone you know who doesn't understand this. "Force" is a status applied to the runner, not to the method in which is he put out. The runner is forced to advanced to the next base...the only things that remove that status is a following runner getting put out, or successfully reaching the next base. (and, yes, if the runner comes off the base towards the previous base, the force status is reinstated) If the runner makes the third out while under that status, then the third-out run-scoring rules apply. Tagging a runner can be a force. And tagging the base isn't always a force.

While this statement is technically accurate, context matters. And while the definition of "in flight" applies to batted, thrown and pitched balls, context matters. A fielder is not required to make a rulebook-defined catch to apply a tag...that is, the fielder does not need to get secure possession of a ball in flight. He can short-hop/trap the ball...a fielder can make an intentional one bounce throw to another fielder. The thrown ball can bounce off a runner's helmet, or a bat, or an umpire, and still be possessed by the fielder to complete the tag. Knowing all that, common sense would dictate that all the parameters of a "catch" pertaining to a batted ball do not...CANNOT...apply to a thrown ball. As such, it only serves to confuse people to determine whether or not a fielder "caught" a thrown ball. A tag only requires secure possession of the ball in hand/glove...it doesn't require a catch. And so, yes, by definition, fielders make lots of catches of According-to-Hoyle in flight thrown balls...and, frankly, it doesn't matter. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I cannot think of a single situation where a fielder is required to catch a thrown ball in order to make an out.

Was there a tag?

If we take this to the most extreme example, of a throw coming to F2 with two runners one step apart. By letter of the rule(s), if the first runner is tagged out as he slides into home he won't (shouldn't?) be ruled to interfere with F2's attempt to get the following runner - however, if the lead runner scores, he would be. I suspect this is not the spirit or intent of the rule (or the 6.01(a)(5) comment) - I suspect, and reserve the right to be wrong, that the intent of the rule is to apply the same standard to both, to some degree. And following that spirit, sliding into home and laying there for 3-4 seconds would not be "continuing to advance"...getting up and making way for the dugout would be...(?)

I would suggest it's common sense, though I guess some need things spelt out in black and white. A scored runner can be liable for interference on a play on a runner. Common sense (or the simple ability to use contextual clues derived from knowing that scored runners can be out for interference) would dictate that a runner who just scored needs to vacate and GTFO of the way, and the same common sense would (should?) also dictate the scored runner have some reasonable time to do so (ie. he can't just disappear when he touches the plate). So, if two runners are approaching home plate about five steps apart, the first runner who slides across the plate isn't (likely) to be held for interference for a play on the following runner 0.2 seconds later. But if following runner was 3-4 seconds behind, the scored runner should have been able to get out of the way.

Remembering a convo I had with an ump over 30 years ago while I was at the plate. "Strike" "Really?" "It caught the black" "Black isn't part of the plate" "It is at this level" 'nuff said. I became, exponentially, a better hitter after that 10 second exchange. And, conversely, I've seen pitchers go down the toilet when those corners aren't called. Call the corners - pitchers don't get frustrated, don't get tired. Walks hurt the game on all levels. And you can foster SH*#ty daddy coaches to "coach" his players to look for walks. Don't reward stupidity. They're hittable pitches...make the batters hit them.

The fielder, with the ball, is allowed to make a tag attempt at the runner. If the fielder determines that he has a better chance at tagging the runner rather than the bag, he can do so. And if his momentum takes him into and through the runner, it may just be a baseball play...within reason. He is also allowed to run at the bag, touch the bag, and run through the bag, even with the runner coming at full speed perpendicular (he's putting himself at risk as much as the runner) - he's allowed to determine/believe that he can make the play without crashing into the runner, and he's allowed to be wrong. Your statement of intent in crashing into the runner is your judgment...I can't make that judgment with this video. (opinions may differ) If you judge intent then it has nothing to do with right of way.

If this happens, your question (not statement) to the umpire in this scenario is "sir, was the batter's foot completely outside the box?" If he says "no, it was touching the line" then end of conversation. If he says "yes" then you can ask "Can I just get a rule clarification please - isn't he required to have both feet in the box before the pitch is thrown...and a pitch can't be allowed until his feet are in?" Let's say the foot is in the box at time of pitch, and then the batter steps his foot backwards out of the box when he swings. It's only a penalty if he hits the ball. So, I'd say CI is the call. The ump would have to judge that the batter was stepping backwards to intentionally hit the catcher with the swing...and no ump is making that call without 110% certainty.

When in doubt, taking the Potter Stewart position works

You may have to spell it out, with attention to timelines. But this is what I'm getting out of this... Lineup is ABCDEFGHIJK (for example)....A-K all batted, and then A batted for a second time and got out. Then the team put player L into the lineup? Do the rules allow this, first of all? Many rec leagues will. This is fine. L goes in, and then will bat after K the next time. Are you suggesting that player L was there before player A batted, and if so, did he play on defense to that point? If so, then yes, you would have had to identify it at that time. Or, if L was already added to the lineup, but the team went directly from K to A, you could call it out after A bats. (however, since A got out, you wouldn't gain much...the ump would rule L out instead, and then A would leadoff the next inning - I'd advise accepting the out of their leadoff hitter and continuing on) EDIT: What we need to know is... 1. When was L (late arriving player) added to the lineup in relation to A batting for a second time? 2. Where in the lineup was L added? At the bottom, after K? Or some other spot? 3. When was the first time L batted?