beerguy55

To this one point, the batter isn't required to get out of the runner's way, but is required to ensure he does not impede the catcher's ability to make a play on the runner. Any reasonable umpire should conclude that the batter had plenty of time to make an effort to vacate....and he can run any direction he pleases to accomplish that. Speaking practically, it's in the batter's interest to get out of his teammate's way....whether that's to give his team the best chance to score, or simply save his own ankles.

Then where's the obstruction? ie. did F3 truly "hinder" the batter/runner? If you're going to call OBS it better be obvious. And if you're going to call an obstructed runner out at the very next base he better be out by 20 feet. If you're truly talking being thrown out by a couple steps it's virtually impossible to say "yeah he was obstructed, and it didn't really matter"...you try to make this case you're eating a SH*#burger. Your job is hard enough without you making it harder.

Yes...and when he disengages the 20 second clock will reset. Likewise, if the pitcher is strolling around the mound, and talking to the shortstop, while the pitch clock is winding down, the batter is required to be in the box and alert at the 8 second mark, and will get charged with a strike, even if the pitcher isn't even on the mound. There's no reason for him to disengage if the batter isn't ready. It's in is best interest to stay engaged and hope he gets a free strike. The pitcher, however, is not allowed to come set until the batter is alert to the pitcher.

ummm...what? The foul tip rule still requires a "catch" which still requires the ball to be held securely in glove hand. That hasn't changed in any rule set. It's far easier to determine if the "sharp and direct" ball hit F2 first, rather than trying to determine if it hit F2's hand/glove before his knee, chest, elbow, or face.

The word "shall" appears 810 times in OBR. You proposing we apply the same "choice" to all of them? Shall = must. Technically shall=should too, but typically in corporate speak should="it's probably a good idea and will cover your ass" and shall=must. Thankfully, the word "should" appears far less often in OBR, and much of the time it's as a condition (eg. should the runner fall) rather than a directive. Otherwise, if we were to apply your logic throughout the OBR, then this rule (as just one example) would be meaningless... In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order

I would assume your pitchout condition isn't about what the catcher is allowed, but what he's not allowed. Not that it's always OK in foul territory...but that it's never OK in fair territory. If the catcher is receiving the pitch anywhere in fair territory he's going to be held to a higher standard, and higher liability of CI...namely, if the batter's in the box there's an opportunity to swing, and CI will be called, even on a pitchout in the other box. We've seen what some batters will do on pitchouts in hit'n'run scenarios. If the catcher's in foul territory then a little more judgment is needed, and you want a higher level of obviousness; but CI can still be called, even on a pitchout. That makes the most sense to my little brain.

Would common sense not dictate that if a batter abandons the batter's box, on a steal play for example, that they have relinquished their opportunity to swing? I'd be careful of that one. PItchouts (even ones still outside the strike zone) have been hit over the fence. Under the same guidance as above, you don't want to force a team to swing to cause CI.

First - it's easy to get - it's a free app called "LL Rulebooks". Second - wtf? LL has a rule about what to do when a runner leaves early...and that includes not ever returning to the base...no reason to drop any hammer, let alone one from a ruleset that doesn't have early leadoff rules. Even in softball, where the penalty for leaving early is an out, the mechanisms are pretty similar...just that you can call the runner out before the pitch is thrown. LL baseball isn't an out, so rule accordingly....usually it means returning a runner who otherwise advanced. After the next pitch the team should be throwing to try to get the runner out...they have nothing to lose...if he reaches second base he has to go back to first for "leaving early"...(it may be liberal to consider the runner to be advancing to second, but I think it's appropriate to treat it as such)

Is he hitting the catcher on the follow through...or is he letting the bat go and it's hitting the catcher. Two very different scenarios.

You don't need a swing, and you certainly don't want to tell a coach "the batter didn't swing", any more than you want to tell a coach that the runner didn't touch the fielder, or the catcher's throw to first base didn't hit the runner. You don't want to suggest any action that increases a chance for injury before you need to make a call. This is why soccer and basketball players flop. But you still want it to be obvious. If it's obvious that the catcher is jumping onto or in front of the plate to catch the pitch, call it. If it's obvious the batter wanted to swing, but didn't because the catcher was in the way, call it. If you have to think about it or discuss it or contemplate it or guess or use the word "probably", it's not obvious. Don't nitpick and don't look for it. Use the rule book to solve problems, not create them. There's an opportunity, especially at this level, to let the coach know his catcher is getting close to the plate, and is putting himself in danger. You're not warning them that a CI call is coming...you're warning him his catcher is going to get hurt. That tends to be received in a more positive manner.

Why would you want to...the batter's getting his base anyway? But let's go to a 1-0 count. You really want to call CI, for interfering with the batter's theoretical ability to hit a pitch that was out of the strike zone? Batters start and stop their swing virtually every pitch. Yes, sure, CI doesn't need to have a swing, and certainly doesn't need to have a strike to deprive said opportunity to hit said pitch, but even if you can defend yourself in the strictest terms of the rulebook, you've opened up a can of SH*# and sprinkled it with vomit. Keep CI to the obvious and you'll like your job a lot more.

I think that's what's being tested...I believe in the MiLB areas this is being tested the batter/catcher/pitcher have something like 2 seconds to challenge the call. The one thing I'd say should NEVER go to video review is check swings....you're just getting a third opinion at that point. The only way I could see it working is if ten people in the video room all agree one way or the other.

To clarify the first statement by @noumpere - if you notify the umpire while the incorrect batter is still at the plate, there is no penalty...the correct batter is put in and inherits the count. To add to the second statement...once a pitch has been thrown to the next batter, the previous batter is deemed to be in the proper order...however, that does not mean the current batter is proper. For example, batter 3 and 4 swap...batter 4 comes to the plate, gets a hit, and now batter 3 comes to the plate. If you throw a pitch to batter 3, it's too late to do anything about batter 4...BUT, it should be batter 5 at the plate now...so, wait to see what happens to batter 3 before saying anything...if you say anything after the first pitch, they'll just put in batter 5. Clear as mud?

Oh, to be totally honest I can see myself having the same reaction, right down to tossing my helmet into the stands. IMO this is the equivalent of calling fair on a ball that lands three feet foul. It's that egregious, with no real good excuse to explain the miss. It's amateur hour. First year umpires don't miss this call. This can only be explained by not really paying attention.

When douchebags collide.

I love Frank Robinson - yes, yell at your damned players and tell them to get off the ump's back...he's right, you're wrong STFU. Later that same year, when it was clear that Vlad Guerrero would not re-sign with the Expos he sat VG in a late season home game in front of one of the biggest crowds of the season (to play people who would be fighting for jobs next year)...when told the fans were coming to see VG play his final games his response was simply "well, they should have come to one of the earlier 80 games"...also knowing that the Expos wouldn't be in Montreal for much longer due to attendance. Great man. That's also next level play by Perez...he could have easily just stayed at third, but took the risk to induce the throw to home and hope the players messed up the rule.

I guess the question is, why would they have to? You're either in a rule set where baserunners are allowed to lead off and attempt to advance any time they want...or can leave the base when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand...or can leave the base when the ball reaches/crosses the plate In all those scenarios the runner is allowed to attempt to advance to the next base before anyone knows if it's strike three.

By rule, you are right. The defense is expected to know the rule and act accordingly. The ball is live, and there is no rule against the offense trying to draw a throw. In practice, I can see scenarios in recreation/community leagues, and age levels that have just been introduced into the dropped third strike rule, where the umpires will take a more collaborative and educational approach and kill the play. You would typically want such league to have that in their own bi-laws as modifications to the official rule sets.

The answer is simple, and you've answered it yourself...he's not saying "ball". If you're asking "what is he saying?"...couldn't tell you...."strike" "hike" "yes" "haaaauuuh"

It was pretty clear during the first inning that Boone was setting himself up for an ejection.

Didn't I say "many/most"? (as opposed to "all") And I provided an eg - ie. this is an example of one particular ruleset. Not to mention the first sentence of my post said "it may depend". Not sure how much more clear I can get there.

It may depend. This looks true in OBR - the rule just says the feet must be "within" but doesn't clarify if that means entirely within, or just partially. Little League is the same. They also say the lines are in the box. So, if you're touching the lines, you're in the box. FED says the batter is out if he hits the ball while his foot is on the ground completely outside the lines of the box....so basically, the same as above just said in an opposite way....and a little more explicit. No mention of the plate....I think for all intents and purposes, for the element of judgment, if you're seeing a foot on the plate you're seeing a foot completely outside the box. It's your judgment. I have seen local/community leagues make this a specific rule, but the major rule sets (unless there is external guidance/interpretation) don't specifically prohibit stepping on the plate. Many (most?) softball rulesets require the feet to be COMPLETELY within the box, at time of pitch...and specifically prohibit touching the plate when hitting the ball. eg. The batter must have both feet completely within the batter's box prior to the start of the pitch. He may touch the lines, but no part of his foot may be outside the lines prior to the pitch and The batter is out...When his foot is completely outside the lines of the batter's box and touching the ground, or any part of a foot is touching home plate when he hits the ball fair or foul

You've been shown the exact rule as quoted in two major baseball codes used by youth leagues (OBR and NFHS), which RBI derives - ie. they don't write their own full set of rules...they use existing rules (probably OBR) and then make minor tweaks. You'd have to get your league administrator to see if there's such a tweak about extra fielders in foul territory (hint - there isn't) Little League also says in 4.03 "all fielders other than the catcher shall be in fair territory" and "the catcher shall be stationed in the catcher's box". I'm pretty sure someone could come up with the NCAA rule too, which everyone here will guarantee you will say the same. So, what part aren't you understanding? You've been shown the rule, verbatim, in multiple rulesets...you've been explained the meaning and context of the rule, including any possible language interpretations...and you've been explained the reason not to do it, regardless of the rule. All players but the catcher (singular) MUST be in fair territory. Not only that...the catcher (singular) MUST be in foul territory, in the catcher's box at time of pitch. So even if you somehow decided that you could have five catchers (you can't), all of them would be required to be in the the little 4x8 area behind the tip of the plate when the pitch is thrown. And just for the helluvit - here is the rule from the Official Softball Rules Section 3, just to show a general consistency across the bat sports, in all settings. NOTE: Players of the team in the field may be stationed anywhere on fair territory, except the catcher, who must be in the catcher's box, and the pitcher, who must be in a legal pitching position at the start of each pitch What more do you want? You want the official RBI position, go to them...bring a notary to have it signed and framed on a wall if you need to. Your snippiness demonstrated in just your second post on this board is unnecessary - keep your entitlement elsewhere.

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder "some object other than a fielder" includes base runners, coaches, bases, plates, bats, etc, etc. There are some ground rules in Tampa that defy this. This doesn't seem to apply to insects. Not sure about birds....funny enough, ChatGPT appears to have just fabricated an incident where it claimed Dusty Baker hit a home run off a seagull in 1972.

The answer has been given - so, I'll add that even if you could (and there are ways to get around this rule), you would never want to do this. Fundamentally, it's poor defense management, and just poor tactics from a coaching perspective. At this age a coach's job is to teach the kids proper baseball skills that will take them through the higher age groups and skill levels. There's really nothing to gain here except you MIGHT prevent a runner scoring from third base on a wild pitch...and I'd posit that that wouldn't happen enough, or work enough, to offset the disadvantage of having one less defender in the field. Teach your pitchers to pitch better and teach your catchers to block better. Those are the long-term skills you want to teach kids at this age...not come up with antics to try to prevent an extra run from coming in. Let the kid score...the short term gain of preventing this is nothing compared to the long-term ramifications.