beerguy55

My catchers were trained to understand that the umpire is your best friend, and you are to be the umpire's best friend.

I wouldn't see any reason to "kill it" on a swing and miss - if that swing and miss was a U3k then batter could advance...and if the batter and all runners advance a base CI is ignored. Likewise, since you don't need to have a swing for CI, ball four could have the same scenario. Having another look at the rules, I'm not sure what I missed last year. The FED rule doesn't mention anything about a requirement for the coach to take the play (except that all runners advancing means CI is ignored)...and the OBR rule (not the comment) says "if a play follows the interference".

Another way to explain it that might help others to understand is that "force" is a status applied to the runner, not the method in which a runner is put out. The runner is forced until something happens to remove that status (eg. reach the next base)...if they are put out, in any fashion, while forced, then the two-out run-scoring rules apply. Tagging the runner can be a force out, and tagging the base is not always a force out.

I love Rehak's response here - "It's not down. Why are you yelling? That's the first pitch you're going to yell about? It's 6 to 1."

MLB's definition of a no-hitter and perfect game, since 1991, is it has to be a complete game of 9 innings or longer. Nothing that happened in 2020 circumvented that definition. This standard eliminated any 5-8 inning "official" games going back in history, as well as moving forward. It also eliminated NH/PG's that had been lost in extra innings. So, yes, 7 inning games in 2020/21 double headers were official, but did not qualify for the no-hitter/perfect game standard. No different than a weather shortened game. The MLB definition of a perfect game doesn't mention "runs" (until 2020 it didn't have to)...and there's confusion to whether or not the standard is the pitcher allowing a batter to reach base...or a runner reaching base under any method. The only statement I've been able to find is that tweet from the MLB VP of Stats that the perfect game doesn't get lost by way of the runner starting on second base. There's just no clarification to what would lose the perfect game. eg. what if a batter reaches first via fielder's choice? They got an out, but a batter reached base. End of PG, by definition. But the other side of the coin is a groundball to F4, he takes the batter and lets R2 go to third. Then another GB to F4, he takes the batter and allows R3 to score. And the perfect game is still intact? Follow that by by another out, don't score in bottom half, and would make a perfect game where the team loses 1-0. Sounds pretty stupid to me. I think we'll have to wait for it to happen and see how MLB responds.

Apparently MLB has clarified that a perfect game is not lost by the extra innings ghost runner, BUT I believe no run can score in a perfect game. We'll have to wait for it to happen I think. Tampa Tarpons Lose Perfect Game To Extra-Inning Rule — College Baseball, MLB Draft, Prospects - Baseball America The statement about the ghost runner apparently came from MLB VP of Stats Cory Schwartz. That does go counter to MLB's definition that says no runner may reach base in any fashion. Even if true, I just can't imagine any universe where a team/pitcher that allowed a run to score gets a perfect game.

Yup - some orgs are so afraid people will leave and go to other orgs...my thoughts were always "let them". I had a code of conduct for the players, another for the coaches, and another for the parents...and I expected them to be followed. Some people genuinely wanted to make sure the kids weren't victims of their bad parents...I sympathized but felt the we had to think long-term, for all the kids in the org, not just one or two. You don't nip it in the bud, next thing you know you have parents conspiring, or seeding discourse. I inevitably had parents who would challenge me...basically saying "what are you going to do about it?"...my response was simple...I can't bench YOU. I can't make YOU do laps, or pushups. Yes, I will use your kid as a pawn here, and your kid will know exactly why they're getting splinters in their ass...YOU can deal with the car ride home.

Unlike batting out of order, with an illegal substitution the other team can raise it at any time while the illegal substitute is still in the game. There are additional penalties that can happen before the next pitch (like a batting out of order appeal) or if the illegal player is on base at the time, but otherwise, if you notice the illegal player has been in the game for three innings and he's standing in right field minding his business, you can get him and the coach ejected. Practically speaking, it might be hard to prove he's been in the game for a few innings, so I wouldn't advise doing so while, for example, the team is at bat and the illegal player is just sitting on the bench. But if you want to wait until the last inning to see if the illegal sub is part of a critical play, you can do so.

If I interpret this right, what you are describing is an "unreported" legal substitution...it's legal because the re-entry is legal. If noticed before the first pitch, it's corrected and no penalty. (ie. coach can put pinch hitter into field and keep starter on bench for re-entry later...or, coach can document the re-entry at that time, and sub out pinch hitter). After one pitch, it's corrected by applying the re-entry and the team is warned. Pinch hitter is subbed out of the game. SUBSTITUTE - A player who replaces a player that is in the game (offense or defense) is a substitute. Teams are required to immediately report all substitutions to the Plate Umpire. Upon notification by either team, the Umpire shall announce the legal substitute and make the appropriate lineup card changes. An unreported legal substitute brought to the Umpire’s attention will result in a penalty, all prior play shall stand. PENALTY: For unreported substitution, First offense: A team warning is issued. Second offense: The head coach is ejected for remainder of the game only. If the substitution truly was illegal - eg. re-entry wasn't permitted - then it's a different procedure. In your hypothetical, player and manager ejected, batter goes back to plate with whatever count he had before popping up. If the batter was out and the illegal player wasn't involved, the play stands. Also, the pinch hitter is subbed out and no longer eligible to replace the ejected player. The use of an illegal player is handled as a protest that can be made at any time, while the player is in the game. A player will not violate the illegal player provision until he/she enters the game and one (1) pitch is thrown. Any action before one pitch is thrown is correctable. PENALTY: An illegal player violation results in the immediate ejection of the illegal player and the head coach. In addition, the following penalties will apply: A. If the illegal player has completed a turn at bat and before the next pitch, the illegal player is called out. Any advance by any runner as a result of the illegal player becoming a batter-runner is nullified. Any additional outs recorded on the play stand. B. If the illegal player is a baserunner and is still on base, the illegal player is called out. C. If the illegal player has made a defensive play and before the next pitch (or the defensive team or the Umpires have left the field), the offensive team has the option of 1) the result of the play or 2) replaying the last pitch. NOTE: The illegal player can be legally replaced by any eligible substitute.

It would show as an illegal substitution would it not? Fred is F6...George pinch hits for Fred in top of inning. Fred then goes in defensively for George in bottom of inning. Assuming re-entry isn't allowed, that's an illegal sub...once play starts George has officially been subbed out of the game, but by an ineligible player...he must be replaced by an eligible player, and Fred and George are no longer eligible....I think.

This isn't always true though. Depends what the coach wanted. In most (all?) typical youth rule sets, softball and baseball, the starting player can re-enter the game. So, it's common to have someone come in to pinch hit for a player, and then that starting player go back in defensively. In that case, the player who pinch hit (or pinch run) is now out of the game (subs, typically, can't re-enter, starters can). And, under that, in your scenario if you didn't notice, I believe in most youth rule sets this is just corrected, and the SS would re-enter on the lineup, and the pinch hitter would be out of the lineup. If the coach had wanted this sub to be permanent I think he'd be SOL once the first pitch of the inning is thrown. Now, if that shortstop didn't have re-entry privileges, then we get into some ugliness, potentially, depending on the rule set. I think the most likely is the pinch hitter is out of the game, and the original shortstop is also out of the game and has to be replaced by someone else available on the lineup.

I wasn't here nine years ago so I'll chime in now. Runner out. Seems like an attempt to confuse the defense in running (stepping?) in reverse order. I think this case is solid even without the direction that a runner can't retreat to a previous base after the pitcher takes the rubber....that comment, I think, only solidifies the position. If you're not allowed to go back to first base, then any intentional act to move towards that base must be an attempt to confuse or cause travesty. And frankly, even without the clarification, it's never been in dispute what the runner couldn't do while the pitcher was still on the rubber....he can't retreat to the previous base. It's also important to note that the runner is immediately out per the MLB clarification...not that you have to chase them down and tag them somewhere. Having said that, I can see some arguing that he's not out until he reaches said base. I don't believe that is the intent of the rule. But I'll let the philosophers decide. I wouldn't call it abandonment as it's not a clear indication of moving towards the dugout or believing the play is over. But I can see the argument based on the same mentality - he's only allowed to go one direction. He's out one or two, and perhaps three, rules.

Too late - Occam's Razor is that beerguy had some memory somewhere in his head that MLB said that Segura should have been out, but simply couldn't find the source material for that memory. That's been found now.

Yes - after reading the 2013 post by @johnnyg08 I changed some Google parameters and did find a few articles on it: MLB: Segura shouldn't have been allowed to 'steal' first | FOX Sports Upon further (MLB) review, Segura shouldn't have stolen first base - SBNation.com Jean Segura should've been called out - ESPN - Jayson Stark Blog- ESPN Looks like MLB did clarify that Segura should have been called out, under either the 5.06(a) comment, (7.01 then) or even the abandonment rule as he was "heading to the dugout". So regarding the OP - R3 at TOP may not retreat to second base.

If the parents signed off on an agreement not to discuss/dispute coaching decisions that's all we need. Doesn't need to be threatening or rude. He broke the rule/policy. I can understand the rule, and wish in hindsight I'd had it. Because justifying your lineup decisions to each parent, regarding their own kid or other kids, never goes well and always goes down an endless rabbit hole. Doesn't matter what empirical evidence you have, every parent believes their kid represents your team's best chance to win, and can't fathom that you actually have a logical process in putting together that particular lineup for that particular day. And, the fact that the parent was a coach in the past he should know better. When my kid played with another coach, I kept my mouth shut, no matter how inept I thought he was. You want to be the coach? Then fine, here's the equipment bag, you take the team. Otherwise, on this team I'm the coach and you're a parent...sit in the stands and cheer the team on, or get lost. I've said it before and I'll say it again...the next time I coach it will be a team of 12 orphans.

It might be a means to get away with a final explanation in the moment, and correct it after the fact in this exact scenario, but it's not a scoring error. As far as the scorekeeper is concerned the run never scored...the girl's standing on third base, not in the dugout. It's a misapplication of the rules - your crew unscored a legally scored run. I think the fact that the very next batter k'd for the final out afforded you an opportunity to correct the mistake seamlessly, but if this had gone on in some other fashion you'd be SOL - eg. instead of two out there's one out...the next batter walks...then the next batter hits a ground ball that results in R3 forced out on the plate...at this point you can't go "wait a minute...why the Hell were there three runners on base?" Well, you can ask, but you can't do anything about it. You certainly can't claim it's a scoring error.

Doesn't resolve the question of interpretation presented above. Same question lives on - does it mean the runner may NEVER return to the previous base...or does that restriction only apply while the pitcher is in contact with the rubber? ie. when the pitcher disengages may the runner return to the previous base. (provided he isn't doing so to confuse the defense/cause travesty) Some of us believe it is the first, some the latter. The Segura play supports the latter, unless the rule was mishandled.

I'm assuming you're asking about the likelihood of PU needing to really worry about and lineup seeing the timing of the out at first vs the touch at home...I'd say pretty low...and I think you can see pretty early if there will be a play at first. The example you give about getting R2 at third (or even R1 at second) before the tagged up R3 scores, is more common for sure, and not only are teams coached on the defense of it, but also the offense. R3 needs to hustle in case of a third out somewhere else - he can't jog just because the fly ball was caught at the warning track. And at the same time R1/R2 need to understand the risk/reward of trying to advance and getting out before R3 scores. As well, we'll have R1/R2 feint advancing to draw the cutoff and reduce risk of a close play at the plate....or get in a run down to ensure R3 scores. On the R1 appeal side, appeal time plays are so rare that even though I coach the knowledge, I don't expect much of them retain it.

Typically not - even at the higher/older levels I've tried to keep it simple. Muscle memory. F3 goes to cutoff and F4 is - theoretically - going to first. F1 is going behind home. Many teams I've actually had F3 be the cutoff for all throws from any field - again, to keep it simple - not just community/rec ball, but 18 year old club teams that have medaled in Nationals. The question here would be whether or not F4 can get to first in time....or, if he's committed too much to going after what may have looked like a shallow fly ball. Depending on the batter/situation, he also may have been moving to second on the steal. Having said that, my players are coached to go through several scenarios in their head before each pitch, and know what they're doing for each of those scenarios. Most players wouldn't get far enough down the list to "R1 is stealing and fly ball hit to RF", but if they did F3 would know to go to first base. It's advanced IMO. If F3 is very smart and observant he'll make the adjustment. Or, if the team communicates the way it should, maybe F3 gets the message and adjusts in time. You'd get a chuckle asking some of the teams I've coached about this, because I put a lot of time and effort into explaining and getting F3 to vacate the base to take the cutoff - because, on a single, they want to be at first base to get the batter who just rounded first and went too far. Without fail I could ask any F3 who could have played any number of years how many outs they got doing this the answer was either one or never. So, I ended up pounding into their heads that I don't care about the runner on first base - they're not going anywhere. Because of that, most of my players would likely not get the second out on this play, by default. EDIT: ironically, less competitive teams are probably more likely to get this DP (if they can make the throw and catch). At rec ball you'll either see no cutoff person, or F1 is cutoff, and in either scenario F3 is anchored to first base.

I still had a Blackberry...

Not only that...I really hope he didn't put BR back on second base from third base. U3 had a bad few minutes. Agree with the assessment that not only can you correct this, but you are required to. A legally scored run can't be unscored. Anyway, count yourself lucky. I can't believe nobody complained at the time. It had the potential to cost the offense at least two runs. There are scenarios where this would prevent BR from scoring on a subsequent play where he otherwise would have if properly administered. And, much worse than potentially affecting the outcome of that game, that team's coaches are going to run into a similar OBS play in the future, and argue with an umpire that correctly administers the play, because some umpire last month/year said something different...

I don't mind it. There's a line and if they don't go by the line then the appearance of impropriety can come in to play. (see the strike zone on any given night) With replay review you don't have much choice but to have strict adherance. The three point line is assessed in a similar fashion is it not? The football only needs to touch the plane of the end zone. The puck needs to be completely over the goal line. You can be offside by a millimeter. Your toenail touching the line in tennis or volleyball results in an invalid serve.

As @Jimurray says, the rules are there, but are subject to interpretation. Specifically, does the rule comment mean that once the pitching position is obtained a runner may NEVER return to a previous base...or does it mean that once the pitcher disengages the runner is free to do so? Without full direction, interpret as it makes sense to you, and do it consistently. I'll even explain the reasoning for my interpretation of continued prohibition. 5.09(b)(10) references running in reverse order. That rule was created to respond to an incident in MLB where with R1/R3, R1 stole to draw a throw so R3 could score. And when no throw came he stole first on the next pitch. And then stole second again on the next pitch. That rule was made to address that, so, IMO, the comment under 5.06(a)(1) is for some other reason (don't know if it came at the same time as or some point after the reverse order rule) - IMO it is meant to draw a line and set a runner's starting point, with no option to go back. For any reason. It's meant to, again IMO, for an example, prevent R3 from being chased all the way back to first base - or even home - on some weird pickoff/rundown play (without qualifying for the conditions of 5.09(b)(10)). It also makes more sense from a scorekeeping perspective to never have a scenario where you have to explain how a runner who just hit a triple ended up on first base a couple of pitches later. MLB has never, that I know of, explicitly stated whether or not the Segura play was mishandled. So, it could be reasonable to conclude the umps made an error and it was handled quietly/internally...and alternatively, without any public statement that Segura was handled wrongly, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude it was ruled on the field correctly, meaning the rule only applies while the pitcher is on the rubber. That doesn't make sense to me, but there are weirder rules in there for weirder reasons.

You can be called for abandonment on a home run trot as well, for the same reasons as passing....you still have to fulfill your obligations. See Robin Ventura's walk off grand slam which ended up scored as a single.

We also have potential coach assistance, at 0:44, off first base which prevented Segura from abandoning? (Assuming, abandonment can happen during a dead ball, where there's no opportunity to advance - ie. no baserunning award) Well, he was caught stealing on his second attempt to steal second (?!?!?!) - so I think the universe fixed itself.