beerguy55

Schrodinger's Ball.

Same possibilities...they may not notice him right away...but, yes, if they do, they're screaming. Also a bit different from OP because here, if it is a foul ball the expectation is a very loud declaration by an umpire to that effect. You think this is a foul ball without hearing that, I'm not holding a lot of sympathy. This is a no brainer "out". I agree the OP is an out, for being tagged while off the base, but I would like to hear a verbal "safe". Runner wasn't instructed to go anywhere, so it's on the runner, but I don't think enough was reasonably done to convey the appropriate information to the runner. A safe habit for the runner is just return to the base and let someone say "you were out".

Who gives a SH*# about everyone watching the play? How about the people IN the play? It's quite apparent that the runner didn't see what happened. He could very well be the only person on the field not watching the ball...he's running head down and watching the base. He may just hear the ball hit the glove and not see anything else...so from his perspective he just believes he's been beat. I disagree with your "no ball" assessment...the ball was there, and actually hit the fielder's glove. There's even a world where F3 thinks he has caught, and has, the ball. It happens on these "obvious" plays. It's so obvious (to everyone but the B/R who isn't watching the ball...he's just running his ass off) that nobody really notices, because they're just expecting him to go back to the base, or they've moved on to concentrating on the next batter...or maybe another runner. Very easy that they just wouldn't notice him doing this until too late.

It usually takes a few before the alpha males figure out the first one, two, three putouts weren't flukes. Besides, you steal on the pitcher, not the catcher...the better catchers can forgive some of the slower deliveries is all.

This is a demonstration of the skills a pro F2 possesses to pull this play off, but does not change the fact that he was indeed hindered. Likewise in football, that a receiver was still able to reel in a pass with the safety holding onto his arms, it's still pass interference. Even if you successfully argued that F2's throw path wasn't changed (which you haven't), the batter blinded F2 from his target.

Cybersecurity is my career. All for MFA, but I will offer some caveats. First - on a personal note about MFA in general. Use an authenticator app, passkey or some kind of biometric/passwordless option whenever you can over SMS. SMS is, by far, the most vulnerable form of MFA (it's surprisingly easy to hijack your phone number). If you are using a site that only offers SMS, and the data there presents a risk (eg. bank), hound them to provide other MFA options. Also - please, use a different password everywhere. Having said that little PSA... 1. If there's no PII or financial info here, or anything you'd consider private, is it life-changing if your U-E account were to be hacked? Your reputation here/elsewhere is a valid consideration too. MFA may not be necessary on a forum like this, from a data security/privacy perspective. It may seem a bit much to new users. Having said that, definitely enforce MFA for any admin accounts. 2. I'm not convinced MFA would prevent the incident you describe...it's common for these gangs to use burner, or even personal phones, to quickly get over that hurdle. MFA is a security measure to force people to verify their identity/access...it's not really meant as a deterrent to creating fake accounts. To give you an idea - Facebook removed 1+ Billion fake accounts at the end of 2024. And a recent data breach showed 1.6 Billion accounts on X/Twitter - even though they only have about 300 million active users. The rest are mostly fake. If the bad guys want to create fake ID's they're going to. 3. Is the idea now to make people register even to "Ask the Umpire"? (currently says no registration required, but you can't submit questions if you aren't logged in) Requiring people to register for that component may be all you need - although I'm not clear if the spammer accounts were guests or registered users. Assuming these spammers were simply guests, try making everyone require an ID to post, with a valid email address that must be verified. Try that first before adding MFA. If the spammers are getting past verifying a valid email, MFA likely won't deter them. I don't think you'd significantly reduce the number of questions asked by forcing all posters to register...it might even create more engagement from those people to have to register and then get access to all the other parts of the forum. 4. If you do opt for MFA, try to set it up to MFA only once for each IP/Device you log in from. And then need MFA to change your password.

I'll say the same thing about timeouts I say when people ask other questions about certain baseball rules related to where your feet are (rather than the ball). This is not football. Stop bringing a football frame of reference to baseball. Also - stop bringing the MLB you see on TV to your local amateur setting. Pro baseball has most of the same rules, but is managed in an entirely different way, to a different flow...not only for TV viewing, but simply for professionals working with professionals. It's in many ways more informal, and it can be, because everyone knows what's going on.

If there's only R3, there's nothing to hinder, by the description. However, if there was another runner on the paths there may be an issue.

That position is, without any other word coming to mind, stupid. Or, perhaps, simply intellectually dishonest. A runner is out when...he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball. If this is truly your position to justify this interpretation/opinion, there's really nothing further to discuss. At the beginning you asked me which logic I used to make my original statement. You have ended this with the textbook example of logical fallacy. Unless using this dishonesty, those who have interpreted this way are, in no uncertain terms, declaring it is not intent. And they are mistaken. Please tell me you're kidding.

Except when it is. What you mean to say is running, on its own, without any other context or judgment of intent, is not INT. I understand the interpretation and that as such, it is gospel...and what I mean to say it is majority opinion here (or seems to be) to agree with the interpretation...though it's possible that some have no opinion of their own and simply support said interpretation...until that interpretation is changed. I have the luxury of not really giving a SH*# what the actual interpretation is, except so far to say that it is misguided, put forth by someone, and supported by those, who don't understand the simple mechanics of what a runner can easily do interfere with a throw they can't see. It's an intentional act specifically for the purpose for impeding the throw. To suggest the runner can't have intent without looking is nonsensical, or some notion that they can't achieve their goal without looking to where the ball is going is naive. To the point of the runner raising their arms for a throw they can't see - I want to be 100% sure that's why they raised their arms.

Right, wrong or indifferent, the consensus (or at least majority vote) here, and certainly in MLB, and CloseCallSports (based on the Machado/Freeman play in the playoffs) is changing your running direction in the HOPES of impeding a throw from behind you, as long as you don't look back at the ball to gauge where you have to run, is not enough to rise to the level of INT. Even though you can easily gauge where the ball is going based on the actions of the receiver. If you are an advocate of that position, then simply throwing your hands up while sliding, in the HOPES that a throw from behind you, that you can't see, will hit your arm is also not INT. To take it further, changing your running direction is an overt action - there's no question when a runner changes their running direction intentionally, even if you somehow believe they weren't trying to block the throw. Even with that undeniable direction change, that clearly wasn't accidental or organic, the majority opinion is that is "not enough", because the runner didn't look back at the ball. Your hands coming up in a slide can be a natural result of the slide...so you also need to be further sure that the arms came up intentionally. But, by the standard of the runner changing direction, even that wouldn't matter, unless they looked back to see where the ball was. The logic is around consistency - specifically pertaining to what a runner can and can't do to impede a ball throw from behind them, one that they can't see. If A is not INT, then B cannot be INT. If A is INT, B may or may not be INT.

Teach your batters to hit better - winning on a balk sucks.

If changing your running direction, without looking back, isn't INT, then blindly raising an arm during a slide isn't INT.

Pine tar is not and never has been the equivalent of corking the bat, or anything similar to that effect. Batter advantage was never a reason for limiting pine tar - or any grip assistance - usage. This is why the pine tar rule is not under 6.03(a)(5). The rule in 3.02(c), specifically allowing a substance to improve grip, but limiting it to 18 inches, was to keep whatever sticky stuff off parts of the bat most likely to hit the ball, so that they could keep the ball in the game, for an era where any ball that was still in the playing field remained in the game. And as I stated earlier, this is moot in today's game. There is a case if someone is putting wax on the bat, or anything that might reduce friction, but pine tar has never fallen under that umbrella, because it increases friction. eg. it would be like calling marijuana a "performance enhancing" drug. If pine tar helped the batter obtain power, then the George Brett protest would have been denied...they would have treated it like hitting the home run with a corked bat.

I agree it's contradictory...it's also a misnomer to say the bases are 90 feet apart...they are not...they're under 88' apart. Likewise, touching the front of first base makes it fair, even though the infield ends at the back of the base. If we want to be strict, I'd want it to be the back of the base...practically speaking...close enough...in real time even the slowest balls that manage to bounce over the base without touching it are tough to differentiate where on the one foot line the ball crossed. Likewise...do we really want a wicked sweeper that touches the front outside corner of the plate and is caught outside the opposite batter's box to be a strike? Or front inside corner that then hits the batter's cup?

The definition of FAIR BALL combined with section 1.04 that describes the playing field, defining the boundaries of the infield as the square of the bases. Once you read both it becomes clear that "outfield" and "past first/third base" are synonymous. Anything beyond that square, defined by first and third base at said square's corners (with those bases fully inside the square), is the outfield. A ball landing three feet directly right of second base is, by definition, in the outfield...a which is beyond first/third base. The exception would be touching second base, even though 3/4 of it is technically outside the infield.

I can't comment on the imaginary line, but I can comment on your last analogy. LL does define the infield as the 60 foot square (or whatever the distances are at each level), and the outfield as whatever is beyond that - so anything touching the ground into the outfield would be fair, based on the definition of a Fair Ball in the LL book. At the very least, "past" first base or third base would be beyond the line between first/third and second base. (and you if you want to get extremely technical, 1/4 of second base is in the infield - the line from the outside of first/third bases meet in the middle of second base).

Pine tar does not produce more power to the batter. You want a loose grip on the bat...almost dangling in your fingers. The best analogy I can think of would be holding a pet hamster - firm enough it won't get away, but loose enough you don't hurt it. Choking the SH*# out of the bat deadens the power, and prevents whip action, which drops bat speed. The pine tar just keeps the bat from flying out of your hands, or in some cases rotating in your hands. Since the bat is properly in your fingers, and not in your palm, the pine tar helps keep the bat in your hands. If you wanted to argue that helping your grip helps your power, then fine, but pine tar on the barrel of the bat does neither.

The rule was created in an era where a ball was used until it was hit into the stands. The defensive player who got the third out rolled the ball to the mound, like we all do in amateur ball. I remember Pete Rose, while playing first base, would spike the ball after getting the third out...and that ball was used to pitch against his team the next half-inning. Getting pine tar on the ball forced them to "waste" a ball. It wasn't even until at least the mid-80's where you started to commonly see batters demanding that balls that hit the dirt in front of the catcher be checked for scuff marks, to be removed. Before then, pitchers kept hold of scuffed balls as long as they could. Today, the cost of 100 baseballs per game is a rounding error in a $12B industry. Edit: There was a time where fans were required to return any baseball to the playing field, and it really wasn't any different than any amateur ball game seen in any town on any night. No one considered keeping the ball...until one guy refused. And until Ray Chapman was killed, a ball could end up any color imaginable (except white) and often wasn't even round any more by the end of the game.

We can see, with many replays, that he is actually touching the seats. The umpire MAY have seen him as having his entire weight solely on the netting and not touching the seats or any other part of DBT. As I understand the rules and definitions, the netting is part of the wall, and therefore "live" territory as far as the player leaning on it, sitting on it, climbing it, etc.

Because the vast majority of bleacher-umpires don't take the time to actually know the rules of the game, or how umpires operate, but take even less time to espouse their opinions and expertise on said rules they haven't read. A lot of the coaches aren't much better. You've taken the first step many don't...asking actual umpires. What I'd suggest is to ask future questions without the tone, derision, or accusation. Or, even better, ask the question, regardless of whether or not it went your kid's way. Then, ideally, pass the facts onto the ignoramuses sitting beside you - they'll likely tell you you're wrong...but you tried. Nothing more powerful than the fear of being wrong...even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Also remember - your players are amateurs, and so are the umpires. Umpires are a team, and, when they are at their best, they work to help each other, to get the call right, as best they can. That might mean subtle signals to each other that one umpire may have some information for the other umpire. Meaning the ump doesn't have to wait for a coach to ask to change his call. It might be something as simple as seeing something, but letting the play go...and then conferring with the other umpire to make sure they have the rules right. What you call an appeal is really just a request..."Blue, I'm pretty sure my player got under the tag...you may have had a bad angle...can you ask your partner for help?" Said umpire can respond with something like "I had a good angle, I saw what I needed to see", and refuse the request, or "will do"...and then can see if the other ump has additional information for him to chew on...at which point said umpire can change his call...or not. On check-swing appeals, it is often customary for an umpire to wait, but there are scenarios where he could/would voluntarily look to the base ump. For ACTUAL appeals (eg. missing a base, leaving early on a caught ball, batting out of order), then yes, the umpire is not to say anything (in most leagues) unless the coach formally appeals. You are conflating very two different scenarios...which are covered in the rule book. btw - I'm not an umpire, I'm a coach. (or was) And I had a code of ethics for my parents... 1 - learn the rules or your opinion is not wanted. 2 - the coach will talk with the umpires, you cheer your kids on. 3 - I can't bench YOU.

Things may be illegal, but so what...what's the penalty? Jaywalking is illegal. Nobody goes to jail for jaywalking. And no MLB player would be suspended under the morality clause for doing so. The poorly written article references 3.02c but then ignores what that clause actually says about the penalty, and instead goes on to reference the clause about doctoring the baseball. This is what the article should have included, if the writer had any integrity: NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game MLB clearly documented 40+ years ago, in the George Brett protest game, that the infraction provides no competitive advantage to the batter (consistent with the prior case with John Mayberry) - it should also be noted that Brett was ejected for his outburst, not for the pine tar. MLB clarified the only appropriate penalty is removing the bat. The rule was originally designed/created to increase the life of the baseballs, to reduce costs - it might actually be the only economically based rule in OBR (I reserve the right to be wrong)...in today's game where a baseball is NEVER used after it hits a bat, or the dirt, this rule is purely vestigial.

There's a lot to unpack here. Simply put - it's the umpire's job to use his judgment to determine this very thing. Whether it hit the hands only...or the bat only...or the hands then the bat...or the bat then the hands. And if you want to argue that it hit both at the exact same time, then you can enter the "tie goes to the runner" debate. Without measuring in picoseconds and picometers, the ball hit the hands or the bat first. The ump uses his eyes and ears, and other common-sense considerations, to make the best judgment call he can. It is literally his job. Nope - even if it hit the bat first, then the hands, it's now a foul ball. It wouldn't be strike three, but it's definitely not in play. The ball is dead either way. It's only in play if the ump were to judge that it hit ONLY the bat. Why would you think that? If the umpire thinks he missed something he's free to talk to his partner to see if there's more information to get the call right. This isn't a check swing, if that's what you're thinking of. Even if you were to believe (you, the observer, not the umpire) that the batter checked his swing, and it hit his hands, the plate umpire still has first judgment. If he saw a swing, it's a swing. No appeal necessary. If the ball was in the strike zone when it was struck by the hands/bat, then it's a strike regardless...either foul, or dead ball strike three. The batter swung and the ball hit something. It's the umpire's call to determine what it hit first. And if he wants to get some help, he can. If you're asking about the rule - it's a dead ball strike three - batter out, and all runners return to their base at time of pitch. The rule was correctly administered based on the umpire's judgment that it was a swing, and that the pitch hit the hands only/first. If you're asking about judgment - don't.

The runner may be retired by tagging the base or the runner.

The runner is immediately expelled from school and shall not graduate when they miss any base on a dead ball award.