beerguy55

As I stated previously - I would have to see evidence of this outcome when it comes to the Kinetic Arm - without said evidence, it's a stabilizer.

To make sure I understand - you're saying the ump should have just called R1 out when playing action stopped...in SC only? I suppose an argument could be made that action really hadn't fully stopped - namely, the coach came out too early to tell his player to appeal to third...keeping everything moving.

Don't see how it would be any different than a knee brace. Kinetic Arm Products – The Kinetic Arm I'd have to see some evidence that shows simply wearing this device adds 5 mph to your fastball to be concerned about it. There's a good chance that this is what Ohtani was wearing during the World Series.

Ask yourself this. Is there any universe where calling IFF would have changed the outcome of this play? Yes, the purpose of the rule is to protect the runners - specifically to protect them from falling victim to an easy DP that was created by a force...somewhere in the range of 150 years ago, some savvy fielder allowed such a fly ball to drop and got an easy double (or triple) play...so they created the rule to close that loophole. The U3K first base occupied exception follows the same principle. (imagine being able to get out of a bases loaded zero out jam by just dropping a third strike?) The purpose of the rule is NOT to protect the runners from themselves.

Isn't yelling a sign of endearment in New Jersey?

Agree 100% here. Though I think there is an appropriate path to correcting/punishing behavior, after appropriate assessment/warning, the Venn diagram for the guys who make themselves the center of the thrown bat piece (often in the pre-game plate meeting), and the guys who say "my field, my strike zone" is just one circle.

No, maybe we/you should be. You're at least an unbiased party to what was witnessed, so won't be dismissed as the whiny one who was victimized. You'll at least have a credible voice that may have some ability to influence change...if you want to try. You truly might be the only one on the field that is actually interested in what is best for the game and the kids.

They need to, but it will be a crapshoot. Especially at the rec level a lot of these org committee members are more interested in empire building than bettering the game for the kids.

But what was taught (right or wrong) was even then the ump would not signal - so say catcher makes a swipe tag while at the same time I do a backdoor slide - If the catcher makes the tag in time, out, if I hit the plate with no tag, safe...if neither happens, then the ump makes no signal.

Well you can tell them that their play was neither clever nor original...and it has been designed and done before their fathers were born. They lack integrity and will never succeed in baseball or life. I've coached teams into regional and national championships, and players who have been in the PanAm games, and at least one who will be in the LA Olympics. No one who ever played for me or coached with me ever needed to pull off a bullSH*# play like this to feel better about themselves. Wastes of skin taking away precious oxygen from the rest of us. Less valuable than a screen door on a submarine.

Yes, and it helps the offense know they need to touch the base. So it's equal and fair. For plays at the plate I was taught this when I played Little League some 40 years ago, by my coach. If the ump signals safe he saw you touch the plate, if he makes no signal, you better find a way to discreetly get back to the plate.

Exhibit 421843 to why the umpires should simply explain the ruling to the crowd/viewers. And to why the broadcasters need actual rules experts on staff. "The runner passed first base while the fielder did not have the ball - even though he missed the base he is considered "safe"...after that point, the fielder must clearly appeal that the runner missed the base, and he failed to do so." That's good enough for the people in the stands. The rules expert in the booth can elaborate a little further for the broader media audience. In ten F*#King seconds.

Yes, it's bush league. Yes, it's probably legal. (some may argue something about unsportsmanlike conduct, and I'd support it...but I doubt you'd get consensus on it - you would certainly have to KNOW, in real time, with 100% certainty, that this was planned). It's ultimately up to the catcher to know the count and the rule...and it's Exhibit 5127 why I don't advocate U3K at this age. Any coach who does this should be forbidden from coaching ever again - this is a trick play that will only work at the levels where U3K is new and confusing. This does not help the integrity of the game. This does not help kids develop baseball skills. This only helps kid develop deviousness. Some coaches feel winning at 10U is THAT important. They should be cast into the sun. btw - with two outs it doesn't matter if first is occupied or not.

Punitive or not, ejecting a kid for throwing a bat ensures he won't throw his bat any more that game...you're removing a risk that doesn't need to be present. Sure, there can be judgment to how many times you want to see it before it's a problem, but if you see the first three kids throw their bats, and don't act upon it, a SH*#storm is landing at your feet if kid four knocks out some poor grandmother sitting on her lawn chair. Line drives and foul balls are part of the game...thrown bats are not. One is a risk you must accept...one is a risk that must be mitigated, if not removed. Dude won't wear his hard hat on a construction site...fire his ass. Risk removed. I lost count the number of times an ump says something like "final warning - no more throwing bats", or does call a kid out for doing so, that somehow, no more bats get thrown that game. It solves the problem far more often than it doesn't...leaving just the remaining kids that truly can't control themselves. You're not wrong...but you don't accept those risks...you do something about them...and people don't rob banks while they're in jail. The existence of the death penalty didn't stop John Wayne Gacy, but executing him certainly did. You might or might not change the attitude/behavior for some of the players in that game...but you've certainly ensured that particular kid won't do it again that game. No different than tossing a player for saying "you suck"...maybe that will shut the other players up...maybe it won't...but you certainly shut that player up.

I think I can say I have the same experience, but I've seen enough near misses to know that my (and your) experience is more an element of luck, rather than a measure of the actual risk. Seeing bats flung into the catcher's/ump's shin pads, helicoptered backwards past the ump's/catcher's heads, or the ODB's head, or the base coaches, or into the dugout, or into the spectators on one of those fields that only has a backstop...well, you get the picture. I've had my fill of wondering what things would have looked like but for a few feet...or inches. Combine that with the fact that this is one injury risk you can actually do something about - it's not a risk you have to accept...it's a behavior that can mostly be corrected, and should be. I'm not talking about a batter who gets fooled on a low outside curve, but batters actually throwing the bats after they get a hit. You accept that foul balls are gonna hit you in the head. You can't tell the batter to stop fouling the ball straight back. You can get them to stop throwing the bat...and I see no problem in getting worked up when particular players continue to do so...especially when coach doesn't see the problem. In the HSE world "near miss" (close call...narrow escape) is a reported/captured stat that is used as a bellwether for actual incidents - it's considered a leading indicator. Treat them as seriously as you would an actual incident. The Near Miss gives you the opportunity to change something to keep OHS off your site.

For the most part, yes. Baseball too. Ball four is live, just like ball one, two and three. And the play is live when the batter advances to first...and if the defense is sleeping the batter/runner can advance to second if they want. Unless ball four hit the batter - then it's a dead ball. Or something else occurred on ball four that might kill the play (eg. Interference) You MIGHT have some of the youngest learning levels in recreational settings where they kill the play on ball four, but I think that's rare.

Unless this specific league (or tourney) has a specific bi-law describing this as an out, it's not an out, by rule - it could be, and likely should be, an ejection. It would depend on whether or not that warning applies to all players, or if each player gets his own little warning. I don't advocate giving every player one freebie. So, you have to ask yourself, why did you make the warning if you weren't going to follow it through? Even at 10U, if this is the second incident in the game, on the same team, you may have to come down hard. This can create a conundrum for coaches who want to argue with the umpire that incorrectly called the batter out..."Ump, throwing your bat is not an out"..."Ok coach, then shall I eject the kid?"

It's simply an opportunity for elitists to say, "akshuwully...it's not a force because..." and then they feel all smart about themselves, and you feel suitably chastised. Keep in mind, it may not be a "baseball definition" force play...but the batter is indeed, dictionary-based, forced to advance. Forced = mandated, obligated, obliged, required, compelled, bound, restricted, etc, etc For me, the batter is forced to advance by the On-Deck Batter becoming the next batter. It's not like you can have the batter/runner stop at the 45-foot mark and stay there to wait for a pitch to be delivered to the next batter. I'm a founding member of the "It's a force at first folks" revolutionary committee, and am happy to accept donations, or other members, at any time. No, but he loses his right to occupy the batter's box.

Yeah, I'm not umping this game, I'm not coaching this game, I'm not playing this game. If it's truly double-booked, something's gotta give...hopefully the soccer can move further away to a more safe distance. If it's not double-booked, and they're just there because they want to be...have them clear the field, and don't start til they do. I'm not as much worried about a soccer player getting hit by a ball (they can usually avoid that) - I'm worried about an outfielder running while looking at the ball, colliding with a soccer player running while looking at the ball... EDIT: I just want to clarify - there needs to be judgment here to what is reasonable and/or a risk you're willing to accept. I've played on many fenced fields where a homerun goes into a soccer field, or another ball field, or into traffic - you accept those risks as reasonable. I think you have to visualize here where a reasonably distanced home run fence would be, and go from there. (I'm not talking about liability, I'm just talking about the human risk of worrying about hurting someone)

As far as R3 is concerned - probably not. Unless the ODB actually impeded F2's ability to catch the ball AND tag R3, there's probably nothing there. You can't just blindly penalize the offense for a really SH*#ty throw that happens to hit the On-Deck Batter - you have to make a case that the ODB hindered the defense's ability to make a play on that runner. However, there is still R2 to think about...logistically, once the ball is thrown offline they're not worried about R3 anymore - but they are worried about R2 advancing...F2 (or F1 covering) is likely trying to retrieve the offline throw...if it hits ODB preventing them from making a play on R2, or letting R2 advance to home, you COULD have INT here, and R2 would be out. That's probably still a stretch because R2 is likely at, or very near, third base by the time the ball hits ODB....but if, for example, R2 didn't run to third until he saw the throw offline, you might have a case that the defense had a play to make on him.

First - your post title is redundant - being caught by the catcher is a requirement of a foul tip...otherwise it's just a foul ball. The short answer to your question is, because those are the rules. A foul tip on ANY strike is a live ball, and is not a "catch" for the purposes of making an out on a batted ball. If I were to speculate to the reason - it would be patently unfair to the base runners to apply the tag-up standard to a foul tip. Not to mention the chaos it would cause. The game would be SH*#tier if that rule was changed.

This should be part of your mechanic.

To put it bluntly...because it's F*#King hard to do. It's hard to make that reaction in real time, in a fraction of a second, to realize R1 is going (your back is to the runner) and then determine that you are still in time to make the move to second base.

There is no potential for a double play, as described, unless perhaps Kyle Schwarber is the batter. He MIGHT get the lead runner at home...he's not getting the DP, whether that's getting the batter at first, or tagging R2 before throwing home (removing the force). You'd have to determine he'd have a tailor-made case of tagging R2 and then easily getting R1 or the batter after. (in FED) Don't try to create double plays. You want the DP opportunity to be obvious...ie. self-evident...not debatable...not "could have possibly".

I see something completely different. I see F2 opting to go behind the batter, and the batter simultaneously stepping backwards into F2's path.