beerguy55

Assuming NCAA fastpitch requires intentional, not accidental, appeals? Edit: it looks like the initial call in this video is "safe", but according to other info I've seen, the game ended on this play, with the second out coming...via video review? Crew consultation? Anyone know?

I would say this assumes facts not in evidence, based on the wording of the rule you have presented...so it would need to depend on what action you consider constitutes faking a steal. I would never consider a secondary lead anything that resembles an intent to steal. ie. the runner is still facing the pitcher/batter. For me the difference is when the runner actually turns his hips and breaks towards the next base. If that happens, then it's reasonable for the pitcher to throw to the next base. IMO, you can't fake a steal without doing this. Taking a secondary lead would not have this effect. For the pitcher to throw to the next base in response to a secondary lead, that would be a balk...and a brain fart. (and really, most balks are) Practically speaking, "demonstrates" or "creates the impression" can be viewed as the same thing...whether a runner intends to steal and changes their mind...or intends to fake a steal (usually for the purpose of getting an infielder to move and open a hole for the batter)...if that runner has done enough to convince an infielder to move towards the base, they've done enough for the pitcher to make a play at said base. In no universe was this rule written to allow the runner to fake the pitcher into a balk. And just being practical, do you really want to umpire into the runner's mind to guess whether the runner was faking the steal or simply changed their mind?

Well, if generative AI is allowed to hallucinate...

Practically speaking, I'm not sure how anyone can see (or hear) that in real time...let alone trust their senses enough to believe it. Yeah, you heard ting/thud...but those two sounds are always on top of each other; most people will convince themselves it happened the other way around....it "had" to happen the other way around. Otherwise, it would have to mean that the catcher missed the ball outright, with batter contacting the ball behind, if not directly above, the catcher's mitt, to make this possible. I frankly think you could easily call CI, and not have anyone question it. Because nobody would really believe it happened in that order, without video. Besides, the catcher's mitt was in the swing path, after all. To give an extreme example for consideration - if the catcher setup immediately behind the point of the plate, you're not going to require the batter to clock the catcher to call CI, are you?

You being facetious? This ain't there under A through I...and I'd question why it would only apply to the catcher...

A force is a status assigned to the runner, NOT the method of the putout. It's created by the batter becoming a runner, FORCING the runner on first to advance...which forces the runner on second to advance, and so on. Tagging the runner can be a force out, and tagging the base isn't necessarily a force out. Force outs can occur by tagging the runner or the base. Appeal outs can occur by tagging the runner or the base. An appeal for leaving early is not a force.

Was just about to say the same thing. Any umpire who determines that the word "hell" (on its own, regardless of context) falls under profanity is abusing their power. Report the F*#Kstick.

Unless there are ground rules related to poorly maintained fencing, I'd say for the most part it falls under "SH*# happens". Let the play unfold. This is going to be level/age specific to assessing whether or not the catcher might injure themselves trying to free themselves, or, put themselves into some kind of embarrassing situation, to whether or not you should use judgment to stop the play at some point. The higher the age/level, the less likely you're going to intervene until all action has relaxed. IMO, this is no different than the catcher blowing an MCL going for the ball. Reference video of Moises Alou being tagged out with his foot facing sideways.

For simplicity, let's say there's nobody out...and not worry about any end-of-game/inning scenarios. Bases loaded, ball four. B/R heads to the dugout (maybe it was full count and he thought he struck out)...before R3 reaches home, F2 tags him. B/R never goes to first and is eventually ruled out for "desertion", or whatever you want to call it. Does this remove R3 being forced home, making the tag legit? I know it's a ridiculous scenario, but please humor me.

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.