CJK

Were you? I mean you kicked that call. You probably kick puppies, stuffed animals, cute little teacup pigs, and those funny little fainting goats, too. Ya kicker.

Here's an excerpt from the Official Rules of Baseball (used by MLB). Your citation "No two runners can occupy the same base at the same time" is not a direct quote, but is only part of Rule 5.06(a)(2), and must be considered in the entire context of Rule 5.06(a)(2), which says exactly what everyone in all 3 of your threads has been telling you.

I'd clarify. If the lead runner is forced, s/he's not entitled to the protection of the base (when they're both touching it). But if the lead runner is not forced, the trail runner is not entitled to the protection of the base (when they're both touching it). In the OP, you're 100% correct, because the lead runner is forced. I just wanted to point out that it wouldn't necessarily be that way in every situation.

The rules don't say two runners can't be in contact with the same base at the same time. The rules do say that only one of them is entitled to be safe if s/he is tagged while in contact with the base. In your example, JBJ (as the B/R) is entitled to be safe at 1B, and Young (as a forced runner) is not. And in this case, play doesn't need to "resume" because it's not over yet. Something still needs to happen. There can't (and won't) be a new batter until the current baserunning situation is resolved. (P.S. Why didn't you just reply to your earlier thread?)

Should've spent some of that road time teaching base runners not to be idiots/a-holes.

I worked a game last year where, at the plate meeting, my partner and I introduced ourselves by first name to the head coaches. I also, as always, made sure to use both head coaches' names before the meeting ended. One of the coaches was far more talkative than the other, and also used my name when speaking to me during the game. The other coach spoke to me rarely, and called me "Blue." Late in the game, I heard the other team complaining bitterly about their players getting called out on close strikes, and how the first coach and I must be "old friends" because we called each other by name. All I could think was "If your coach chooses not to use my first name, that's not on me." I may have maxed out on silently judging people that day.

Still no. The team is penalized specifically for not following the rules. Inattentiveness alone is not prevented by rule. Interference is.

I'll disagree. ODB was in the way as a direct result of his/her own inattentiveness. Lazy F2 provided an opportunity for the B/R to advance, every opportunity for live ball advancement carries the possibility of interference, and the onus is on the offensive players to avoid it. The rules don't require F2 to hustle or be aware; they don't require B/R and 1BC to be alert and take advantage of the situation; they do require ODB to stay out of the way. The unfortunate part of the situation (and the one that I think people are rightfully lamenting) is that the player most directly affected by the penalty is the only one who was doing the "right" thing. But like a kick returner whose teammate pushes an inconsequential defender in the back or a big man who gets too aggressive just when a teammate pulls the trigger on a 3 pointer, that's how team sports work sometimes. The human part of us recognizes that it feels "unfair" to that player, but the official in us knows that the rules are the rules, and our job is to enforce them.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

In my heart, I agree with you outright. In reality, there are places where pulling out all the weeds would leave the garden bare.

This is a really good point. If F3 fields the throw and touches the base after the runner has passed it and before she returns, we have to judge whether she's playing regular softball, or whether she's making a missed based appeal. The standard requires that it be clear to the umpire that it's an appeal. Also, Mark, let me just say that I appreciate your willingness to put your potential mistake out there as a teachable moment. It's not easy to be vulnerable like that, but it's very valuable. Not only have you learned from it, but so can everyone else who reads this post.

Absolutely nip it. My game management style is more cooperative and less authoritarian, but it fits my personality. As soon as they start with each other, I'd call to them as I started to move toward them, using their first names if I know them. And as soon as I could get close enough that only the coaches could hear, I would say, "Mike, Greg, your players are going to learn a lesson in sportsmanship right now. Either you can teach it, or I can teach it, so here's your one chance to do the right thing." And each of them will follow one of three courses of action: S/he can realize that s/he's embarrassing himself and the team, and sincerely apologize, which is fine, because we can get back to the game; S/he can just pretend to let it go and then sulk in the dugout, which is fine, because we can get back to the game; or S/he can continue the conflict, thereby earning an ejection, which is fine, because we can get back to the game. Please, if this doesn't fit your personality/style, don't try to use it. There's no one way to manage a game, and you have to find your personal sweet spot. Game management advice is always like a workshop; there are lots of tools available, and you take and use the tools that you feel comfortable with and know how to use. If you try to use a tool that you don't understand or that you're not comfortable using, you can quickly make things much worse.

Or the burden on F6 if his buddy gets a big enough piece of the ball: he was headed to do his job, but F5 made a great stab or knocked the ball down (either one), removing F6's possibility of being a protected fielder, and now instead of being in position to field the ball, he may be guilty of OBS for hindering R2. There have to be rules for how player interact on the field, and there have to be penalties for violating the rules. Sometimes that kind of feels bad, but they apply to both teams and everybody knows what they are ahead of time, which (as Maven noted) is what makes it fair. Fair doesn't have to feel good.

MLB Rules: It sure doesn't sound like the pitcher held the ball "securely and firmly in his hand or glove...long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball."

It does.

The out on the forced runner negates the run. The out does not have to be recorded by touching the base; tagging the forced runner is good enough.

Son of a gun. I didn't see your plea for T-hooks soon enough.

I have a lot of respect for you on this forum, so I've made a concerted effort, but I can't find a point in your responses. I'm going to disengage here. You can have the last word, if it's important to you.

And if the goal had been to open a dialogue on whether people should kneel during the anthem, then the "protest" would have been an unequivocal success. Alas, it was not, and so it has not.

Really? Are people talking about racial inequality, racial oppression, and whether all forms and levels of government are truly operating as if "all [persons] are created equal", which were Kaepernick's stated goals? Or are we talking about whether kneeling is appropriate/effective/inflammatory?

If Kaepernick had chosen a tangible target to protest, been able to express a clear path toward correcting the injustice he perceived, and acted in a way that was notable without being inflammatory, I think he would have been much closer to "brave." Instead he took a nebulous "racial injustice awareness" stance, indicated that he would continue until the flag "represented what it was supposed to represent," and manifested it all in a behavior that drew attention not to the cause or the change he wanted to see, but to the behavior itself and to Kaepernick personally. This was a "protest" that may have been rooted in noble ideals, but it was implemented in a phenomenally poor way from almost any reasonable viewpoint.

OBR 5.09(a) 7

So nobody misses it... http://umpire-empire.com/topic/69727-nfhs-ruling/

A player might pretending to camp under or catch the ball, or call for it when s/he won't catch it, or fake a throw; these are examples of "dekes." They are common and fine. Lying directly to a member of the other team is not a deke.

Burn the dugout while you give your partner a chance to handle it. If it's clearly over the line, and s/he passes on the opportunity, go ahead and get your hands dirty. I also think you should make an earnest effort to post-game this. One or both of you may learn from explaining your respective action/inaction.