Velho

Looks likes something got edited by mistake @Catch18

Well this has been an interesting conversation... Hopefully everyone agrees this should be called a strike regardless of being caught or anything else.

Plus it doesn't help in the development of the batter or the pitcher. Assuming by "outside pitch" we mean beyond the rule book (i.e. none of the ball caught the plate) I'm in agreement.

I agree but you have to balance that with what's fair to the pitcher, the batter who is far off the plate (heels on side edge of the box) as an example.

Bear in mind that the chalk to the plate at that level is only 4". Almost 3" of that (width of the ball) is a strike by definition so going inside chalk to inside chalk is a no-brainer. Personally I don't call pitches at the eyes a strike although a lot do (fine by me). Not sure your rule set, but start with that. Watch what others do, especially when you do bases (you do do bases too right? ). Bottom line, you have to sort out what works for you. Welcome to the club and site.

Not arguing, I'm asking... Strictly in the context of calling a taken pitch a ball or strike, can you help me understand how action beyond the back of the plate influences deciding if the ball passed through the strike zone? The two reasons that have been provided are to slow down your timing (ok, I can follow that) and The implied message seems to be "if you call it a strike on these, you'll be hearing it from the OC so ball the butchered borderline pitch". That's a way it can be read but maybe that's not what you meant?

This is proposed as an out in this years rules congress. IMO that would result in it getting called even less in regular season since banging the out is harsher than sending them back. In last years LLWS I noticed very few (like none that I saw) runners were getting the legal jump off the base. I speculate over zealous calling in post season had made it not worth the effort.

As soon as it is touched runner is free to leave the base without risk of being out on appeal for leaving early.

On the intentional drop, like Marlins and Dodgers show in the video, what's runners placement? BR out and runners return to TOP I'm guessing? The Dodger portion made me think BR was given 1B. It's a very quick edited clip though.

Thanks for the response @beerguy55 re: Players: 100% agree. Tracking the entire flight of pitches they take helps them learn the pitcher's ball path and hit the ball better. Difference though is umpires aren't trying to hit the ball. They want to see if it crossed through a specific space - which ends at point of plate. Solid comment that if you don't track it to mitt you may stop early - which circles back to the OP. When I do 10U-12U games with the catcher 4-6 feet behind the plate and not framing it (in the good sense) it makes a less than ideal situation to call the ball/strike.

Confession time: I don't understand the "look the ball all the way into the mitt" mantra. I feel seeing the ball come across the plate and holding my eyes there aids processing the ball/strike determination. Sweeping my eyes along with the ball into the mitt feels a distraction and unnecessary unless it's a potential UK3. We're no longer in the world where how (or if) the catcher catches the ball matters. I hear this mantra preached endlessly. What am I missing?

Which is different than unintentionally (yes, we umpires have to read minds) touching first base after BR missed it https://www.closecallsports.com/2021/08/red-sox-vs-blue-jays-missed-base-missed.html

LL clarified this recently: on a nonbatted ball, a fielder hindering runner without the ball is OBS. This applies in multiple of OP examples. From LL 2021 RIM under Obstruction definition "It is quite simple now for the umpires to rule on obstruction….if the defense does not have the ball and impedes the progress of any runner it shall be called obstruction. It makes no difference if the defense is fielding a thrown ball or waiting for the ball, if the defensive player does not have the ball in his/her possession it is obstruction if they impede the progress of any runner."

Wow, interesting. Thanks @Senor Azul I wonder the history that led those to be different. For comparison & completeness, here is NCAA Baseball conferences rule: "Rule 6, SECTION 5 Time shall be called by the umpire and play is suspended when: (f) A coach or player is granted a timeout for an offensive or defensive conference. Each team shall be allowed three (3) offensive and (6) defensive conferences per game, no more than three (3) of which may include a coach."

It's high school so the answer is "yes, bunt" (at least in our area). Though I fail to see why you bunt with R1, no outs, and the #3 hitter up but I ain't the coach. Maybe it falls under the "don't look for rationality where there may be none" category.

Take it down a notch @Catch18. Besides, it's not an umpiring idea. It's a business tactic. It wouldn't even be a thought if you're umpiring for free or are indifferent to if/when you get paid.

Bet more teams would do it if they thought they could.

Was just watching Texas-Arkansas softball Super Regional and saw Texas take a visit in which both the manger came out (to talk to F1-F2) and a coach came out (to talk to the infielders). Anyone ever seen that before? Is that a softball thing? Everything I see in the baseball rules refers to singular manager/coaches making a visit but doesn't explicitly say only one.

What's the issue? His interpretation applies the RLI rule to a retired batter who is, also by interpretation, entitled to run to 1B even though he's out on the K. The rule cited, by definition, applies to an unretired batter so isn't applicable. Wendelstedt's argument (as presented) is weak. At least take @Jimurray argument an extend it to being outside the running lane indicates intentionality to interfere such that the play is evaluated under retired runner interference rules, which is what this is.

Please only do this if you are walking away from umpiring forever, as this would be career suicide. Thanks @SH0102 I'd only consider that after the prior steps - which includes aligning on expectations of when you'll be paid. We could debate career suicide or not (not that we need to). Leaving a particularly bad organizations can be a career assist. I see I failed and accidentally deleted my point here: This is a good point to talk to other umpires and see if the association is consistently not meeting their commitment on when you will get paid. This will help you figure out if it is systemic with the association.

A lot of the things we use in umpiring don't apply just to games. The one that comes to mind here is IAWE. Ignore - They didn't pay you promptly the first time: Ok, people are human. Let it slide. Acknowledge - Happens again: You need to say something. Set (and hopefully get agreement) on your expectations. Warn - They fail to meet the agreement: Have an "if...then..." conversation. Same as you do on the field - say it and be prepared to do it. Don't get into the empty (and endless) warning trap. This can, and likely should, include discussing with the coaches and AD's. They are either the root issue (not paying the association on time) or will be unhappy with their vendor (the association) since the schools are paying on time but the association is fooling around. Also a good point. Eject - Eject yourself from the situation. Silently by withdrawing and going to another association, explicitly by rejecting assignments, or in dramatic fashion if you want to go there. Dramatic could include emailing coaches/AD ahead of time and then showing up at a game to tell the coaches you aren't working today because you are unpaid for the last x-games. Having told them the issue previously, they shouldn't be surprised. In the end, it's like anything else. Who has the leverage, who is willing to bend, and who is willing to walk away.

Thanks @Senor Azul. Though, I don't see the basis for Wendelstedt to make that interpretation since the running lane is defined under "5.09 Making an Out (a) Retiring the Batter". https://www.closecallsports.com/2021/10/sorry-stros-rli-doesnt-apply-on-plays.html While I was there, they also have this, this, this, and this.

Remember that the next time people complain about your strike zone. 👍

Doesn't RLI only apply to a batter-runner?

Agreed. The subtly is lost. Keep seeing catchers yank pitches at the MLB level - which youth then do a good foot plus at times. Though I'd argue that if it was the electronic strike zone influence they'd simply stick it every time. No need to yank it and look foolish if there is nothing to be bought. It can even hurt since that old school thought "if he yanked it, it must not have been a strike" creeps in. Makes guys like Texas catcher Silas Ardoin stand out