Velho

2a. Modified MLB/OBR: Runner on 2B is batter before current batter. Manager gets to pick current batter. 4. Escalating 2a: 2a for first extra inning, R2 & R1 next inning, R3 & R2 & R1 inning after that (all no outs, manager choice of current batter) (seen from my travel ball parenting days)

I hear you. That's one of the reasons I just joined the Board. It's a good league currently but needs attention to remain that way.

Boom shockalocka. Nailed it. Risk reward in trusting people. Baseball is life.

Boom shockalocka. Nailed it. Risk reward in trusting people. Baseball is life.

The argument I heard was that the batter couldn't hear the verbal strike call. I think Varsho tossing his bat is what gave R1 the impression it was a walk. I have no really understanding of why he did that. By initially stopping he obviously heard a verbal strike call. Said with no sarcasm since I appreciate @beerguy55's recents posts: imo, the problem lies in the fact that anyone other than F2, PU, and often but not always the batter are thinking they know the call on a pitch within a few inches of the zone - an imaginary 3D shape that moves every pitch and, on a non swing, is not relative to the batter's position at the moment the ball crosses the plate. Ass-U-Me and all that. As a humble bird lawyer, personally, I don't like the two part call. His physical movements on both ball/strike are the same until the last moment when he points the strike. There is a reason this isn't the standard taught mechanic. Is it a valid argument that it contributed - sure. Is it causal and thus absolve the runner of responsibility? Not in the least - because of the above (in addition, softball seems to survive just fine with this order of operations).

Can a toaster take a toaster bath? @Jack_Wick is an LLM. At best it's a person cutting and pasting from an LLM. You can keep engaging with it but don't expect rationality any time soon.

I'm with you. I think this is the fertile ground to plant the seeds of proper culture. Don't take the extra base because they other team can't throw and catch at 8 because it's the right thing to do... not because there is a line on the ground the runner had to be past before the pitcher has the ball on the mound. Peer pressure can be a wonderful thing. Yes, I can be a perpetual optimist.

Though coming from the other end of the level of play spectrum than @grayhawk I'm in agreement: it's situational so read the room. Just had it last week in a 14U LL Fall ball game. I know the coach. These are true development players. He asked where it missed in a good tone. I can tell he's trying to figure out what coaching cues to give F1 to find the plate. "Not hearing" the question in the first place is another tool as well.

Yes, because you are talking to ChatGPT. This is not a person.

Wore my Shear pads yesterday. About 65F ambient (gosh darn fall here in San Jose). They were great. Softer than my stock TW (but those are 10 years old so must be worn out). Probably won’t bother with Clouds Also, I love that the masks harness doesn’t have to work its way though the pads like AS.

Depends on what play you’re referring to. It was not called that way in 2015 according to retrosheet. See 7/1/15 in link and pasted below. https://www.retrosheet.org/passing.htm 7/1/2015 - In the bottom of the eighth in Queens, Mets pinch hitter Darrell Ceciliani missed the pitch on a squeeze play. Ruben Tejeda was run back towards 3B by catcher Miguel Montero. Tejeda ran past 3B and Montero tagged Daniel Murphy, who had advanced from 2B and was standing on 3B when tagged. Since Tejada was not on the bag, Murphy was safe. Tejada was tagged while standing behind the bag and was out. 3B umpire Chris Guccione had called Murphy out but then reversed himself and told Murphy to stay on the bag. The umpires huddled and upheld the calls. This was not a traditional passing the runner but was strange enough to include here. i believe this is the play that triggered the 2016 OBR rulebook update to ensure this is called Passing.

If Muncy is judged as having attempted at 2B (and given he walked about 10 feet toward it as he tried to figure out caught or not caught it’s a reasonable assumption) then Gosney is saying this IS passing because BR was beyond 1B when R1 retouched - even though Muncy was not close to 2B, ie there was no daylight between them. Only if BR never attempted 2B would it not be passing, per Gosney (unless I completely misunderstood @JSam21 since he’s the one that communicated with Gosney) Also, not my theory or supposition. Just bringing it out for discussion.

Personally, that's my thought as well - you need both BR advancing / feinting towards 2B and physically closer to 2B. To be clear, for NCAA that is contrary to guidance @JSam21 got from the NCAA Umpire Coordinator'sabove. The only OBR I've been able to find is Ted Barrett (first hand 2022) and Wendlestedt (hearsay ~2013) saying physical matters. I'm going to LL Regional school next month. I'll put in on my list to ask. Hopefully the MiLB ump that's often around will be there. Until it gets called and becomes a sh**storm (like with retreating beyond 3B into LF that triggered a 2106 rulebook clarification ) I doubt we'll see an OBR clarification. Do with all that what you will. 😁

That's my inclination as well. I see the logic behind saying BR is beyond 1B regardless of their physical location but I believe the origination of the rule was to avoid confusing the defense and don't see how it adds confusion (and feel the existing language is not specific enough that this is a no brainer). FWIW, I did get this in response to my post on Reddit: * This refers to a Baseball Rules Academy video I found of Ted Barrett saying it's "physically passed" and an attribution of Wendelstedt opining "It is only passing when the runners physically pass one another while running around the bases" https://community.hsbaseballweb.com/topic/passing-a-preceding-runner

Good eye. Doesn't appear to have happened but was certainly close (I didn't zoom & enhance). U1 seems to be on top of that - which would have also removed the force (F2 never tagged R2, only 3B). 0:32 of Antonelli's breakdown

We are all honorable men here. We do not have to give each other assurances as if we were lawyers. Nice pitcher you got there coach. Be a shame if anything happened to his strike zone...

"The baseball rulebook was written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not lawyers for lawyers"

Yeah, putting the actual play aside (and also putting aside the sh**show from making a passing call on this), I'm interested in the rule application. Revisiting the argument and discussing it elsewhere, it hinges on BR making an advance attempt. The working theory (as I can figure, in my words) is this: - If BR ran through 1B with no advance attempt, no passing is in play. - If BR advanced (colloquially "rounded first"), then being physical further from 2B is not a protection from passing. Rather, being beyond 1B is a "state of being". So, since BR is in an advanced state (even though BR is not closer to 2B than R1), once R1 retouches 1B, BR is an in advanced state and has "passed" R1 by definition. Given the language around passing is so minimal [5.09(b)(9) He passes a preceding runner before such runner is out] that logic has to be based on 5.09(b)(11) provision that "If [BR] attempts to run to second he is out when tagged".

I umpire games on this planet. Ha! And you don't do the lower levels where this (directionally) does happen... But it goes to the point of the rule being solely as batted vs some consideration given to the fielders actions.

But nothing in that statement say they have to make that effort, just that it needs to judged ordinary effort if they did. I see my statement you agreed with as saying it doesn’t matter if the fielder exerts the effort or not but rather solely judging that hit as ordinary for that level. (Which is MITB’s position) I interpret your response to MITB as you are looking at the fielder efforting is a consideration in making the judgment of ordinary or not. To go extreme scenario that puts the differing views to the test: a level appropriate no brainer to be caught pop-up but nobody moves and the ball falls untouched. You calling IFF?

In the Muncy fly ball DP I’m seeing an argument that BR Muncy should have been called out for Passing R1 because he touched 1B and never retouched it before R1 did on his return. Meaning, since R1 retouched 1B before BR did, BR is beyond R1 by definition. Or is it measured by who is closer to 2B (as we normally see passing)? Because on this play BR was always closer to the RF foul line than R1. See picture attached. [even if he wasn’t, for sake of argument let’s assume he was and the picture is as close as they got to being nearer 2B than each other] Hopefully I’ve said that well enough to delineate the two choices to determine passing: Closer to 2B is the beyond runner, or Second person to double touch 1B is the beyond runner OBR 5.09(b)(9) simply says “passes a preceding runner”. I can’t find anything of note in MLBUM or JR.

This one. I think the umpires in the play that started this thread would disagree with you. As do I. On the face of it, these two things feel inconsistent to me.

Thanks. Good examples of fielder still on the move. Slowly and obviously dialed in by Vladdy Jr. At a decent pace on second one. Since we're trained to watch the fielders and not the ball, it's a fine line.

IFF from last night. U2 is only one in frame so others may have grabbed it but, imo, U2 solely looking for F6 to have a good play with ordinary effort - which is in line with the hearsay from Counsell. All discussion above to the contrary, that's how I see it called and almost always trained. Whether it's a misinterpretation of the rule or done to avoid drama, idk. MIL-LAD - IFF - 2025-10-13 .mp4