MonroeUmp

NFHS. This was a situation I had several years ago, and I'm curious if others have come across this. I'll number the exact moment so that we can have a productive argument: a. R3. Pitcher steps onto rubber in windup, hands separate. b. Pitcher brings his hands together, belly button level, and pauses. c. Pitcher takes the sign, nods to catcher. d. Pitcher raises joined hands to about chin level and stops again for a second or so. e. Pitcher takes a rocker step and delivers the pitch. What is the latest point in this sequence that he can disengage and throw to 3rd base? [Haven't posted here in years! Go easy on me these first few questions.]

I have always understood it your way. But the 7-3-5 Penalty is unambiguous. With two outs, the batter is out. As soon as he interferes, inning is over, we don't care what happens on the tag.

2 outs, no count, R1 stealing on pitch, batter leans over plate and interferes with the throw. By NFHS 7.3.5, I've got batter the out whether the play results in an out, or not. The batter guilty of BI does not come to the plate the next inning. However, in OBR, don't we have delayed dead ball? if the runner is called out, the batter whose interference was disregarded returns to the plate. Seems like a rules difference that I haven't heard commented on.

PBUC, MiLB, and Jim Evans are also addressing an audience of 20 year olds. Most associations are average age 54, which is why most associations have simplified this mechanic. Can you imagine Joe West getting to 3rd base for this play?

In 2-man, the BU has the touch of 2nd base by R1 and the touch of 1st base by the BR. There are situations where those happen at the same time. Head on a swivel doesn't change that.

With bases loaded and a ground ball, do not enter the infield. It's possible that the umpire in the OP was blocked by the pitcher. In one man, the idea is to get the best angle and on a double play ball hit to an inner infielder take 3-4 quick steps to the left so that you can see not only the INT in these situations but also the play at 2nd base. If you stay behind home plate it's possible to miss both the INT and the play.

"One-man crew", R2, batter hits triple to right field. I see a line drive get past F9, so my first move was to see the touch of third base by R2. I swivelled to first base, but the batter had already passed the base. The defense was occupying the first base dugout. After the play, the defense appealed first base, and of course I signaled safe with "I don't have a miss", a remark in hindsight which clearly reflects reality. So I'm curious if others have come to the conclusion that on multi-base touches, it might be wise to place primary emphasis on the base closest to the defense's dugout? This can happen in two-man mechanics as well, R1 and BR can tough their respective bases at about the same time.

Somewhat late to this thread,... It's odd to have a coach so wound up over the batter's box. Seems like an easy way to deal with this, if you hear the griping: call time, step out of your stance, inspect the batter's feet, "he's good coach", or to the batter, "move back just an inch or so," and if the line is gone, draw a new one. This costs you nothing, it acknowledges his concern and he'll switch to something else. Another person mentioned the comment on the strike zone. When you tell the coach how you're going to call strikes, you somewhat "invite the coach into your house," so to speak, and he now thinks he has a rapport with you and he has the right to start managing things like the batter's box. At least that's how it sounds to me. And then by calling him out to look at the box and so forth you continued. Also, I don't care for the formula: "if you continue to do X, I will do Y, or I will have no choice but to do Y," a wise man told me never to use this in adversarial proceedings: with kids, wives, neighbors. It accomplishes nothing. He knows you can eject him. Reminding him of it is a power trip. Why not use a technique, "Coach, in my judgment they're not out of the box, they're not gaining an advantage from it, but I will keep an eye on it." I.e. be reasonable and make the issue go away by acknowledging the concern.

In these days of replay, if the runner knows he was tagged, he might as well walk away. This case is a great example, because the first tag was going to obviously show up on replay as a tag. Notice how the fielder makes the tag but then tags a second time. This tells the umpire that he must have olay'ed the first tag, which explains the safe call. Also, once he starts to abandon, was there any need to tag? Anyone remember the play last year where the runner thought he was out, and started to run back to his dugout and then decided to stay at first?

It's hard to understand the person who told you that there was some other common-sense solution available. If you had decided to warn both teams and play on, then you've just sent the message that clearing the benches is OK now. Why is it that the teams didn't follow "common sense" by just staying in their dugout. Similarly: someone telling you not fill out a report is the sound of possibly the same someone trying to avoid an uncomfortable enforcement of a well understood rule. Also, this situation is very unusual, sure maybe you should have put both teams in their dugouts before terminating the game but in my view that's a fine point, you got things 99% right and it took moral courage to end it right there and not puss out on the rules. Good for you and that will teach them not to do that again. It is interesting how a game can be calm one minute and then a collision or something similar can light everything up.

There is no requirement to bring hands together for windup. But you're in good company. From time to time I have a pitcher who does this and the opposing coaches complain. It looks unorthodox, so everyone thinks it's illegal. The opposite can be true. There are things that look OK at first but are illegal. For example it's not unusual to see LL or even JV pitchers who start in the stretch, they come set in a sort of hybrid position with their hands joined, and then they take a rocker step (an optional step associated with Windup).

Do I have this right? The umpire who started inside at C is "U3" for purposes of this thread? And with a base hit, he's got plays on R1 at 2nd and 3rd bases, R2 at 3rd base, and BR at 3rd base? And all U1 has to get right is to follow the batter runner into second for this play? PU stays home, but has the touch of R1 at third base?

Why would this be legal? The only reason a runner would leap would be to avoid a tag or a potential tag, or some obstacle or player in his way. It seems like we agree that the catcher was not literally in Harper's way in the OP. This means that as he neared the plate, Harper felt his best chance of avoiding the tag was to leap/hurdle. He failed to achieve that, and the tag was applied. This means that the catcher was put in the position of tagging a hurdling player from underneath, exactly the kind of unsafe tactic that the rule was meant to prevent. This could have easily resulted in an injury had the catcher been less athletic and tried to re-enter the base path to apply the tag. I had thought NFHS wanted the runner in this situation to either 1) stop and retreat, or 2) slide, or 3) attempt to avoid the tag by means *other* than diving/jumping/hurdling, such as getting around the tag. Hurdling is not a valid option with an imminent tag. Is this really a rules question, or more of a judgment as to whether the player was hurdling "over" a player? Technically he wasn't hurdling *over* a player. He was hurdling over what he anticipated would become a player in his path.

This was a painful thread! Did everyone finally realized that everyone agreed?

Is golf a sport? If you think it is: what should the punishment be for a high school varsity player who, after a match and while his opponent isn't watching, steals one of his golf clubs and breaks it in two at the shaft? In this case, the player got a two match suspension. Does that seem light to anyone here?

Great video for illustrating how grey reality on the field can be very different from the black and white of the rule book. The point of the rule is that when a fielder is trying to make a tag, the runner is down to two options: slide, or attempt to legally avoid the tag. I've got him out because it's Bryce Harper.

Are you saying that you use a different standard at OBR games? And you use the "make an attempt" language at OBR games? I'll be honest and say I don't have a different standard, and I doubt that 1 in 1,000 umpires have a difference, or even care.

It sounds like everyone agrees with your standard, we just don't agree on whether that's the rule book language. The reality that if you took away the 1st base award, HBPs would drop by 90%. So we actually know that regardless of where the pitch is, the batters are "permitting" it most of the time. So by rule, most HBP awards are wrong. That's why I don't like quoting the rulebook in the pitches you're talking about. One thing that is puzzling: why indeed did NFHS abandon the OBR "make an attempt" language? Are you really going to use "he permitted the pitch to touch him!" at NFHS games, but "he didn't make an attempt!" at OBR games? Seems unlikely, especially if our enforcement is no different between the two.

Consider the key sentence in the article you posted above: "Rather than focusing on the exact wording [of the NFHS rules], seeking a loophole as an attorney would, an umpire should concentrate on developing the guidelines he will use to make the stay or go decision." That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. There are areas of the rule book that Umpires and players HATE and so we are tempted to either act like attorneys, or basically ignore the strict wording of the rule and come up with guidelines. I've mentioned in a previous post what happens in religion and baseball: if the literal text is unworkable, people will "interpret the problem away." In these cases, it seems a little disingenuous to quote the rule book when in fact we have interpretive guidelines that we're using. Look: I use teh rule book language to, but I'm just sort of ventilating another side to this. I don't like it when people are disingenuous to me, and I think in these cases every coach knows that every umpire is different. So this seems like an exception. If the pitch is way inside the box, i.e. a foot inside, and the batter just stays put and "wears it" and we put him on first, is any coach going to complain? If so, just tell him "that pitch was way inside the box, coach."

I support this call. The problem is that we see brawls all the time in baseball which happen for the simple reason that there is a set of unwritten rules not policed by an umpire so if there's a dispute about said unwritten rule, players feel the need to settle the matter physically. And there are even written rules that the umpires tend not to enforce (such as dirty slides) which also result in brawls. So if the plate umpire doesn't punish a cheap shot like that (especially if he had tripped on it later), then we would have had the usual hit batsmen, brawls, base-clearings etc. and the behavior would spread a la critters like Bryce Harper. And another: rotten behavior like this travels downhill to our amateur fields. Set the example in the bigs and we won't see it as much.

Moi? Why do *I* think that Fed changed the rule?? No idea. I accept, support, obey all fed rules, however, as a mere mortal I think many of their rules create more problems than they solve. The material you've quoted doesn't really move me: "previously he was required to make an attempt to get out of the way." I support using rule book language for many reasons, however, we shouldn't use rulebook language as an escape or dodge. If in reality we're sitting in our Association meetings, where this comes up all the time, and someone says, "Keep him in the box if the pitch is legitimate (i.e. not a foot inside the batter's box) and the batter gives us something to work with." Well if that's the standard we're actually using, and not the rulebook standard, then I have a problem with quoting the rulebook.

How is it different? i.e. "permitting the ball to touch him" = "not [making an attempt to avoid getting hit". Those two statements like an exact equality. You're saying that "Joe, he permitted the ball to touch him" would sound more umpirish? Less likely to start a dispute about what kind of attempt is needed? My problem is the pitch that is somewhat off the plate and the batter could easily have avoided it but just stands still. You can say "he permitted" but in fact it's the absence of any effort that is our practical distinction.

Has anyone had the experience where, when asked about this, your partner will tell you he prefers to fix it during warmups. But then when you ask him "what about during a game" , you get ambiguous answers back, like "well, I can't see his free foot's position from the plate" or "From A, I can't really see it" and so forth. Then if I press, he'll say "don't we have bigger issues?" Or, "sure I call it" but then during the game he doesn't call it? There's a reluctance to enforce this as written, and the IP perhaps is experiencing that. There's also a reluctance to say "I'm not enforcing it," hence the ambiguous answers. It would all be solved if FED would simply allow a HS pitcher to step and throw to a base from the windup. OBR pitchers don't do it anyhow, so the whole thing is a waste of time and bandwidth.

Here's an interesting comment from the MLBUM: "When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left too soon after he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base." That would seem to support what Maven is saying. However, I'm concerned that what they intended to write was ... "after he has advanced to and touched a base *after the point in time the ball became dead..." * Example: R1 rounds second and is on way to third base when the right fielder makes a surprise shoestring catch. F9 throws to first base for the retouch appeal but the ball bounces into the dugout. At the moment the ball rolls in, the umpire calls Time and awards the runner home plate (two bases TOT). However, during the dead ball, the runner is allowed, if I'm not mistaken to trace his steps back to first base by first touching second. This touching of second is what seems to contradict the comment I quoted above from the MLBUM. Maven's remarks would also seem to support the idea that the Defense in this situation would be wise to ask for Time, killing any chance the runner might have of correcting his error in live action before he enters the dugout. Once the ball is dead, his opportunity to correct would seem to be gone.

OBR, no runners, no outs. Batter hits a deep gapper with an inside the park home run, but misses third base. As the ball is being returned to the infield, I (base umpire) hear the defense chattering about the missed base. The manager, ignorantly, calls for time, Plate umpire grants time, and then the manager tells me that the runner missed third base. Right. But as I'm explaining to him that he needs a live ball to make a proper appeal, the batter touches home and races back to third base and is standing there when the ball is put back into play. The defense the properly appeals at 3rd base. What do you have? It seems to me that he stays on third because the defense, in calling time, spoiled his opportunity to correct his miss. If he's out on appeal, what should the runner have done? Waited near home for the live ball and then raced back to third? Any other thoughts on this? Don't grant time in this scenario?