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?