agdz59

I've been taught to verbalize "That's obstruction" with left hand in a fist pointing to the obstruction. Keep it out until the play is over and then when time is called, award bases if the obstructed runner was put out or, in your judgement, did not get to the base you think they would have without the obstruction. If the obstructed runner does make it to the base you think they would have gotten, ignore the call and carry on. I don't see it anywhere online after a quick search either.

My thought as well. They've been awful since the break. I saw a tweet that said since then, their position players have more pitching WAR than their starting pitchers and their starting pitchers have more hitting WAR than their position players.

The catcher when he didn't execute the putout on the ball in play after strike three.

No it didn't. It was textbok obstruction. That's what made all the 'controversy' surprising. 1.Fielder without ball. 2. Runner impeded in his effort to advance by said fielder. 3. You've got obstruction.

FWIW, I'm watching Miller behind the plate on the Cardinals-Astros tonight and his zone is very small and frustrating both teams. He'll have to improve this to stick don't you think?

yup

I agree - it's only a one base award instead of multiple. Barring the lead runner going backward, I can't see how a runner can pass another when its a one base award and a dead ball. In my mind, once they've reached the base, they no longer are 'running the bases.' Getting an out based on tomfoolery? Yeah, that could happen. I like the forfeit if it continues.

Yeah, I guess if the offense starts running the wrong way, etc to "make a mockery" of the game, they get outs.

Yes, it was directed at maven. I don't see a way for a one base award to end with a runner passing. Unless a lead runner is running the wrong way. Hadn't thought of that. Yes, I'd call that an out. But in my original example, let's say the runners confer at 3rd before they touch their awarded base. Under the literal interpretation of the rules, you might have something. But I'm not going there unless the DC can prove the offense was trying to deceive. Like runners return to the wrong base or something

R1 and R2. IBB or let's say HBP. Ball is dead. While runners advance, DC asks to visit F1 and its granted. During the conference, the runners congregate around 3B coach to discuss strategy. R3 stays on the base, R1 goes to R2 touching second on the way to third base and R2 enters foul territory near the 3rd base coaches box. When done R1 heads straight to 1B without retouching 2nd. Are you saying R2 was out when he passed R3 and R1 can be out on appeal?

But they are only awarded one base and the ball is dead. I'm putting R1 on second, R2 at third and putting the ball back in play.

Maybe I should start another thread but I think my question is related. I love all the advice here about advancing. My scenario is I got started real late doing my youngest's LL games. No as I approach 60 I have more time and am looking toward retirement in a few years to do a lot more umpiring. All I've done is youth ball and LL - is there any chance for me to get into HS level ball?

Right there is a great example of the maddening ambiguity of so much of the rule book. 1. If they mean a 90foot square, just say a 90' square and let the people constructing the field figure out how best to make it. 2. 33/8? Really? 3. They aren't lines you're making, they are arcs. 4. After all that, it doesn't tell me where the bases go. What part of the base goes at those 90' corners? They use all that verbiage and still don't give you all the information you need.

To add to maven's reply (correct me if I am wrong), the Segura play was not an appeal. Because it was not a force situation, Segura had legal title to second when he returned there. That is why Braun was out on the tag instead of Segura. In general, if two runners are on a base: if it's a result of a force play, the trailing runner is entitled to the base. If there was no force, it's the lead runner's base.

Yes, if the fielder communicates to the umpire why he is tagging the runner or, in the umpire's judgement, it is obvious the defender is tagging the runner to appeal the missed 1st base, the runner can be tagged while on second base.

Easy to do on this one!

Yes, this is the correct way to say it. Thank you for the correction. This is not correct. If B bats for A and the defense appeals, A is out, any runners are reset to TOP (if there was a hit), and B bats again. The rest is correct. And to finish your thought when the proper batter is on base after an appeal: you continue down the batting order until you find a batter NOT on base and they are the proper batter. See? Easy - peasy. Anybody can umpire.

You always want appeal after the AB and before a pitch is thrown to the next batter. It's a free out. Just remember that the out is charged to who should have batted and the next batter will be the correct batter in the order. The only decision you have is if the improper batter makes an out (or two or three) do you really want to appeal? That depends on who is coming to the plate now vs who would come to the plate if you appeal. If you appeal, it will be whoever follows the correct batter. If you don't, the batter coming to the plate becomes the correct batter after a pitch is delivered no matter where they are in the lineup. Question: what if the batter coming up isn't on the lineup? If he is pitched to, does that force a substitution on the offense?

This is a judgement call. For me, if the second baseman has shifted half way into the outfield and then is settling under a fly ball by drifting deeper into the outfield, I'm probably not going to call IFF. If he's moving in and can catch it with 'ordinary effort', I'll call it.

Come on - anybody can do this. Ask any coach...

No question. I consider myself still learning. Haven't worked more than LL, 10Us and a few 7th-8th grade games. Thanks to all for the feedback.

At our pre-tournament meeting, the TD said he wanted to have us get the calls right - that meant getting together whenever asked to even if we were sure of our calls. At a majority of the plate meetings in the 5 games I did, this was relayed to the coaches. We didn't have any more problems than the last tournament we did. I have no problem at 10U of having coaches ask us about calls. Most of them are learning as well. YMMV.

I'll let you take it up with our TD. :-)

I never have a problem asking for an appeal. In fact, in the youth tourneys around here, most of the time PU brings it up at the plate conference "we want to get the calls right so if you have a question, call time, tell me what you saw and I'll get together with my partner."

Glad you said this before me. Don't we need all the help we can get out there? Why not use it as a teachable moment? Which brings up a question - is it common for associations to have formal or informal black lists of umps they won't use? If you have a personal blacklist do you regularly turn down gigs because of it or is there a place in your scheduling software that allows you to make your blacklist known?