RBIbaseball

I'm definitely a green. And I've definitely struggled throughout life with my questions being interpreted as being disrespectful and insubordinate. I didn't poke and prod on this thread to try to convince everyone I was right. I was seeking out evidence to prove I was wrong, so I could confidently put this to rest in my head.

I never said I was out here calling things "my way". I am merely trying to understand the why (as is supported by rules), because up until this thread is was merely "cause everyone agrees it's so". Then I get some examples of how the rules support it being so, yet I still find contradictions and I question... cause I'm over here thinking could this be a case where one smart guy had an interpretation and everyone just runs with it... So I come to the best source I currently have... At some point, even if I disagree, I must respect that some baseball rules authority interprets it to be so. I can't trust my association, and I can't trust random guy on facebook. Umpire-empire is the best I got at the moment due to the reputation and confidence it's given me in the 8 years I've been perusing these forums (well before I started umpiring). So I will move on from this one with an understanding of how I should call it, even though I think I could argue in court that the rules support my skepticism of it being called like this in a blanket way. Perhaps it will be my first order of business when I'm on the rules committee ... I just gotta figure out what that committee is first 😉

To put it as direct as possible, I'm laying out my argument that fielding a batted ball and muffing it is a play (and much different than the case plays that SPECIFCY a "rocket" deflection), therefore the 2nd fielders attempt to field the deflected ball is no longer a batted ball and the runner would have the "right of way". The only rules evidence that's been cited is the "on their initial attempt" ... Nothing that defines a deflection, and it's all but been said that 'every touch' is a deflection (which seems to be pulled out of thin air). I guess the technical thing I'm arguing is when a batted ball stops being a batted ball. Why? ... It seems silly that we are continue to protect and reward the defense with impunity after a routine error. I respect the fact you may still think I'm being an imbecile, but hopefully you at least understand my ramble now, lol

So there is a little bit of a contradiction in my mind. -------------------------- We have -------------------------------- but we also have By placing the "For the puroses of this rule" , and JSam explaining the reasoning that exception is there is to draw a distinction that a fly ball or line drive is not "a play" in this instance Then it is implied that retiring a runner by catching a fly ball or line drive is a play in instances where you're not considering base awards for a ball thrown out of play. @noumpere if that's not true, then why is the "for purposes of this rule, the act of fielding in not considered a play" in there? If you're suggesting the act of fielding is NEVER a play

Understood. So one more scenario based on you're explanations on where I was misunderstanding... based on your reasoning for the existence of "For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play": What if a fly ball is muffed and the ball deflects ... could this be an exception where the 2nd fielder should not be protected, since attempting to catch a fly ball "is a play"... therefore the deflection is no longer technically a batted ball?

Okay, so if I understand what you're saying. That extra tidbit is only there to distinguish that if a line drive or pop fly was accidently dropped then the subsequent throw would still be the initial play. And fielding a ball is not an attempt to retire a runner? Why would an infielder field a ball without the intent to retire... only once he attempts to tag or throw is it a play? @JSam21 Just to be clear so I understand how to rule this, a routine ground ball that is muffed and deflects IS STILL A BATTED BALL. If it deflects in a direction where a 2nd fielder has a better play on the ball, then we are granting protection to that 2nd fielder with the same discretion as we would grant to any 1st fielder on a given play, correct?

Okay I see you edited, so you get what I was saying... Ya, so we all agree that a throw from the fielder out of play awards 2 bases from the Time of Throw. one exception being 8-3-5b: ...on a batted ball which is the first play by the infielder, all runners including the batter-runner are awarded two bases from their positions at the time of the pitch. For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play... ------------- So I forgot about the bolded statement, which DIRECTLY addresses my question, but opens up another argument. Continuing to play devils advocate, because now in my mind it opens up another can of worms of evidence to support the original argument of making a distinction between a "hard shot deflection" and not protecting a 2nd fielder on a muffed ball. "For purposes of this rule, the act of fielding is not considered a play" This verbiage only exists here... why? By it existing here, it implies that elsewhere in the rule book the act of fielding IS CONSIDERED A PLAY. So the argument that a fielder gets to make an inital attempt at a batted ball WITH PROTECTION, then after deflection the NEXT fielder gets to do the same because it's still a batted ball doesn't seem so obvious. If the act of fielding a routine ball and muffing it IS A PLAY, then that ball rolling away is no longer a batted ball because a play has been made on it. ------------- The casebook play of a "deflection" off a pitcher is not evidence that all deflections are the same (to include a "deflection" from a muffed routine play). It specifically says a "rocket", and implies the pitcher didn't even have time to react, which would not be "an act of fielding".

This succinct explanation makes more sense to me, even if it's what others have already been saying. Essentially, the rules support protecting each fielder in their initial attempt, as written. NFHS 8-4-2e: ... or the runner hinders a fielder on the fielder's initial attempt to field a batted ball; A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if the fielder misplays the ball and has to move from the fielder's original location; ... - So each fielder gets their initial attempt - check - On a misplayed ball the fielder that misplayed it now requires INTENTIONAL contact from the runner if they have to move from the original location - this one is a little more grammarific , as we go from "a fielder" to "the fielder". As I could argue "a fielder" is any fielder and "the fielder" is the original fielder that muffed the ball, therefore "a fielder" (any other fielder) is not protected if "the fielder" has to move from their original location. But I digress. --------- Is a deflected ball still a batted ball though, in all circumstances? Separate question to understand our consistency: After a routine muffed play by an infielder, a 2nd infielder grabs the "deflection" and throws the ball out of play. I would be inclined to award 2 bases from the ToT, because it is not the initial play by the infielder. The initial play was a muffed routine play. I assume I would be wrong on this and it should be ToP, given that it's still an initial play on a batted ball by interference standards?

----Obligatory, hard shot deflection off the pitcher is not the same as a fielder muffing a routine ball.---- That being said, If that second one is literally the only reference to granting protection to a "2nd fielder" on a deflected ball, then I think it's a gigantic stretch to apply that in all "deflected" ball scenarios and grant full protecting to a fielder moving to field a deflection. The first one highlights that the fielder has a "greater responsibility". Albeit was talking about the original fielder. If nothing else it's feels like much of a grey area. Situation and judgement. Judging the intent, time to react, and negligence of either fielder or runner. To put it another way: When a defender is fielding a batted ball, the fielder has immunity. When a defender is not fielding a batted ball, the runner has immunity. On a deflected ball to a "2nd fielder" both fielder and runner should try to make room for one another and the umpire gets to decide what's fair..... Like, I guess that's where I'm at right now with the rules evidence I've seen and understand.

Well said. Good explanation. If I was god of baseball for a day, I would protect the runner over a 2nd fielder on a "routine error" deflection. But alas, I'm not. I ask again (but please don't take this as implying you have the obligation) to please point me where I can find this in black in white... specifically applying to NFHS if it exists. I couldn't find anything on the deflection extending protection piece. I have always been confident in saying that two fielders cannot be protected on the same play, but today I learn. Maybe the misnomer for me is that a deflection causes a whole new play (although that doesn't seem very intuitive)... so I'm still technically correct, eh.

Interesting. So if I'm reading that right, NCAA Softball needs the secondary fielder's interference to be intentional. Where is gets sticky is if there is hinderance, it is plausible if not likely to have hinderance in both directions (fielding and running).... so if you deem the interference was not intentional, then you would probably have obstruction going the other way, even those the second fielder is making a play on the ball, no? -------- edit: and to your first paragraph, I agree with you. Which is why I brought the "error" lingo into effect. I believe the scorekeeper error to be a reasonable standard of deflection. Diving play that deflects off the glove, deflection. The same speed hit ball that goes under a routine backhand and ricochets off the foot, not deflection (in the context of protecting the next fielder). If the scorekeeper would call it an error, it probably wasn't a deflection. It just doesn't seem as though any arguments I've seen provide room for any judgement or distinction in this regard.

I used the colloquially term to help illustrate the difference (that I have in my mind). I understand error isn't part of the rules. What I am trying to say is that a hard hit ball that ricochets off a fielder. ie 105 mph exit velo one hopper to F5 where he tries to protect himself as much as he stabs at the ball would be a "deflection" in my mind. A routine ground ball that a fielder bobbles, bounces off his chest, then he tries to bare hand it but instead swats it toward his buddy on accident hardly seems like a "deflection". I was questioning the definition of deflection. It seems as though everyone agrees the interpretations suggest that any TOUCH = DEFLECTION, period. If that is indeed the case, then great - the more I know going forward. It just doesn't seem very intuitive and I couldn't find a definition. This is wear my logical brain has a hard time making sense of what seems like a contradiction of the spirit of the rule. reply #2 "he's supposed to field the ball cleanly" ... funny but true, so that being said... Once he misplays the ball and it gets beyond a 'step and a reach', then he is not protected anymore. BUT... although he's not protected, his buddy who was picking his nose and sees the ball squirt away, is now protected as he runs toward it. WHY? it makes no sense to me that it would be one but not that other. Either the initial fielder should be protected while he chases his misplayed ball across the infield, or the 2nd fielder shouldn't be protected as he chases his buddies misplayed ball across the infield. So if his buddy who was picking his nose happens to be close to a runner when the ball squirts away and starts to move, INTERFERENCE ... seems silly. Albeit, there are many rules that when properly applied are just "is what it is buddy - thems the rules, nothing you could do, but you were in the wrong spot at the wrong time" @maven TLDR: I was not aware that a deflection would allow us to protect a 2nd fielder on the same play. Lastly, in NFHS, what rule supports the deflection piece? because I searched and couldn't find anything.

I recently engaged in a discussion on facebook concerning interference. Lots of folks screenshotting rules, case plays, and interpretations - folks claiming their college clinc instructors and assignors say so, etc. I found myself in the overwhelming minority, so I would very much like to set the record straight for myself. I am most concerned with NFHS as that's the level I'm at, but would like to understand if it differs. EDIT: just to be clear, although it was a NCAA softball play, the arguments were that its the same at all levels baseball/softball. Please square me away friends... What I believe to be true: -Only one fielder can be protected on a given play. Although we may change our mind on who is/should be protected as a play develops, we cannot protect more than one player on the same play. -On a misplayed/spilled ball, a fielder is continued to be protected as long as the ball is still in their immediate vacinity as they continue to make their play (ie Step and a Reach), but as soon as it goes beyond that a baserunner should have the "right of way". **NCAA softball. The play concerned F5 misplaying (error on what would be considered a sharp but routine play) a ground ball. The ball ricochets into the path of of R2 advancing, meanwhile F6 reacts and comes in to make a play. R2 and F6 essentially get tied up trying to avoid contact and F6 fails to make a play on the ball - R2 continues to 3B. I believe obstruction was called, but reversed and changed to Interference after review.** Their arguments: -F6 is a protected fielder due to an apparent note in the NCAA rulebook (i only saw screenshots from wikileaks , lol) that mentions that a 2nd fielder is indeed protected on a batted ball that is deflected from a fielder. -There is at least one case play shared that mentions a hard hit ball deflecting off F1 and that the next infielder to make a play on the ball should be protected. My thinking: -First off, I cannot find anything in FED rules or case plays that mentions a deflection like this. -EVEN IF the deflection lingo is accurate, I would argue that a misplay on a routine ground ball is not a deflection. It's an error. And I think that it merits that logical distinction. -The case play with F1 is different in my mind. It was actually a deflection. In that scenario, F1 never made or had a chance to make a legitmate play on the ball, so therefor he never was a protected fielder. The first protected fielder would be whoever is making the play on the deflection. Unlike in the example where it's clearly changing protection from one player to the other. -If my step and reach understanding on a misplayed ball is accurate, then essentially the rules are saying that once an error is made and the ball "gets away" then that fielder is not protected. Or in other words, that fielder can't continue to chase after that ball with disregard to a runners rights to advance. However, I am to believe that a 2nd fielder can continue to chase after that ball with immunity? Where am I wrong? I don't mind if I am, I would just like to be sure I'm right going forward. Is it actually a thing that on a play like this we would protect F5 on the initial fielding of the ball, then after a misplay continue to protect F5 until its beyond a step and a reach... Then after it's beyond that threshold, shift our protection to the next closest fielder that can make a play? Thank you for reading

Simple answer, under NFHS rules a substitute cannot re-enter the game. Period. I know of no exception for injury. However, your league is using some house rules to get everyone playing time. Your league is already not following standard NFHS rules regarding number of batters, defensive substitutions, and playtime requirements. It would seem silly that they would be so hard nose on a substitute re-entering due to injury. But... if that is the case. My suggestion is to play the subs the first two innings as starters. Then put in the "better players" and leave them in for the rest of the game. If they get injured, you subs are still legal to re-enter... although technically, they can only re-enter for "those" players (so you need the right kid to get injured 😕 that didn't sound too right, lol)

This was a varsity level game. One above average team (at bat) and one of the worst teams around in the field. F4 definitely maneuvered himself oddly. In the heat of the moment this is essentially what I did, minus the point... I'll point next time (if there ever is a next) and hold the verbal for once I decide. Ya, I agree and understand this. I thought that was implied with how many times I've mentioned protecting one fielder. But fair point to clarify none the less.

Okay, so my understanding is that only 1 fielder is protected on a batted ball. Umpire judgement as to which fielder is most likely or has the best chance to make the play. F4 had the best chance to make the play of the fielders in the infield, but did he have the best play out of everyone? I don't think so. As I remember it, watching the ball come to a stop and F8 and F9 converging on it (they weren't playing very deep). I didn't think F4 would have beat them to the ball, although it would have been close. I thought that at best they all triangulate the ball at the same time, and in that case the outfielders coming forward would have the better play. If there was no collision, then R1 might have made it to 3B, even though F4 MIGHT have been the one to eventually pick the ball up in the outfield. However, the fielder has the right of way on a batted ball. However, I took the time to determine which fielder had the right of way and chose the outfield in the end. This is a weird one to me... which came first the chicken or the egg. Interference kills the ball immediately, as we all know. If my gut would have told me it was interference and I kill it, then I see the ball was another 10-20 feet further in the outfield... then I would have confirmed the egg came first, cause it would be on my face... I can't un-ring that can I? Could my partner and I retroactively change to obstruction and put the runners where we think they would have made it had I not called Time? ------ The more I think about it, I feel like a silent (but emphatic) point followed by assessing which field is protected might be best. Ball hits the ground and I think, ya F4 had a chance, - "TIME" "TIME" "Interference on R1 - Out" ... if I think he didn't have a chance then wait for play to end and restate the obstruction call with appropriate judged award. And yes, in hind sight, I think I should have gave him 3B if I was 50/50. That was a good point.

Situation that happened to me a few weeks ago: NFHS. R1 stealing, 1 out, I'm in B Blooper straight over my head/ maybe right shoulder I turn with the ball and see F4 (presumably was running in to cover the bag) looking up and changing direction back toward center field to make a play. R1 looking up at the blooper running straight toward 2B. Nice solid collision that surely helped these boys take the next step toward becoming a man. No intent, was clean. What did I do: I KNOW I have SOMETHING and my first thought is interference, but I hesitate as I think "is he the protected fielder"... I make no signal. I continue to track the ball to the ground and it lands about 15-20 feet in shallow center just right of base... Dribbles another 4-5 feet for reference as it comes to a stop as F8 and F9 converge simultaneously. I determine (silently in my head) that F4 didn't have a play on the ball, but now it's been 5 sec since collision and R1 is still laying on the ground (spent a few sec gathering himself and a couple more with his hands up looking at me ). R1 gets up and makes it to 2B easily as no one was covering. Play stops and I call Time. I walk to my PU and we meet up since I knew mechanically I failed on some level. I tell him I have obstruction but asks his opinion on whether R1 could have got 3B (I think he could have but was 50/50). He says idk maybe. I decide to play it safe and keep him at 2B. I inform the coaches that I have obstruction but only protected him to 2B. HC yells at runner that if he would have got up quicker he would have got 3B and was upset with his runner. --------- Anyways all in all it worked out okay But what should I do here? Has anyone else ever been in a situation where they need MORE time/info before they decide obstruction or interference? Should I have silently pointed? Should I have pointed and said "ouchy" to let everyone know I have something but as to not commit to one or the other? Should I have paused like I did and called it 5 sec late? In the moment it felt way too long to make a delayed call, but I think I should have. One buddy suggested I call Obstruction, then change to interference after if needed due to DDB vs DB ... I'm not sure I like that cause then I have to explain why I'm changing Anyways, thanks for reading Edit: just want to add that it was close in my judgement. If I saw the ball land about 10 feet closer I definitely call interference. Tbh without the collision, it's possible that F4 beats the two outfielders to the stationary ball laying in the outfield. But in my mind F8 still would have been the player coming forward to pick it up and make a play on R1 going 1st to 3rd.

Yes, I have. It's a daunting task because the assignor and a few of the top vets (there are a couple exceptions) have clearly expressed that getting into the weeds of the rules is "reading into it too much". Exhibit A from above: discussing Intent vs No Intent needed is "too deep". I talked to my assignor when I met him at a playoff game and he's going to send me around the region more next year. He thought he was doing me a favor by not making me drive and seeing the same 4 teams over and over... 2 of them being awful baseball that would get run ruled by most other freshman clubs. Anyways, seeing more coaches and partners will only help. I'll stay positive. In the mean time, I'm going to a NAIA clinic and working some travel ball this summer for the same assignor that does that baseball... so we'll see where that goes.

Nothing I've said has been a statement, only questions. It seems like you are misunderstanding that I'm just genuinely asking... I don't know the answer because I get 10 different answers from people I know. Obviously if the free foot starts to move, that's part of the pitch... so when is the free foot allowed to move in order to be disengaged. My understanding is -by rule- that the pivot foot has to touch behind the pitcher plate before the free foot can move, is that correct? I understand that some things aren't very discernable in real time and the pitchers play with that (for all practical purposes this is where we draw the line... blah blah), but that is the rule right? .... and that part of the rule is essentially while the jump turn/jab step of a RHP to 1B is a balk, right? Because we can definitively see it. You mentioned the hands coming apart, so I just just asked clarification... I don't see anything in the rules concerning this. I've never looked for when the hands separate, should I? I prefer to try to understand the PhD level, then bring it back down to reality and apply it appropriately at the level.

So if a world where I have perfect information and going by the letter of the law... Pivot foot has to finish disengage before hands separate? or Pivot foot has to move before free foot?

So I had this argument with a couple umpire friends as well, and they both argued that if the foot lands behind then it's legal. To disengage, does the pivot foot have to start moving before the free foot. "Touch" behind the pitcher plater before the free foot moves, or somewhere in-between? Because as I understand it, a RHP jump turning to 1B (both feet moving at same time) is a balk if he feints - even if the pivot foot lands behind the pitcher's plate, correct?

It's just so frustrating. I'm in my 3rd year umpiring. Assignor sent 16 guys to district. I've worked with half of them. Two or three of them are actually awful umpires. Mind blowingly bad at the varsity level. Poor mechanics, stubborn as hell with coaches, and lack rules knowledge. This year I did probably 20 varsity or varsity/JV DH games, maybe 6 freshman. I'm 37 years old, I know how to work with people. I have no problem playing the part of the new guy and respecting experience. I ask questions and seek criticism and feedback (but rarely get it) and toss out anything that seems like bad advice. When experienced guys are wrong, I don't tell them their WRONG, I'm RIGHT, get good... I try to discuss the rule with them and give "my understanding" of the rule so they can explain where I'm wrong... I KNOW FOR A FACT those prodding questings get back to the assignor from these vets and they all treat me like I'm a new guy who just hasn't quite figured it out yet and too smart for my own good. Anyways, I'm considering hitting up my nearby region and driving a little further for games next year. Idk if that's a smart move tho.

I'll be honest, I had a long weekend. This was the last game of the weekend, and I just drove home after. I'm sure there is a case play if not explicit in the rules, but I haven't looked it up yet and just posted instead. But also... I am surrounded by umpires that don't know rules. I am the new guy. I have a rap for "thinking too much into it". Same day, I call interference on a thrown ball. As I'm explaining to the coach that I judged the kid intentionally interferes, he walks up to "back me up". He then tells the coach it was unintentional, but it doesn't matter - the call is the call - etc etc. ... like I had it 100% under control. Anyways no harm no foul for the coach. But after the game, I explained to him that on a throw ball there need be intent. We argued for 10 min, citing rules. He simply read the "definition of inference" and said see, intent isn't even mentioned. I was like, ya that's the definition, now here's the rules and how its applied, and cite the rule. He tells me I don't understand. He calls the assignor "we'll call the boss right now". Assignor answers the phone and backs the guy up saying there doesn't need to be intent. Guy lights up like a Christmas tree. I explain on speaker phone that a thrown ball needs intent, versus batter interference or interference with a batted ball, which doesn't. Assignor says something like, "you always have to judge whether the play was hindered, there is always judgement, whether there's intentional or unintentional", then goes on to tell me I'm reading too far into the rules and I just need to umpire. They are all nice guys and easy to work with, but I am starting to get really tired of it and feel like I'm being held back. I hope this NAIA thing I'm pursuing for next year works out. /endrant

Crazy. Extra innings, playoff . 7-7 tie. 1 out and R1 stealing Dream double play ball taking F6 to the bag, he steps on 2B and throws to 1B as R1 is sliding directly into the base. Kid wasn't 6'7", but he had his hand in the air and F6's throw ricochet off his hand. Admittedly, the throw was probably low and maybe was going to one hop into F3. Everyone screaming, I took a few seconds, then called interference and awarded 2 outs. With the pressure of the situation of course fans went crazy. Head coach was a G and he just wanted an explanation. He argued that his kid was just protecting his face. I said coach, his face is down here, his hand is up here, and the only reason to have his hand extended in the air is to interfere which is what happened. He took it pretty well considering. Anyways, I know it's OBR vs NHFS, but did I make the right call? This Aaron Judge play was in the forefront of my mind, and I even thought about this play for a couple seconds before making the call.

NFHS DH (#9) for F4 (#18) in the 3 hole Head coach comes to me and asks if he brings his DH into pitch, will that end the DH. I told him yes, he can play both sides and #18 can go to the bench. He asks again if #18 can re-enter at F4 (as in not hit) once the DH is done pitching. I told him no, DH is over, but #18 can re-enter for #9 and play both sides. He then asks if #18 can re-enter for another player on defense. I told him that #9 and #18 are locked into the same position on the line-up, and therefore can never be on either defense or offense at the same time. #18 and #9 would be replacing each other, vice/versa I was very confident in my answer, and Coach took my explanation and was satisfied. Turns out 1st base coach asked my BU partner the same question that half-inning, and he told the coach that #18 can re-enter once - for any player. So now next half inning, head coach walks to BU and asks him the same question. I walk over as BU is explaining. I correct BU in a clarifying way (like we are all saying the same thing, just misunderstanding - even though I know we weren't). BU realizes this and doesn't fight me on it and rolls with it. Coach is satisfied. Anyways, after the game he thinks he's right, I think I'm right, and admittedly we both aren't 100%