RBIbaseball

I had this issue a couple years ago as a BU. Starting pitcher. Threw for 4 or 5 innings. on almost EVERY pitch his hat flew off 10-12 sec of messing with his 'fro and getting his hat to "stay on" every time - x50 ? ... we wasted a lot of time. I did hurry the kid after a little while and to his credit had a good attitude and was trying to pick it up and speed up faster, but still Probably would have been a great example to implement this. "Coach, when you guys come back out in the second inning, if you can't help him figure out how to keep his hat stay on while pitching, he won't be able to continue." ... or something, idk the best way to handle it.

If the catcher comes up clean and directly makes a throw and retires the runner, what was interfered with? What was hindered? Is this equating RLI to FPSR - in regards to it being a safety rule, not a interference rule? iirc Fed is more strict in calling RLI than OBR due to the "safety factor", but it's not in and of itself a "safety rule" in the same way FPSR is... Point being, if nothing is hindered, nothing is hindered. On the other hand, if F2 double clutches, then steps another couple steps inside to make a safe throwing lane and still retires the runner, then I'd be more inclined to call it if it allowed R2 to get to 3B. In this example, the throw gets the runner cleanly, but now the play to keep R2 at 2B or relay to 3B for a double play was hindered.

100% agree. Which is why I admitted I'll be a coward on this one, lol ... I'm not going to take unnecessary heat from teams and association even if every authority beyond that says otherwise.

I've found this thread very interesting. I thought the MLB video posted was a great example for "if this happened with less than 2 outs in a HS game". For whatever it's worth, I feel like calling a FPSR here makes zero sense (if I was King for a day). But if all the assignors and rules interpreters that get you paid tell you it's a no brainer, then obviously keep making the right call. If anything it will highlight the fact there is room for judgement here and maybe an amendment down the line. "It's not an interference rule, it's a safety rule".... okay then why are we calling it when there is nothing remotely unsafe caused by the lack of action of the runner? This is not really even subjective. The examples proposed have zero intent by a fielder to make a play, or a runner that is several feet outside of the throwing path even without veering. Answer: because that's how it's written. We are teaching runners to Always Veer, Always Veer, Always Veer. Got it - makes sense. I can buy into the argument even if I personally think it's silly... but, I'm not going to call it, cause I know my colleagues and assignor and NONE of them would support this call. So I'll be a coward on this one with respect to my local climate.

So I was gonna try to resurrect the above thread to ask this, but a 1 year time limit It seemed clear that in NFHS you only need 1 foot in fair territory to be considered "in play" I did a USSSA game and ran into a coach asking for a balk for this. In OBR I don't see anything that addresses this, and the Google machine answers seem to suggest both feet do indeed need to be within the fair lines. It seems as though NCAA might align with high school. anyways, not necessarily interested in the philosophy behind whether this can/should be called - practically (as that was already well said in previous thread) - but can anyone clarify the OBR ruling on this, please?

Sir, yes sir!

This is exactly the scenario and reasoning as to why I posted. Although this back pick hasn't happened to me in this B vs C scenario ... It has happened to me in other circumstances and is something I thought about and would prefer to avoid

Thanks. I have been told this in the past that B is the "right" place to B (no pun intended). If it wasn't obvious, I was speaking of 2-man system NFHS / FED The only explanation I've been given is that with 2 outs and a runner on 3B, the defense most likely isn't going to make a play on that runner, therefore it's more beneficial to be in the B position so you're in better position for plays at 1B and watching the B/R (who will more than likely be the one having a play made on him). That explanation made sense to me, so I've went with it for a couple years, but as I'm learning more on the job I question the validity and when it makes sense / doesn't make sense. An exception (as I learned it) would be in a tight game where the defense is focusing on holding the runner on 3B, then you want to stay there where you are closer to that potential play. So far it seems like I was taught something someone made up and ran with, so perhaps I should delete this one from my memory core.

edit: talking 2-man NFHS Is working from the B position with a runner on 3B and 2 outs a preference thing, or the standard? In what other scenarios do you work from B with a runner on 3B, and what are the exceptions (ie 1 run game, and they are holding R3 late in the game, etc.) ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is by default PU has all touches of third. If the BU has nothing left to look at (ie last runner on the bases rounding 3B) then of course BU might as well look, but would the appeal be his call now, or is it still PU responsibility first? Obviously in a two-man system there can be some chaos and multiple things going on at once where you can't see a touch. What are the exceptions here where the PU would go to BU as the primary appeal authority of a touch of 3B? Would the PU ever direct the appeal straight to the BU, or would it be more of a "let's get together" situation?

Thanks for explanation. I wasn't using that term correctly. That makes sense. This is the part that seems a bit ridiculous to me. Same reason I wouldn't tell the kid to touch the base, I am basically giving it away and playing this "can you guess what's wrong" game with everyone on the field (including my PU). If the consensus is you can't grant time, period. Then I'd much rather just explain it to the coach as a mistake / inadvertent whistle if you will, over correctly the call of Time - in real time. The reality is I may never seen this again in 20 years, but I had it in my head to call him out for sure if the coach appealed prior to the B/R correcting his mistake after the team huddle. My hang up is still that my PU, assignor, and three others on this thread are advising that would have been incorrect and against rule 2-4-2 that was quoted. So I'm still struggling with my stubbornness to feel confident I understand, until I get more explanation I suppose.

@MadMax @maven Thanks for the explanations. Learned a couple things not directly related. Thanks I'm still confused, or should I say push back at the can't call time until he touches the base. It just doesn't seem logical to apply that verbiage and the simplicity of the only case play to say "Time can absolutely never be called before the B/R touches first base. @beerguy55 Mentioned he has an out if the coach would have appealed during the dead ball AND before the runner corrected himself. In my example, the runner stood "around" the bag for approximately 8-10 sec, and realistically there is no way an umpire from home plate knows whether he touched or not - but I do. So I call it preventative umpiring because the only remedy I can think of is to literally tell the player to touch the base. *** Let's take it one step further. Time Out is not called 8-10 sec after reaching 1B. But instead the runner finishes handing all his gear to the coach, then begins to lead off from first. The pitcher goes into the stretch and starts to take the sign and then the offensive coach asks for timeout. So according to this logic, the umpires can't grant timeout yet, cause the B/R never touched first.... what would you do ? And I don't think it's very far fetched, considering we were 95% there in my situation.

But what if he doesn't? So what you're saying is it's as simple as my assignor said? A time-out cannot be legally granted until he touches 1B... period? In other scenarios, I've seen it argued that "reaching" the base is defined as moving to and past the base, regardeless of whether it is touched. Why would that not apply on a BB? ie He did immediately go to first base, he just failed to touch it. He was given 10 sec while dancing around the base to do so. btw I don't have access to that case play at the moment, so I'm not sure what it says.

Been awhile fellas, but I've been lurking. This will probably be a long one. Had my first game of the season. NFHS varsity - for context, it was the worst team in the region vs. a below average team, so very low pressure. It was well on the way to the 15-0 finish at this point. Bot of the 4th, first batter earned a BB - I was BU B/R moseyed on down to first, and upon approaching first slowed and started taking off his protective gear. He continued to move beyond the front of the bag and stood next to 1B while taking off his batting gloves and handing things to the coach. He never touched the base. His feet were clearing moving around as he messed with his gear. At one point his left leg went back and behind the base, missing it by a couple inches again as he took off his shin protector. He was within 3 or 4 inches of the base the entire time but 100% never touched it. This lasted about 8-10 sec, then the offensive coach called for a timeout. PU granted time. The B/R left the area of 1B and ran over in-between the 3B line and their dugout to huddle with the team. About 60 sec later, they disbanded and the original B/R came back to 1B and stood on the base. It was only after this that the defensive coach came out to talk to me. He said that the B/R never touched first and is he allowed to appeal that. I told him that I agree he never touched first initially, but now he is standing on the bag. HE THOUGHT that the offensive team put in a pinch runner and that it was a different player (this ended up being incorrect). With the pinch runner information, I told him that to be honest I wasn't sure, so we got the PU involved, but he seemed even more lost than I was. Ultimately, we figured out that there was never a pinch runner, and that he appealed after the player went back to stand on the base, so we avoided calling him out. Coach wasn't upset cause he knew it was a really weird situation, but I know he wasn't convinced. And neither was I. I called my Assignor afterwards, and he basically said you can't call the kid out - ever. It's our fault for calling time before we let him touch first base. He told me I should have told the kid to touch first base when the timeout was called just to avoid any heartache. I tried to explain my understanding is that once a player passes the base, as an umpire I treat it as though he's earned that base, whether he touched it or not (obviously calling him out if appealed). He disagreed. I don't think my PU made a mistake, because he can't be expected to tell whether the guy tip toed around the base for 10 sec or not. It's not like he called a timeout prior to the kid reaching 1B. 1. B/R earned BB 2. B/R runs down to 1B and stands next to the bag for 10 sec while never touching it 3. PU calls timeout 4. B/R runs over to team huddle for 60 sec 5. B/R runs back to 1B and finally touches 6. Coach tries to appeal So I'm very curious what you guys think. Did we at least ultimately get the call right by not upholding the appeal? Is my assignor right in we should have done some preventative officiating? Did we mess up by granting time before he touched? If the coach would have appealed "mid huddle" do I have an out? If the offense did indeed put in a pinch runner, do that change anything? I'm really interested to get any insight about this situation, how we should/could of handled it differently, or the rules. EDIT: Just for fun, here's want I think/thought: If the coach would have appealed during the timeout and before the original B/R came back to touch, I would have called him out. If there was indeed a pinch runner, whether he was standing on the base or not, I would be inclined to call him out. (justification: in my mind, that pinch runner doesn't technically exist until the ball is put back into play) As it stood, I believe we got the call right, as I'm not going to call a kid out for abandoning the base path for going to a team huddle during timeout (yes, coach did ask for this as well). Also, my understanding is a runner has the right to "back track" and retouch during a dead ball (as long as he's not going back more than one base). Therefor the coach asking for a appeal after the B/R went back to stand on 1B is relevant.

Thanks team

There was a play a few days ago between Blue Jays and Reds R1, pop up to F3 . F3 sees that BR is not running down the line. F3 let's popup fall to the ground, then tosses it to 1B R1 was standing on 1B until the ball hit he ground, then took off for second. Result of the play was a force out at 1B, retiring the BR and a throw down to 2B to tag R1 for a double play Anyways , I would like the verify the following two scenarios: If R1 stayed on the base and never moved and A. the fielder covering 1B caught the ball with his foot on the base, then tagged R1 , then BR would be out via force and R1 safe because he would be no longer forced to advance .. correct? B. The fielder disengaged 1B prior to the catch, tagged R1 standing on 1B, then touched 1B. This time R1 would be out because he is forced to advance to 2B and not protected by standing on first, correct? Or is he protected

Ya obviously I'm paraphrasing a bit. My partner was seemingly eating up the height explanation . I asked him, are you saying what the coach said is in fact the rule, that it has to go over his head? Are you sure? Cause it definitely did not go over his head. He kinda shrugged like a yes, but not wanting to admit he has no idea. I said who's head? The 5' 6" catcher, or the 6'4" batter? What if the batter was 5' even? What if the batter was 7' tall? Then I finished it off with that batters height being relevant line, lol That's when he was like ya, I don't know. Ya me neither . So we stuck with our gut.

Had a situation where the batter reached down and bunted a ball, making contact 2 feet off the ground. The ball hit off the end of the bat with some crazy English and popped up about 2 more feet in the air (most likely would have landed a foot or so behind the plate). Catcher came forward it it bounced off his arm, then chest, then catch. I was BU, and my partner called the batter out on a catch. Coach argued that a foul ball "has to go over the batters head". My partner walked out to me for help, and asked if the ball went over the batters head. I told him no, but probably just under the chin. I said Im gonna be honest, I don't know the rule , but I'm not convinced the batters height is relevant. I told him my understanding is sharp and direct into the catcher, which it definitely was not. It was in the air for close to two seconds I would guess and that it felt like a pop up and a catch to me. I have an out. Let's stick with it. He agreed, and we moved on. Long story for this question: What determines whether the ball is foul tipped vs goes high enough to be caught for an out ? Does a bunt vs swing change anything? This was NHFS, does the ruleset change the answer as well?

As already answered, completely up to the umpire as to whether they "attempted to strike at the ball". Sr. Azul's tip as to the hands being extended is a clue, but not an end all be all. Anecdotal but, in my experience, a lot of times when the batter goes to swing and the pitch runs more up and in than originally expected, you'll have a legitimate attempt to swing (even if at the very end it was survival mode). It's not unreasonable to get a strike on a HBP in this scenario. In contrast, you see this fairly often in bunt attempts where the pitcher reacts with a pitch inside. In a flailing attempt to protect themselves and/or avoid being hit, the bat might swing forward and around. In a play like this I would have a hard calling that an attempt to swing. But in both these simplified examples, it's still up to umpire judgement, and they could go either way. edit: another note is that these can sometimes be difficult for PU to see because they often can involve a catcher hopping up in the way and blocking out the PU.

@The Man in Blue @beerguy55 Thanks for the insight. I've never actually dealt with a coach who was legitimately protesting a rules application. Good to be mentally prepared going forward with how I would handle that.

But I took that 20 sec , while we are walking, and he accepted it and moved on... If he hadn't accepted it, then ya sure rule book or protest time I guess Is it not worth a 20 sec investment for a decent chance to avoid it , over just defaulting to "are you protesting or not coach" ?

Tbh I have no idea what the protest policy is/was or whether there was one. I'm not sure I like the idea of defaulting to "protest or not?" as an initial strategy to deescalate and move on. Obviously if he responded to my "calls the call, we'll both look it up after" with anything like "no, this is costing my team, we need to get it right" ... Now maybe the next step is a protest talk or contacting a UIC to rectify or something But in this case, I read the coach fairly well and my tactic worked. I guess it's a case by case. I can't use this every time. It's situation and person dependent perhaps

Ya for sure. In hind sight there was kinda 3 separate announcements I made (to the best of my memory) 1. I called time as soon as he got hit and started walking out. 2. When the players threw him out at first, that's when I stopped and said BR safe at first, R2 gets 2B and kept going to my partner (at this point 1B coach was already next to him checking on his well being) 3. The HC responded to my announcement of awards with "no we threw him out at first". I responded again with, Its an immediate dead ball on the umpire interference (I truly believe I did call it what it was, but it's very possible my brain in lieing to me), BR gets a single out of it coach, R1 to 2B. Then I made it to my partner shortly after that. My partner got drilled directly in the chest, and he is an older gentleman... Most everyone's immediate reaction was to go straight to him, and I got caught up in that too. As far as him helping me out ... Even if he knew the rule, he was so disoriented from getting hit there is no way he could have helped. Took him a couple min to be ready to go. I suppose I should have given the full rundown from behind the plate the first time to instill confidence in my call, then go out to check.

Yep you're absolutely right. I guess a more accurate statement would have been, if it's in the grey area of the proximity judgment I would probably lean toward not balking it if there is not another play on... Vs if it was a designed play to get R1 running to 2B targeted out, I would probably be more stringent on what that proximity judgment is. Does that make sense ? I agree that there should be one standard, and that's why I'm asking more questions to help define that standard for myself in my own judgement going forward. But I'm just trying to be transparent and honest in saying that I would had definitely factored that into the equation ... As wrong as it may be.

Thanks for your insight. I don't think I contradicted myself in this thread, but I very well may have. I think you're referring to me saying F3 was probably playing about 5-6 feet off the base prior to F1s move, and that the pickoff took F5 to about 2-3 feet from the base (it looks like I said 2-4 in the original post). Regardless, I understand it's a judgement call. And it's not like we are getting a tape measure out and finding the footprints after... But even at 6 feet, I don't think it's unreasonable that F5 could leap toward/dive and tag a runner. For me, that would probably still qualify as proximity of making a play. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I would agree it's not too far from that. Do we have a different standard when there isn't a designed play to catch R1 vs when there is? Let's say there is only R3, and F5 is just caught sleeping not holding the runner on when F1 thought he was. Do you send R3 home on a balk when he throws to F5 standing 12 feet off the base? By the letter of the law, should be a yes, but I'm not sure I would do it without a little emotional support from my friends here.