SH0102

Fake tag is legal in college, obstruction in HS Follow through INT by a batter is a delayed dead ball, runners return, it is NOT an out, if catcher retires the runner anyways, out stands (hence delayed dead ball) Runners lane INT requires a throw and/or catch to be impeded, I believe (not 100% on this now that I’m typing it) that in HS, if you judge the runner being outside the lane altered the throw you can get it even if the throw is crap. College requires a “field able throw” if you will. pitcher goes to the mouth on the rubber is a ball in college, balk in HS

Yes, that is correct. It does not say that a ball must be put into play by the batter to have the option to decline the INT. I think Beerguy was saying that in a situation where a batter hits the glove, causing the catcher to miss the pitch, runners are running all over, plays may be made at bases, outs may occur, would it be easier just to say thats CI, batter go to first (and others advance if forced). My understanding and how I will officiate unless I learn otherwise, is I will always offer the option to decline the INT unless the batter and all runners advance one base or more. I agree it may be a ***show as Beerguy said, but so would me telling the offensive coach who just won the game when R3 scored that his runner has to go back because the catcher had no ability to catch the pitch after CI and only the batter gets first and R3 wasn't forced to advance

All fair points, but I still think the best thing to do is to let it play out and allow the offense to accept batter to first (others if forced) or the result of the play. By rule, this is allowed and perhaps the D even gets an out if the offense doesn't want to take the run off the board (I had this in D3 college game last season, team took the out and run, though it was on a ball batted in play) I understand what you are saying, the catcher couldn't catch it because his glove was smashed with the bat, but by definition, CI should not happen. If he couldn't catch it b/c he got hit with the bat, then don't commit the CI in the first place. <shrug>

I agree that it is entirely possible, and likely did happen, same reason they have to put disclaimers on products such as "do not insert curling iron into any ____", guess it happened 😕 I was just saying I don't think it is wrong to call out Maven because he called it rare, I would ascertain that it is indeed rare, though as you pointed out, possible. To your examples, I have seen some games where guys got massive jumps, and they just pitched in order to avoid a balk (I see more balks from the team screaming at their pitcher to step off, not sure why they do that), but never seen a runner acquire the next base before the P has even begun his motion.

Senorazul , it’s written because it could happen, but I have a hard time believing you actually would call this play “common” or “not rare”. I have played and watched baseball since age 3 (now 40), and umpired for last 10 or so, and never seen it. Can it happen? Sure, but to disparage him because he said it’s rare is…well idk, but seems wrong. No chance it’s more common than “rare”

Umm thanks? I was answering the previous rhetoric about whether that option exists when the ball is not put in play but a play occurs (runners stealing, passed ball, etc)

I was taught a while back that by omission means something applies. A rule book can not possibly list every situation that COULD happen, they list the exceptions and how those apply. I am with Matt here. Just bc it doesn’t say he must bat the ball to have CI, it mentions the only time CI is ignored . By that default, CI and it’s subsequent enforcements/options are enforced anytime it occurs, whether ball is batted or not, unless the batter and all runners advance one base.

Well a batter is obligated to be in the batters box while hitting and once they hit the ball fair, they can not stand at home without liability to be put out by tagging batter or by tagging first base, so technically they must attempt to advance to first…so with that definition they are using I get it , correct or not <shrug >

Totally reversed it, it’s ignored if all runners and batter advance one base. Insert head smack , I knew that but said it wrong

When a runner passes a base, they have acquired that base. The action of not touching it or not retouching (tag up) only makes you liable to be put out upon appeal. Basically you officiate any missed bases and left earlies as if they never happened. r2 left early but scores? Run counts unless they appeal. R1 advanced? He didn’t do anything wrong and can advance all day long. Everything about the OP is legal until it’s appealed otherwise. Upon appeal; the runner who committed the transgression is out, the runner behind him did nothing wrong and was not put out legally (tagged out) and did nothing wrong to appeal

Okay, I’ll throw myself out to possibly be wrong… Catchers INT occurs on a batters swing. I thought The rule states the offense can only elect the play result if the batter and all runners advanced one base? So in the “throw down LF” example, batter didn’t advance so not an option, just one base award to batter and runners advance bc forced. I also was taught that “catchers OBS” only occurs on a suicide/safety squeeze where the R3 is coming on the pitch, catcher comes out early and essentially prevents a swing, dead ball, batter and all runners advance one base “as a result of the catchers balk” I believe it even says… My rule books are at home but if I wait until I get home, I won’t remember I had this thought, so I’ll instead use it as a learning opportunity if I’m wrong.

The answer is yes, live ball on the runner, batter comes back to finish his at-bat. The same principle/philosophy applies on strike 3 in the dirt with runner on 1B and less than 2 outs...the batter running even though he can not safely acquire first base is not INT...it is on the defense to know the situation. I suppose if you somehow judge the batter intentionally was trying to cause confusion, you could grab something, but that is a tough sell. Now, if the batter proceeding to first interfered with the catchers ability to make a play on the runner stealing, you have batter's INT. But a kid just being confused and not knowing the count is a whole lot of nothing.

Since you are taking the NCAA test, I’ll speak to that. That question is a trip bc it is verbatim from the rule book but only applies when no runners are on. Runners on, dropped ball is a balk whether it goes 3” or 3 miles

Ground rule double if the ball left the field of play before the foul pole. Home run if it left over the OF fence

Clearly he has no intention of learning the rule and when this happens in his game, he will be that adamant HPU that leaves everyone shaking their heads (except the savvy shortstop who got away with making the runner go around him, he just learned a new trick!) I just re-watched the video and freezed the video at the moment the catcher catches the relay throw. The runner is already sliding. How on Earth could you say that is not a close play? If I was his coach, I am getting tossed

You seriously need to reconsider your thought process…you are saying you need to be convinced with 100% certainty that he should be awarded home…what you need to be convinced is with 100% certainty he would have been out no matter what. You can’t think about well the throw would have been this or that.. he was obstructed by defense and you want to reward them with an out on a close play? He needs to be out by a LOT to not award him home. You’re giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense here, “well I think he would have still been out” when their violation should be “well he may have been safe so he is safe”. unless you are 99% certain he would be out even without Obs, you award him home, otherwise you may as well wear a sign around your neck at your next game that says “you may as well obstruct every runner bc most of the time you’re going to get away with it”

Most kids can run 90ft in about 5 seconds and that’s starting from a standstill. if he was obstructed for 1 second, he probably lost 2 seconds of running time . 2 seconds is equal to about 36 feet, more if you consider coming home at full speed already. That’s over 1/3 of the basepath

It already was a close play at the plate. benefit of the doubt has to be given to the team that is not in the wrong. If he had been out by 3 steps I could see your point, but it was already bang-bang. And keep in mind that when forcing someone to decelerate, the time they lost in running distance is longer than the time spent being obstructed. if you start running and are forced to slow down, it takes longer to get back to speed than it did to slow down

Fair point, but I literally looked in rule book about an hour ago and it says “must notify the umpire”. No mention of the word “plate”. Page 85, rule 9, section 1, 8-b “presumed to be pitching from the set position…unless the pitcher notified the umpire that they will be pitching from the windup” goes on to say “a pitcher will be permitted to notify the umpire that they will be pitching from the windup…” then says “the umpire shall call time and notify the offensive team…” nowhere is word “plate” mentioned in this part

Should have been called, happened right in BU vision. HPU had terrible position and preparation for the play at the plate and timing was insanely fast, so guessing this wasn’t a very experienced crew. Im calling OBS as soon as that happens, and awarding him home because it was close enough to judge he would have scored if he had not been impeded

So the question at hand is whether the bat falls into the category of "illegal" since it wasn't tested (thus batter is out as soon as noticed/appealed), or does the bat fall under the category similar to a bat that has pine tar too far up and must be removed from the game, but is not an out? Does not having a bat tested render it illegal or just not fit for use?

I have never quite understood the desire for people to want a "perfect" strike zone below upper-level D1 college and pros. I have done some 16u summer games and you hear that dad behind the plate barking about a pitch "on the chalk", which is essentially 1 - 1 1/2 ball width's off the plate...you want an MLB zone? Okay, let's have it, and then I can listen to you complain about how the game is taking 7 hours and there were 53 walks

To be fair, I think you are speaking of a PROPER and APPROVED mechanic, but a different situation from the one described in the OP. In NCAA, 2-man, on a ball where U1 goes out, he is to come back to home for a possible play at plate on an in-the-park home run attempt. But U1 only goes out from A, never the middle. The OP is describing a situation where a runner starts on first, so BU is in the middle, and rotating home from there. As I said, I could see maybe utilizing it in Summer ball after a good pre-game meeting, why not, maybe get to do it once during the entire Summer, but I would not use it in an official game where you are using a non-approved rotation/mechanic

Hi All, I tend to be long-winded, so will try to make this short and sweet, but myself and a couple umpire friends were taking a rules quiz I made for Rule #1 of the NCAA book. My question pertains only to NCAA but feel free to chime in if NFHS or OBR are different. This scenario caused a big discussion and I said I would ask here: Situation: Defensive team has loose equipment laying in play (gloves on top of dugout railing, bucket of ball at entrance to dugout, whatever). Batter hits a gapper and is trying for a triple. Ball is overthrown to third and would go out of play if not for the loose equipment laying in play. Batter is unable to advance home as defense quickly retrieves the ball deflected back towards field. Is this out of play? Nothing? Discussion: My friend said "if the transgression (loose equip in play) benefits the team that is in violation (in this case helped the defense whose own equipment stopped it), then call it dead and award bases. If it hurts the team who was in the wrong (for example, the batting team prevented the throw from going out with their own equipment), then it's nothing. I distinctly remember being told the same thing during Summer ball, but on page 20 of the NCAA rule book, Rule 1, Section 16, part d, it reads "all loose equipment must be kept in the dugout or in a dead-ball area. If a pitched, batted, or thrown ball touches equipment that is in live-ball territory, the ball remains live" If I am reading this properly, there is no distinction about "who it benefits or doesn't"....it reads to me as a "try to avoid this with preventative officiating and have them remove equipment, but if you miss it and it hits the stuff, oh well, play on". Thoughts? FOLLOW UP: Quick follow up...what if you explicitly told a player/coach before the pitch to move the equipment, they do not, and this happens. Will you award penalty now since there may be "Intent", or purposeful neglect of an instruction by you? Thanks brothers

Two things… in NCAA a thrown bat that impedes a fielder is INT, whether in fair or foul territory, even when not thrown “at a pitch”…you throw it, you risk it. Just for giggles, let’s say it’s a pitch out and batter steps out of the box and throws bat at pitch (steps across/over line or on plate) and bat contacts ball and hits ball fair, but bat was not in batters hands at time of contact with pitch…he out?