Kali

So this play left me with a bunch of questions. High School Varsity game, bases loaded with 1 out. I'm working the plate with a very experienced umpire on the bases. The batter hits a bounding ball directly at the short stop. R2 takes one step and then stands directly in front of short and turns to face the ball with arms at the sides and hands at hips in a position I can only describe as "Jazz Hands". Just as the ball arrives, R2 steps out of the way and short gets hit right in the nuts. My partner signals "that's nothing". The short stop picks up the ball which is at his feet and throws to 1st to get the BR. Then he crumples into a fetal position and the other runners advance. After the play, the defensive coach comes out to talk to my partner. My partner comes in and asks me if I thought it was interference. He didn't call it because the runner hadn't contacted the ball or the fielder. I said I thought that was probably the most flagrant and intentional interference that I had ever seen so we decided to call it. We called R2 out on the interference but let the out at 1st stand, R3's score was taken off the board. So here are the questions: 1) Was this really interference or just really smart base running? 2) When we decided to make the call in our little conference, who should have annouced it? Were we overturning my partner's non-call or was I now the calling umpire? 3) If I thought it was interference at the time, should I have called it then even though my partner had just signaled "that's nothing"? 4) Should the ball have simply been dead at the time of the interference and the throw from short never happened? (1 out only and BR gets 1st) 5) We were thinking that without the interference short would have had time to throw home or initiate a double play, but he didn't attempt either of those things so was his play really interfered with at all? Let me know what y'all think

You can infere all you want but this rule has never been solely about a throw from near home plate. In Fed and MLB, this rule covers throws from anyplace on the field. It is a rare call but you can see calls on a throw from 3rd base or short that pulls the 1st baseman forward toward home and the runner runs into the glove or between the ball and the glove and prevents the catch. These become RLI because there is actual interference. But we are now saying that there doesn't have to be actual interference to call the runner out. So once again I say we have a real problem here. An ordinary play with a grounder to the 3rd baseman who throws to 1st too late to retire the runner, becomes an out if the runner runs outside of the running lane. If we don't call it that way and a coach protests, we lose the protest.

You guys keep talking about a throw from behind the runner, and I get that the intent of these changes was to get the umpire to call the play at the time of the throw and not worry about whether there is actual interference or not. They don't want coaches telling their catchers they have to peg the BR in the back to get the call. All that is understood. But that's not my concern here. What about plays where the throw doesn't come from behind the runner? What about a throw from the short stop? Or a throw from the right fielder? The way this rule is written right now, if that runner doesn't run in the running lane, we're suposed to call them out. That's what needs to be cleared up.

I think a lot of folks are missing the issue here. This rule echos rules in every other baseball rule set and was meant to prevent a batter-runner from interfering with the play to first by restricting them to a specific running lane so that the fielders knew where they should position the throw. By deleting this line from the rule, it is changed completely so that we are now punishing the batter-runner for not running in the running lane regardless of wheter they interfere with the play to first or not. We have a member of our association who was a member of the NFHS rules committee and he is now checking on what the intention of this rule change was and whether or not this is a misprint. Because, intentional or not, it's a big change and should have been included in the rule changes listed at the front of the Rules book and demonstrated in the Case book.

I didn't realize that the rule has changed this year because it isn't listed amoung the rule changes at the front of the book, but by removing the language; or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw from 8-4-1g1, it changes the entire meaning of the rule. I find it really difficult to believe we are being asked to implement the rule as it is now written. This must be an error.

I'm a bit confused about the whole RLV thing since this a point of emphasis in NFHS this year. I went back and read 8-4-1g and it reads: The batter-runner is out when (g) the batter-runner runs outside the three foot running lane (the last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base. First, this doesn't mention interference with the throw or catch at 1st base and second, it doesn't mention where the ball is being fielded. So a grounder to the short stop still requires the BR to run in the lane or he is out? No matter how much be beats the throw by? Never have I ever heard anyone say that is the way it should be called. In MLB the rule is: 5.09 (a) 11 A batter is out when: In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead... So here, even though the throw from the short stop would still require the BR to run in the lane, they must somehow interfere with the catch (and the lane is a bit wider). The ball is dead so runners can't advance just as in a normal interference call. In my last Fed game I made a mental note of every time a runner made it to first running outside the runner's lane and it was almost every right handed batter and some lefties too. If I started calling all these folks out, there would be a riot.

I'm happy you're amused and sorry you're sad but the rule says "does not legally slide" for a reason. If they meant to say, slides illegally, they would have said that. When the runner comes in standing up, they did not legally slide. Runners are not required to slide at all, but if they don't, they better not contact a fielder or alter the play. You might want to look at the Case Book for 8.4.2 Situation Y for instruction. The runner standing up is called for interference in a situation where, had he been legally sliding, he would not have been. There is no contact in this example but it demonstrates that standing up and illegally sliding are treated as the same thing.

I guess I understand why you don't want this rule to apply but 8-4-2b states that: Any runner is out when the runner ... does not legally slide and causes illegal contact ... of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play. I fail to see why this doesn't apply to the original post situation or any of MadMaxes scenarios. Are you stuck on the idea that there needs to be something other than simple contact to make this illegal contact? The whole point of the slide rule is that contact by the runner with a fielder during a play at a base or plate is illegal if the runner isn't legally sliding.

This actually brings up an interesting and off-topic point. Unlike the MLB rules, Fed does not protect the fielder from an obstruction call when they are in the act of fielding a ball. The fielder must have possession to block. But what if the runner prevented the fielder from gaining possession by doing something unexpected. Think of this play, a BR running to 1st barely beats the throw, but instead of simply over-running the base, decides to try to make a turn toward 2nd and collides with the 1st baseman who then is unable to make the catch. Would we call this obstruction? The 1st baseman didn't have the ball after all, but it was a close play and he expected the BR would simply go straight over 1st base and he wasn't blocking that path in any way. I can't cite a rule here but would never call that obstruction. So back to the play at hand, the pitcher reaching out for the toss from the catcher is prevented from catching the ball because the runner failed to perform a legal slide. Not obstruction. It is a violation of the slide rule. We need to look and see who was doing what they were suppose to do and who was not.

Velho already cited the rule that applies here. 8-4-2b

Back to Fed rules: coming in standing up means he did not legally slide. He then contacted a fielder who was in the immediate act of making a play. That by itself is enough to call the runner out. That contact is illegal. The fact that the ball hit the runner on the hip is nothing since it wasn't intentional. The contact does not have to be malicious to call an out here. The whole point of the slide rule is to minimize the damage caused by a collision. That means we want to prevent situations where two players run into each other standing up.

The only thing I would add is that, when deciding if the field is playable, the fact that the game will have to be continued by another crew should NOT enter into your consideration. The game is either safe to continue or it is not. When you are using Fed rules, the assumption is that this is a school event and the safety of the players is the single most important consideration.

OK, to sum all this up: This was a question about Fed rules so the NCAA interpretations don't really come into this as they have a different rule anyway. Also, we weren't talking about Malicious Contact but legal slides into the base. I think we've boiled this down to: 1) There are two slide rule situations, one for force plays and another for non-force plays. 2) The difference between the two is that in the force play situation we protect the fielder standing to the side of the base from contact by a runner executing an otherwise legal slide and in non-force situations we don't. Note: During a force play, the fielder need only touch the base with his foot while in any other case the fielder must tag the runner before they reach the base, meaning that the fielders are more likely to be in the area next to the base during a non-force play. As a result we are not protecting the fielder in the case they will most likely be contacted. 3) Because we do not protect the fielder in all situations, we really can't say this part of the slide rule is a safety rule. Instead, we are protecting the fielder so they can make a follow-on play. 4) While no rule is "petty", since this isn't a matter of protecting the safety of the players, before calling this one, we have to be reasonably sure there is a follow-on play to be made.

Maven. If a player stealing 2nd slides (using a legal slide) into the feet of a fielder next to the bag, since it isn't a force play, we don't call that an out. If the same exact thing happens on a force play, we DO call him out for violating the FPSL. Because we don't call the same thing in both situations, this can't be a safety rule. We are only calling the out on the force play because the runner deprived the fielder the ability to make the play. That is how this goes logically.

So noumpere, you're saying the Force Play Slide Rule is NOT a safety rule designed to protect the fielder but simply a fair play rule?

It seems to me that we really have two different slide rules and I don't know why that is. In the definition of illegal slide in 2-32-2c A slide is illegal if, except at home plate, the runner goes beyond the base and then makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder. So we look at 8-4-2b and see that: Any runner is out when (he/she/it) does not legally slide and causes contact and/or illegally alters the actions of the fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases So consider the two cases of an R1 stealing 2nd vs an R1 being forced to 2nd by the BR. In the case of the steal, a fielder standing next to the base is not protected while in a force play the same fielder is protected. A fielder standing beyond the base is protected in both situations. Why the difference? Isn't this a safety rule to protect the fielders? Also, I've had some long discussions with upper level umpires who see this as a "petty" rule and tell me it should only be called when the over-slide is egregious and/or serious injury occurs. But don't we call it during slight infractions to prevent the serious injury situations? Finally a pop-up slide that contacts a fielder is also defined as illegal in all cases, but the rule doesn't mention any location. So I have to assume that a pop-up slide that contacts the fielder on top of the base is illegal even if there is no follow on play to be made. This is another one that I'm told is "petty".

I read in 1-5-4 that the catcher must wear a helmet and that: "A throat protector, which is either part of or attached to the catcher's mask, is mandatory." I don't see the detached dangling throat protectors much any more. How do I tell when the required throat protector is part of the helmet? I looked up these helmets online and the descriptions generally don't say they have an integrated throat protector. Even the helmets that dip well below the catcher's chin don't cover the throat when the catcher looks up. Is there any trick to knowing?

So what I have gathered from all this is that, since R1 didn't intentionally interfere with the 1st baseman (he intentionally stayed on base but wasn't trying to touch the fielder). The correct call here should simply have been "Foul Ball" in an MLB game but R1 should have been called out in Fed. (6.01(a) comment in MLB and 8.4.2 situation B in Fed)

If it didn't actually happen to me, I would have said this was one of those impossible test questions you see on the NFHS test every year. Freshman High School game. Bases loaded and no outs. The batter pops the ball up near first base. The 1st baseman comes in and stands in front of the base. We call, "Infield fly, if fair". The fielder takes a step back and then , just as the ball arrives, takes a second step back and collides with R1 standing on the base. At the same time, the fielder reaches out his mitt inches into foul territory, the ball hits the glove and drops to the ground. OK, so this is a foul ball and therefore, NOT an infield fly. So I call "Interference" on R1 but (and I know this is wrong) I call the batter out. It just seemed to me to be the right thing to do to negate the interference. I know the proper thing would have been to call R1 out and put the batter back in the box but... When we call out "Infield Fly", we are telling the runners that they will be safe if they stay on base. Had the ball hit R1, it would have been dead and he would NOT have been out. If the ball ends up foul, we are reneging on this at the last second with too little time for the runners to know they aren't safe on base anymore. So, maybe I'm just complaining that the rules aren't clear in this situation which is not a big deal but it got me thinking. If that ball had been a few inches over and had been fair. Would I have had two outs? One for the infield fly and one for interference or does the runner have the right to stay on base in this case? Or if he does jump off the base to let the fielder try to make the play, it seems he can be blocked from returning to the base by the fielder who now has the ball. Additionally, while the MLB rule indicates that the runner would be safe off the bag once the ball "has gone through the infielder", the NFHS rules do not make that exception and if the the infielder mishandled the ball and it touched the runner, he would be out. Anybody got opinions on this?

During a recent "conversation" with a coach I ejected from a High School Playoff contest, I was called "The Worst Umpire in the World". I know that I shouldn't but that immediately got me thinking, really? In the whole world? Like, how many umpires has this guy seen? But now that I have the title, the rest of you can all relax. You may be awful but, I'm the worst. And yet, I was thinking about starting a club. The only membership requirement being that you have been dubbed "The Worst Umpire (I've ever seen), (We've ever had) (etc.) during a game sometime. We could have monthly meetings and sit around and share our worst umpiring techniques. Let me know if you qualify for membership. But, just so you know, I'd be the President of the club, cause I'm the worst there is.

Jimurray, are you saying the umpire in the video did something wrong? I don't see what he ruled on the pitch. Hopefully, this player's substitute was awarded 1st. There are times when a batter, to avoid being hit, will throw his hands and the bat forward to try and throw his body backwards, which is what happened here. In which case, where the bat goes is of no importance. However, in most cases, things are a little more subtle. The plate umpire has a much better look at the last second reactions of the batter than does the field umpire. When they toss the call out to the field, I have to assume they didn't see any last instant pull back. I can only use the information I can get from 100+ feet away. So telling me to "just umpire" isn't helpful. I'm wondering if you have any personal guidelines that you're looking for?

So, you're the field umpire and you see a pitch come it above the zone and the batter starts to swing at the pitch and then it hits them on the hands. Your partner starts to give them 1st but then comes to you for the check swing. What criteria should be used to determine your call? The position of the bat isn't simple since the pitch is up and in, the bat will likely remain up. I have always been told that if the batter is still moving toward the pitch when it hits him, then it's a dead ball strike. Is there another criteria I should be using?

I've been umpiring for 27 years now and I saw something during a high school playoff game that made me stop and think. I was doing the plate in a three man crew. At the plate meeting, when going over the ground rules we said, anything over the yellow (meaning the yellow bar on top of the outfield fence) would be a home run. A fly ball was hit to center field. It hit the yellow bar and bounced high in the air and was then caught by the center fielder. This was not my catch/no-catch call and it was ruled a no-catch by U3. After the play, I called the crew together to ask about this and both of my partners agreed that hitting the wall was the same as a ball hitting the ground and that it could no longer be "caught". That's what we went with, but it sticks in my mind a bit. Where is that written? And if that's true, a ball hitting the top of the wall and bounding out of play would then not be a home run but a ground rule double? Does anyone know a place in either the MLB of NFHS rule books that spells this out?

I think we miss the issue here. It isn't "was that Obstruction or not" as it clearly was. But how should the umpires have worked so they actually saw it? This was a bounding ball to the outfield so, after the ball skipped the first time, there was no longer a catch/no-catch responsibility from the Base Umpire. The ball wasn't close to the foul line, so there was no fair/foul on the Plate Umpire. At this point, both umpires have the responsibility to "glance at runners" . Plate takes R3 as he touches home and should also pick up the BR as he touches 1st since he knows the Base Umpire is on the ball coming in from left. The Base Umpire really has the responsibility to see R2 as he literally pushes his way past the short stop. You can't have your "eyes everlastingly on the ball" it's "chest to ball, glance at runners". As far as the award, it's really simpler than you guys are making it out. You call "Obstruction" when you see it, then watch the play. When you see how close it was at the plate, you award him home. If he was out by a mile, you don't. It's just that easy. I know you've all been taught to make up your minds how far to protect the runner the instant you see obstruction but there's really no reason to. Give yourself some time.

You look out and see a pitcher standing with his pivot foot parallel to and against the front of the pitcher's plate. His free foot is in front of his pivot foot (well away from the plate). This looks like the Set position to me. But when he begins his pitch, he steps backwards with his free foot and then toward the plate with his free foot (two steps) as he delivers the ball. He obviously thinks he's pitching from the Wind-up. 6-1-2 states For the wind-up position ... The pitcher's non-pivot foot shall be in any position on or behind a line extending through the front edge of the pitcher's plate. He's obviously not in a proper Wind-up position by 6-1-2. In the past, I would stop him the first time I saw this and warn him that this was an illegal pitch even with no runners on, but, recently, I'm being told that, if this is his normal motion, that's OK. Is it OK? He starts every pitch from the same foot position so how do I tell if it's a pitch from the Wind-up or the Set? Remember that in the Wind-up that additional step is optional. (Yes, I know the MLB has inserted language that allows a pitcher to declare which position he is pitching from but, in MLB he can pick off from the Wind-up and, this ain't the MLB and that language hasn't transferred.)