BigBlue4u

For your partner, umpiring 101. If you are going to brush off the plate without calling "time," know what the runners are doing and who has the ball and what is he/she doing.

Good example of being at the right place at the right time. Good luck to your mentee. I wish him well.

I understand your thinking. But let's look at it from another perspective. How can you be sure what the coach is doing? In this situation, the umpire is going to get the dirty end of the stick if he accuses the coach of violating the rule without positive proof. If the umpire has positive proof, then, by all means, enforce the rule as written.

We can argue all day about the strike zone. The most important element is, is the umpire consistent? Batters can adjust if an umpire is consistent. If the umpire is not consistent, then it's everyone for himself.

Unless I missed it, nobody has asked the most important question: Did a fielder have a reasonable chance to field the batted ball. Yes, runner is out. No. Then the ball is live and in play.

Let's look at it this way: What possible advantage can a coach gain by scrolling, texting and answering a call? Nothing comes to my mind. How about yours?

From the NFHS NFHS - Baseball Rules.url

To the credit of MLB, umpires are now getting the benefit of working call-up games before becoming a full-time MLU. I'm sure many of you remember the days when a newly hired MLU would go straight from AAA to the ML.

Another example of why it is so important for coaches/managers to have a decent knowledge of the rules. If this happened to a coach with adequate rules knowledge, he would have lodged a protest in a heartbeat.

I'm not very good at math. So, whatever is out there, is what I'll umpire.

Here's a perfect example of calling for common-sense umpiring. Call the strike, call "time" and have a short conversation with the coach about him calling "time." The first question would be, "What was that all about?" I would then politely warn him that he would be restricted to the dugout if it happens again. Since there was no advantage gained since the pitch was called a strike and nothing else happened, I believe just warning the coach would be the best route.

Any thoughts on this? R1 going on the pitch. Fly ball to RF. Just as the runner approaches second base, he glances to see what’s happening with the batted ball. In doing so, he stops short of second base by a couple of steps. The RF catches the ball. R1 then turns to return to first base. In doing so, he does not touch 2nd base. When the ball is returned to the infield, 2B asks for the ball and properly appeals to the umpire that R1 did not touch second base. What's the call? Some umpires claim there can be no appeal because the runner never acquired or passed 2B. Others say that the runner should be out because he did not advance bases in order.

Count MLB umpires in this group. Every now and then they screw this rule up. Most people don't like the NFHS rule because it "robbed" Johnny of a home run because the ball is immediately dead on a balk. Countless studies over the years have shown that the overwhelming number of NFHS balks don't involve a pitched ball that is even hit.

Good catch! MLB rule 6.01 (a) (3) states: Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out. So, we have a judgment call. Was the pitcher making a play at home base? (in this case proximity being the issue) Yes= interference and an out. No= nothing.

Looks like I am in the minority here. But I've got nothing. First, who created the problem? Second, the batter made a legitimate effort to get out of the way of a play at the plate. Third, even if the batter was in the way of the pitcher, it is unlikely a play could have been made on the runner. Bottom line, I'm not going to pull one out of my you know what to bail out a miscue by the offense. For the scorekeepers in the midst, score the run on a wild pitch.