BigBlue4u

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.

1) Assuming the fielder cannot make a play, it is an immediate dead ball and any runners are returned to base occupied at the time of the pitch. 2. No, it is a delayed dead ball. Offense can take the result of the play or advance batter and any runner attempting to advance on the pitch, one base. 3. No. Many interference calls result in a delayed dead ball.

MLB: Controversial umpire CB Bucknor hangs up his mask and calls it quits for good I wonder how much "help" MLB gave him to make this decision?

Does anyone have an update on the 2027 NFHS baseball rules?

First of all, don't beat yourself up over this. You did the best you could. As the saying goes, "Sometimes, despite your best efforts, you take one right between the eyes." The only thing I question is why you didn't ask your partner as the coach requested? Of course, your partner didn't see what happened. You know that, but the coach probably doesn't know that. He's trying to support his team. Give him that opportunity. Ask your partner anyway.

Yes. As I said, I must know where the runners are, what they are doing and where the ball is and what the holder of the ball is doing. That gives me a pretty accurate picture of the situation. If I do see runners off their base, or a fielder holding a ball, THEN I will call "time" to dust off the plate. It also applies with R3. Obvious situations pretty much dictate themselves. As an example, with a runner at third and the pitcher holding the ball looking at his catcher, it would be unlikely that the runner would attempt to advance to home.

I did not call time when brushing the plate. What I did do is know where any runners were and, especially, where the ball was. I never felt it was necessary to go through all the motions of calling "time" then putting the ball back in play for a job that, at most, would take about five seconds.

And here's a thought. When you do brush the plate, do it with enthusiasm. I've seen some guys dust the plate and they look tired when doing it. And, what about kicking off dust with your shoe? My guideline was, if i could clean it with no more than two sweeps of my foot, OK. Otherwise, I use my brush

That will work. 🙂

Here we are again, some of us over-reacting. If a catcher does that, ask him why he is doing it. After he explains, tell him not to do it again. If he does do it again, warn him he will be ejected the next time he does it. At an appropriate time, probably between innings, DO advise the coach. If he gives you any static tell him, "Coach, end of discussion, this is what we are doing today,"

You wrote eight long paragraphs to describe your situation. Any competent umpire would learn all he needed to know by the third paragraph. (no criticism intended) Umpires like this make the huge mistake of telling people how good they are rather than letting their work speak for itself. In all the years I have worked from LL to D-1, I have never asked an assigner not to assign me with someone. Not boasting, just stating a fact. However, when I am assigned to work with one of these whackos, my radar goes up fast and I prepare for anything. In any event, hang in there and try hard not to lower your level to that of a less than desirable partner. I sincerely hope you did feel better after your well-written missive.

I believe we are overthinking this. Re-read the rule: A fielder, in order to make a legal catch on a foul ball nearing a dugout or other out-of-play area, must have one or both feet on or over the playing surface (including the lip of the dugout) and neither foot on the ground inside the dugout or in any other out-of-play area. To me, that means that the fielder must have possession of the ball before his feet are no longer on or over in-play area.

Here's the MLB Rule: Comment (b) Reaching into Out-Of-Play Areas A fielder may reach over, but not step into any out-of-play area (e.g. dugout or stands) to make a catch....A fielder, in order to make a legal catch on a foul ball nearing a dugout or other out-of-play area, must have one or both feet on or over the playing surface (including the lip of the dugout) and neither foot on the ground inside the dugout or in any other out-of-play area. Based on this, you have a catch and a live ball.

You absolutely did the right thing. I can't think of any reason an umpire would answer questions from a coach regarding his partner's call.

In calling out of the baseline plays, maybe former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart has the answer. Back in the 60's when asked to define pornography, his reply was: "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it."

Of course you are kidding. Missing a timing play could cost a team a game

This appears to be is a simple misapplication of the rule. Whether it's a misapplication or over-officiating, is anyone's guess. Plus, we are dealing with a judgment call.

When the pitcher is in the set position, with or without runners, he must come to a complete and discernable stop before delivering a pitch. (6-1-3)

It would appear the simplest way to officiate this play is to score the runner on obstruction and penalize the interference the moment it occurs by returning runners to the last base occupied at the time of the interference. If the interference prevented an out, enforce the out.