BigBlue4u

Unusual, however I believe a case could be made that, in his case, he is not committed to pitch until he moves his left foot which then becomes part of his pitching motion. If, later, he started swinging his arms, then delivered a pitch, I would call a balk because he changed his delivery making the swinging of his arms a part of his delivery motion.

Is this from the same source that gave us this: Why Umpires Put Their Hands in Their Pockets In baseball, umpires sometimes place one or both hands in their pockets during a game for practical, safety, and positioning reasons. 1. Stability and consistency in judging pitches When umpires are in the catcher’s box, they often use their hands to “lock in” for the pitch. Putting a hand in a pocket can help them maintain a steady base, keep their height and eye level consistent for every pitch, and avoid shifting their weight too much Reddit. 2. Protection from foul balls A hand in a pocket can shield the wrist or forearm from being struck by a foul tip or errant pitch, especially in high-speed situations Reddit+1. 3. Communication and positioning cues In some cases, umpires use hand placement to signal to the catcher or other players. For example, placing a hand on the catcher’s back can help the catcher know where the umpire is and can also serve as a cue if the catcher starts to move backward Calendar-Canada.ca. 4. Comfort and routine For experienced umpires, this is a familiar, comfortable position that allows them to focus on the game without overthinking small movements. It’s a subtle but consistent part of their officiating style. 5. Safety in high-contact situations In youth or amateur baseball, umpires may avoid touching players during live action, but in professional play, this hand-in-pocket stance can be a quick, non-intrusive way to maintain control and safety. In short, umpires put their hands in their pockets to stay steady, protect themselves, communicate, and maintain a consistent, professional stance while making calls Reddit+1.

JSam21, Thanks for the explanation and the link.

Does anyone know why it is taking so long for replays in televised LL Regional playoff games? I've seen a number of replays where the first replay clearly shows what happened, yet it takes several minutes to come to a decision.

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.

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.