BigBlue4u

We are often given video examples of malicious contact by the offense. Here is an example of MC by the defense. Egregious College Baseball Ejection Sparks Bench-Clearing Scuffle

You want some advice? Here it is: Just go out there and do the best you can.

10-2-3-g

Assuming it was unintentional and If it didn't interfere with play, I would warn the player if it happened again, he/she would be ejected. I had this happen once in my entire career. It was a playoff game the batter would toss his bat to get momentum out of the batter's box. Although he did not hit the catcher, I warned him and his coach it was a safety issue and if it happened again, he would be ejected. He did it again in his next at-bat and was ejected.

That is correct. However, 7-3-3 does not prohibit the batter from stepping from the box on one side of home plate to the box on the other side. It prohibits the batter from doing so in an effort to disconcert the pitcher.

My question is: Where did you get your information that switching places in the batter's box was not legal? And, why did it take 17 paragraphs to describe the situation?

Excellent point.

Maybe this will help: A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant.) A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an attempted play. So, to answer your question, no, the catch of a line drive or a popup is not considered a play or attempted play.

Some people have a device to deal with difficult people. It's called a gun.

There is only one question: Did the home plate umpire see R3 miss home plate? If the answer is "yes," the run does not count. If the answer is "no," the run counts.

This is exactly why we don't get involved when players are swinging fists at each other. Referee punched during ugly women's college basketball brawl

TheLovejoy, Ahhhhhhh common sense. Where are thou? One of the differences between an umpire who is well-regarded and an umpire who is not well-regarded is his ability to use common-sense and his ability to know when to use it.

Agreed. 1) No advantage gained. 2) Spirit and intent of the rule.

I like your general description. However, in this case, obstruction and the coach's interference are not a dead ball until play has concluded. In any event, we both agree that, despite how we get there, on this play we are not going to call the runner out for coach's interference.

I understand your point. But, regarding the last sentence, if, after being obstructed, the runner slips and falls going back to third and is tagged out, will that out stand? I certainly hope not. Also, if we nullify the runner being tagged after he slips, would that also make sense if we nullify, under the same circumstances, the coach aiding the runner?

Excellent point! I've seen umpires, just before the start of the pre-game meeting with coaches, put their mask on home plate. (yes, really) or umpires dusting off home plate immediately after the third out. Why do these things happen? Because nobody has told them differently.)

Let's look at it from a common-sense standpoint. First, who created the problem? The defense with the obstruction. Second, what was the sequence of events? The obstruction, then the coach aiding the runner. So, the question is: If, by rule, the runner is awarded one base beyond the last legally touched base, (3B) on the obstruction, why would we even consider the interference by the coach?

Thoughts? Yes. Barrett 16 years, Emmel 22 years, Eddings 28 years, Miller 29 years

Unfortunately, Phill could never get a grip on a consistent strike zone. In 29 years of umpiring, he had 104 ejections, 65 of them relating to balls and strikes. At the other end of the spectrum is Nestor Chylak. In 25 years, he had 31 ejections, three as the result of balls and strikes.

The problem is that a pitch that is .04 off the plate is VERY hittable. So, it would appear the emphasis would then be, or should be, on consistency rather than accuracy. Also, the current 2D video box that is displayed can be very misleading. A right-handed curve ball to a right- handed batter can show up as being outside when, in reality, the pitch did cross the strike zone above the plate. I can hardly wait to see a batter's reaction on a curve ball that crosses the plate in the strike zone and is caught just off the ground called a strike by ABS. Where is Eric Gregg when we need him? 🙂

And, your point is?

Our state will not use the double first base in 2026. The PowerPoint presenter spent about 15 seconds touching on it as a new rule for 2027. From what I understand, our state uses the NFHS PowerPoint as an outline and then adds/emphasizes or subtracts what is deemed applicable. This year's presentation ran about 15 minutes.

And, would the correct assumption be that the runner was ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct and not for malicious contact?

Well, we are not going to let something like that go just because the ball is dead. How about 3-3-1-f-4?

If it will be of help, California has a definition of malicious contact: Malicious contact is violent, avoidable contact between two opposing players. It often occurs when a runner collides with a fielder in an effort to dislodge possession of the ball. Malicious contact can also occur when a fielder unnecessarily applies a hard tag to a runner. Intent and play situation must be a consideration in determining malicious contact. Hard contact is not, in itself, malicious contact. From what I understand, California has submitted a definition to the NFHS rules committee on numerous occasions without success.