ErichKeane

It sounds like close play at the plate, ball gets by catcher to the backstop, so next runner continues to the plate. F2 runs back to the plate, now equipped with the ball, but has to step around the scored runner. It comes down to the judgement call for me, whether there was time (like the 2nd runner was 90 feet behind vs 10 feet behind) to get out of the way. That said, 'sliding' isn't good evidence of a close play being there. I've definitely had players slide while the ball was still being chased around hte outfield.

That case I definitely support. The more interesting situation to me is when the ball BECOMES fair because it hit the runner (despite the runner and contact happening in foul territory, but being partially 'over' fair territory). Depending on our reading of 'on' fair territory, you also get situations where the runner is not in contact with fair territory at all, but part of his body is over it, and THAT gets hit, but I think @Jimurray and I are in agreement that there is no way that is an acceptable reading of it (despite having to squint to make that reading go away).

THAT is why the rule here is so interesting! The interference/dead ball is ONLY if the runner is ON fair territory, not whether the BALL is ON fair territory according to @Jimurray's interp here, which I have a hard time disagreeing with (at least by wording). SO you can have a ball that is 'fair' because it is over the chalk, hit R3, but R3 is completely in foul territory, causing this to be a 'play on' situation!

I would claim that all of those are somewhat ambiguous as to what 'on fair territory' means. BUT, it seems REALLY awkward to me that a ball, hit on the fly off R3 where the contact is made in foul territory(because the runner is not over the chalk), but the ball itself is in fair territory(because part of it is over the chalk) could be a 'play on' + fair ball. I don't really see how I can make that call with a straight face. I realize we're talking a balls-width in a position where this is basically all judgement calls, so we can avoid it by saying "oh, that ball was fair, none was over the chalk in my judgement" or "the contact was made over fair territory, ergo interference!" and never considering the middle case, but that too seems disingenuous. However, the case where someone would notice/force us to make that call is: R3, suicide squeeze. Bunt is riding the chalk on the way foul. R3 inadvertently (based on your case play, intent is required to make this a dead ball)steps and has the ball bounce off his foot, causing it to stay fair. At that point, we tell the coach, "well the actual physical atoms that touched were foul even though the ball was fair, therefore this is nothing!". Just sits wrong.

From his drawing, the ball is fair at the time of contact, right? AND is a fair ball. So it is a fair ball in fair territory.

Perhaps? The "on" version (and not 'in' or 'over') could mean that R3, standing in foul territory (so not ON fair territory), but leaning 'over' gets hit by a fair ball just ends up being a live-ball/play-on, which I think is pretty messed up. IMO, the position of the ball is what should matter.

The wording is quite important here, as it is the entire point. That case play confirms to me that the position of the ball is the important thing, not the runner. OPs case of fair-ball-in-fair-territory, foul-runner is an out IMO. 5.06(c)6 is inconsistent with the rest of the rule. That said, I don't think there is a way to make it really matter outside of that case.

Again, my 'english language' parser takes the state of the ball being important there. Note it never states where R3 is other than as a consequence of where the ball is ('the BALL caromed into foul territory', and 'fair ball in foul territory'.),

Sorta, but also maybe not? It seems like a weird inconsistency with the wording of the rules, and I'd love to see a case play here. It seems the NFHS rule above is more clear about the ball's position is the important factor, this seems inconsistent between the two rules.

I read the 'fair ball in fair territory' to mean the BALL is a fair ball and the BALL is in fair territory. So the position of the runner is irrelevant, as the BALL is in fair territory at the time.

Oh, I'm a big fan of the current MiLB ball/strike review process, but I think that needs to remain a 'separate' challenge system, since it goes so quickly. The lack of delay for normal challenges would be really interesting as well! 1 modification _I_ had was "the review official has a fixed (SHORT)" amount of time in which they can only watch it at real-time speed. If it isn't pretty clear that way, leave it to the umpire's call.

I agree, I think EVERYTHING outside of balls/strikes should fit in the current review system. If a coach wastes his challenges on something without sufficient camera coverage, thats on him.

Yeah, its weird around here to explain to folks attending the tournaments that "we do the MLB rules ... but from like 2017. So no pitch clocks, smaller bases, you can shift, you don't have to give me a list of pitchers in advance..."

Not a problem here because of the dirt around the plate (and a pro field!), but the ones that annoy me are when the plate is 'below' the surface of the turf, which happens on some fields (actually, saw it once on a DIRT minor league field!). Technically I could call basically every slide into the plate an out (since they're sliding 'above' the base), but stepping in that pile is a mess. THIS review is a case where I think review makes the game worse, and would be EVEN worse if it overturned this play. I kind of hate all the 'technically' type calls that are only visible under 300x zoom and replaying at 1/30 speed. Review should be for the purpose of getting the 'obviously wrong' calls right. A review needs to happen at real-speed, and only show every angle (perhaps sync'ed) a fixed number of times(this goes to NFL as well!). Reviews that take 5+ minutes need to just defer to the official, even if he ends up 'technically' wrong after using an electron microscope.

I've never done it on a painted-on plate, but I might do it anyway. The between-innings (after throw down) brush off is a part of the 'timing' of between innings to signal/allow other umps/crew/fielders/batters to get in position. I've DEFINITELY done it between innings for a wholely turf field (but rubber plate)..

Foul Tip requires "sharply and directly" to the catcher, I don't see being able to justify a foul tip here. This is clearly a pop-up caught for an out.

I do the same as @MarsOmega, I point out to the catcher that he should go chat with his pitcher about making sure he comes set. I don't say "because he's close" or "because he's not stopping", but it is strongly implied. However, I always laugh /get fake angry every time they just stand up and say "Hey X, make sure you are coming set!". I make sure to tell F2, "Next time an umpire gives you a gift like that, don't call him out in public like that, go to your pitcher and tell him in person.". Usually they get it

Interestingly, I got to see this 1st hand this past weekend. A local town was hosting the 'district tournament' for the 12U and 14U, so they reached out to a couple of other towns for additional umpires (how they got me!). A few years ago they had pissed off the local assigner group, and are far enough away they don't get access to too many umps. They are fixing that (they are using assignr, paying same weekend, etc), but of course are fixing it slowly. This season, they recruited a bunch of high school students to work their games, doing 2 man 12U/14U. I worked with a few, and watched a few this week: they are a mess. A mix between #1 and #2 below, with terrible mechanics. At least 2 of them we found did their counts backwards (strikes in the left hand!). They seemed to run the games 'ok', but REALLY needed someone more experienced to work with them through the season, and it showed.

But didn't some vendor "redesign" theirs and claim it was meant to go on the belt? And NFHS said no anyway?

Yeah, I agree. "Site Administrator" doesn't exist in most of my NFHS games, there is no one there except the teams. If I can't deal with the fans (and coaches are unable), there is no alternative to walking off/calling police/etc. The problem I have with electronic devices is, How the HECK am I supposed to ensure an electronic device is 1 way communication? And that the catcher doesn't wear it while at bat, etc? This seems like it is going to be rife with cheating. The wristband change is dumb. I guess I don't mind the 'worn on forearm' bit, but I don't see that being all that valuable (though I guess it is because the rules committee seems to HATE belt worn ones). IT seems entirely designed to get around that "we designed this to be worn on the BELT!" workaround.

Ah, yes... I was commenting exclusively on the 'quality' of the move there, not the legality. I absolutely agree that is legal.

Thats not a particularly GOOD version of the move (a lot of pre-step motion), but I've definitely seen this done effectively. You can do it by essentially 'slide stepping' (wiht minimal lift) with the front leg straight back, which twists the hips/shoulders to the base. When done well/quickly, it is, IMO, more effective/less obvious to a runner. When I grew up, I had a couple of coaches teach that move instead, since it often is less obvious to runners that are concentrating on the back leg for a jump/step off.

Could this be one of those trial rules that MiLB is trying out in only a certain league? It's an... Interesting idea, but poor lefties, giving away their best advantage:D

Thanks! That is really helpful too. Yes, that is exactly what we're saying. Once a RHP is set, he CAN do a step to 1B without it being a balk (and not a jump turn) so long as he doesn't do the 'movement toward home plate'.

No, it wasn't a jump turn, but you don't have to jump turn to throw to 1B as a RHP. It is the 'easy' way to do it, but you can definitely step behind you towards 1B without jumping.