noumpere

That's a fake to first and / or failing to pitch in a direct / continuous motion (whatever the specific wording is).

A. She's only hurting her own kid in the long-run.

In theory, you could have a time play when outs+runners = > 3 Yes, the signal should be given more than it is.

So they can feel the catcher move to get out of the way. Generally discouraged

Correct placement, but it's the first *PLAY* by the infielder, not the first throw. Doesn't matter in this situation, but it can make a difference.

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so

Looks like *maybe* a knee break on the front leg before the move to second.

It's just another version of the "miami play"

I'd think "Well, I hope something goes wrong in some game I'm NOT part of, so this edict will change."

This might change your mind. 2009 Interps SITUATION 15: With runners at first and second and one out, the batter hits a bounding ball to left field. The runner from second touches third and is obstructed advancing to home. The obstructed runner then interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play on the runner from first advancing to third base. RULING: The penalties are enforced in the order in which the infractions occurred. The runner advancing from second is awarded home. Following the enforcement for the obstruction, the interference is penalized. The runner from first is declared out and the batter-runner is returned to the base he legally occupied at the time of the interference. Had the interference been malicious in nature, the obstructed runner would be declared out in addition to the out on the runner from first. (2-22-1, 2-21-1a, 3-3-1n Penalty, 8-4-2e, 8-4-2g)

Good first step. Next, work to not grant time for the runner to stand up. Since the ball isn't near, the runner isn't going to be out if he comes off the base for a fraction of a second.

Not out of the basepath.

If the HC *refuses*, then he's restricted and no one else has the HC rights.

When a call is reversed, the umpire makes it right. Score both runs.

Well, the coach is wrong. Either the umpire on the game OR the "other umpires" you asked could be correct. 8-3-2 says to "award bases that would nullify the obstruction." That requires judgment and knowing the exact sequence of play.

Well, it's one or the other.

Wrong. (Recognizing that what you think you saw is not what happened; but that even if it was you'd have the wrong interp)

The umpire can use none of that to rule on the appeal.

You got it right

As described you are correct and the call on the field was wrong. There's a difference between contacting a deflected ball, and contacting a fielder after a deflection.

Might be a 9.01(c0(3) sit. I'm going with awarding the BR second.

If you are the umpire who made the call and the coach starts for your partner, tell (or yell to) the coach, "That's my call -- come talk to me!" The only time I let a coach go to my partner on a call I made is when I am working alone.

I would separate forums like this (and before this Official Forum and the NFHS site, and before that discussion boards of the early interweb days) from almost all of the FB, IG, TT channels (not denying that there might be one or two useful channels out there).

Were runners allowed to lead off and steal?

I have often remarked that many (not all) schools act as if a full set of officials for every sport at every level show up at every school every day. If there's a game, we work it. If not, we go home. Move a game? Add a game? No problem -- the officials are already there. That said, I try to confirm my games with the home team early in the week (and with the visitors by looking at the schedule on line and contacting them only if there's a difference)