UAME

I wasn't aware of the prior references, so this isn't as big of a precedent as I thought. I agree with the "pedantic" sentiment; spending the first 45 years of my baseball life as a player or coach (and only the last 5 as an umpire), I always viewed the umpire objections over referring to it as a force out with an eye roll. As long all scenarios (such as scoring runs) are adjudicated correctly with respect to the rules, it doesn't really matter what a person is naming it in their minds.

I'm a relatively new umpire, but I recall seeing heated discussions by umpires about the fact that the initial play on a BR is NOT truly a force out (although it is easily perceived to behave like one.) If I'm reading this correctly (and if this passage is truly from NFHS rule changes), then is looks as though Fed has codified "if it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it's a duck." The following is a Copy/Paste from an Umpire Classroom (Patrick Faerber) email over the weekend regarding the new Double First Base rules in NFHS (bold italic emphasis by me): 8-2-2a Runners tagging up on fly balls, leading off on a pitch, or returning to first base on an attempted pick-off can only use the white portion of the base. A defensive player may use only the fair portion of the base when a play is being made on the batter-runner on any live ball from within the foul lines or from third base foul line. It is interference when the batter-runner, on a force play, touches only the white portion of the base and collides with the fielder in the process of catching a thrown ball while on the white portion of the base. Obstruction is called on the defense when there is a force play on the batter-runner, who touches only the colored portion and collides with the fielder about to catch a thrown ball while also on the colored portion of the base.

In our association, we are trained as the base ump to go HOK set as soon as the pitcher engages the rubber, just as a courtesy for the PU who may not be able to see whether F1 is in contact. I do have my own separate method for the bases: when I go HOK, I tell myself "stretch/windup" based on how F1 aligns his pivot foot. I silently say the words "stretch...... Set." (Set = giving him credit for stopping, if he does.)

I would like to throw this out for opinion/scrutiny from the more seasoned umpires here, as I've just finished my 4th season of umpiring (all at the high school level.) As mentioned in a prior reply, I've learned that a huge part of performance is finding a way to be locked in on every pitch. Mentally, I rarely have any moments of rest in a game, continually assigning myself a task/checklist. For a pitcher using the Set who has any variant of this "multiple movement" delivery, I won't let myself drop down into my "locked/set" position (for calling balls & strikes) until F1 meets my definition of a complete stop. When he stops, I drop. If he never stops (to my satisfaction) and suddenly I have a pitch headed towards the plate, I'm yelling "Time", stepping out from behind the batter, and issuing the Balk. Do any of you use any similar routine/procedure that keeps you in rhythm watching for a violation? Any arguments that I should not be using a technique like this?

I appreciate the support. I'm wrapping up my 4th season of doing this - I'm beginning to learn that "being right" isn't always worth it! You would think that 27 years of marriage would have taught me that already!! 😁

So my call was 100% "First Impression" / Instinct / Reflex, based on where I was in the slot and what my eyes captured. If you watch the video (or pause and progress frame-by-frame), focus on the batter's left elbow (the arm controlling the hand at the knob.) When he flares that elbow towards 3B, that is him moving the bat to meet the ball, trying to get the barrel on a pitch that is coming into his batter's box. He didn't pull and spin backwards until the pitch hit him in the hand. Because I saw that additional movement of the bat towards the path of the pitch, I called a Dead Ball Strike. The Batter headed to first and I had to stop him and explain that I had him attempting to bunt. R1 had advanced to 2B so we had to get his attention and have him return to 1B. Almost instantly, I was second-guessing my entire decision - not because I thought it was technically the incorrect call with respect to the rule, but because it was not the expected/accepted call and probably damaged (or at best, brought into question) my credibility. The ensuing discussion with the offensive head coach was brief. It was far from being an argument from anyone (more confusion, than anything.) I think if I had just called a HBP and awarded first, no one (offense, defense, or fans) would have blinked. Instead, many were scratching their heads for a minute. The batter didn't have time to think; I think he was committed to executing the bunt and instinctively moved the bat to try to bunt a very bad pitch. As a general philosophy, I prefer to protect the batter on pitches that are in his box: if it's running in and all over him, I don't put much thought into how much or how successfully he tried to avoid getting hit.

This is a video of me behind the plate at a 19U tournament on Independence Day. Video quality is not great, so to explain what you can't see: the pitch hits the batter in the right hand/forearm, never contacts the bat. What do you have here: Dead ball/HBP & award 1B?? Dead ball/Strike?? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KYCIjS83dfkwhED2K9H6wrHf39HCmalL/view?usp=sharing 04JUL2025 19U AL 02.mov

I noticed that also. My speculation is that Davis is aligning the cost of the bare frame with the market, knowing that a fully padded/strapped version will need to be priced as competitively as possible. There is still opportunity for Davis to take care of us early Mirage adopters, as @DerekGDS has already indicated we'll get first dibs on pads when they are available. I doubt you'll have pi$$ed those $30 into the wind, when all is said & done.

I've worked with guys who wear a black spandex/compression like shirt OVER their CP and under their uniform. It does tighten up the look (not as many plates, rivets, buckles printing through your outer layer), but here in Alabama, during much of the year the extra layer just adds to the trapped body heat & increases misery.

Not at all. I am standing completely upright (at attention) in this photo. In natural posture (and even more, dropping into a plate stance) you have to tuck your chin to create contact. I've always worn a DTG attached to all my masks. My first year umpiring, we had a guy in our association take a tipped pitch to the throat and it spooked me. I am not one for taking chances, and I do not feel at risk with this mask. I am so pleased - I don't think it could be designed any better.

I can get some pics posted later. The mask isn't noticeably longer than my Wilson DynAlum in terms of appearance. I think the key design difference (as described by @MadMax earlier) is the XCG rake angle is more vertical, which closes that gap between chin and chest more effectively, but viewed from the front the Mirage is very traditional in styling.

DITTO THAT!!! I've worked 2 plates since receiving my Mirage12, and I am blown away!! Moving (most recently) from the FM4K MAG (and previous to that a DynAlum.) This is the first mask that I've felt confident in not using a DTG due to the beautifully designed XCG. Just the slightest tuck of the chin and my mask taps my chest - providing assurance that I am, in fact, protected. Not having a floppy DTG makes handling/carrying/stowing the mask so much easier and eliminates a few more ounces from an already ultralight package. The biggest WOW factor is the field of vision!! I didn't realize how accustomed I had become to the view from behind my FM4K MAG. I can see better in every direction, hands down. Thanks to the efforts put into this design, thanks for the open communication on this forum! Fantastic work to all who had a hand in this!

As a general rule of thumb as to predicting how situations like this will be ruled on by the umpires on the field, when you see the UIC's hat turned backwards under his mask - all bets are off!!

NOT SO. NFHS Case Play 2.32.1: With R1 at first base, a ground ball is hit to F6, who throws to F4 covering second. R1 slides late at second, stays in the baseline, but R1 makes contact with F4 who is in front of the base, causing F4 to overthrow first base. RULING: Providing the slide is legal and the contact is not malicious, there is no violation. For me, the way to think of these rulings is that NFHS wants to punish behavior of the runner OR fielder (or at least not reward it) that increases the chances of collision/injury. Fielders aren't protected on the "incoming" side of the base because NFHS doesn't want them there; (where else is a runner supposed to approach the bag?)

I cited that sentence from the rulebook in the original post, and answered the test question accordingly. My question is in what way is this statement below (answer B) INCORRECT: "The pitcher has the right to throw or feint to a base the same as that of any other fielder when both of his feet are on the ground behind the pitcher's plate."

The "correct" answer that Fed wants to see is selected (as per the last sentence of paragraph 6-1-3.) But, I'd be interested to hear the argument that answer B) is not also 100% correct.

The way you worded the question, it seems that you are perceiving the scenario as an exception to the rule (hinging on the fact that the BR hadn't reached first.) The true exception is that the BR almost NEVER reaches 1B prior to the first play by an infielder. The clause you cited covers that (rare) scenario where the defense is for some reason delayed in making the first play and would gain an undue advantage by purposely throwing the ball into DBT. To me, the most common way to view the play you described is stated as "on a batted ball which is the first play by an infielder, all runners including the batter-runner are awarded two bases from their positions at the time of the pitch." To me, that alleviates any concerns for umpires of tracking where the (stealing) runners have advanced during a rapidly unfolding scenario (our eyes have been on the pitch, then an infield batted ball; at best we HEARD footsteps of baserunners behind us): Instead, I've got a "first play" by F5 that enters DBT, everybody gets 2 bases from the TOP, of which I am absolutely certain of where they were.

In a force play, if two runners occupy the same base and are tagged, the runner that is forced to vacate is out. This question pertains to a runner that returns momentarily to his base while a fielder has the ball and the incoming runner has not yet arrived. (NFHS) Situation: R1, R2, R3. B4 grounds sharply to F5. R3 returns to 3B, F5 swipes and misses on the tag, R3 gets back to 3B and is then tagged while standing on the base. (R2 has not yet arrived but is on the way.) F5 steps on 3B, retiring R2 (via force play.) Was 3B an option for R3 during the time he was forced? Or does your previous base "vanish" as a safe haven until a force is removed?

Had this situation twice in the past week: B1 begins to swing at a high fastball that tails towards him, but never enters the box (stays over home plate, or at least between the chalk.) B1 successfully "checked" his swing - he did not go. But, in both cases, because his hands were now out over the plate, the pitch hit B1 on the hand/wrist. In neither case did the ball ever contact the bat. I ruled the first a dead ball Strike (on the exact same day as the Angel Hernandez incident below) and the second time a dead ball Ball. In both cases, I didn't award 1st base on HBP, player remained at bat. After reviewing 8-1-1d & the video, I think I got the first case (ruled a Strike) incorrect - B1 didn't fully swing and the pitch was up at chest level (above where I would typically call a strike.) What say you? Am I correct in not awarding 1B on HBP? If so, it should only be a "Strike" based on 1) an attempted swing or 2) pitch crosses plate/contacts batter's body in the strike zone? **Additional thought: In my first case, I think Angel & I were thinking alike: just like on a checked swing "foul ball" where the batter successfully stops his swing, but the pitch still hits the bat, the result is a Foul/Strike. As I said, after reading 8-1-1d, I think the only determination of Strike/Ball is WHERE the pitch is when contacted.

Lineup cards submitted and confirmed by HCs. Game begins, pitcher throws first pitch (a ball, 1-0 count) and offensive (Visitor) HC comes to plate to point out that the Home lineup lists a different player (presently at SS) as F1 and vice versa. (Both players on the field.) The PU calls me in from U1 and shows me the lineup, and asks what we should do. All I could remember for certain was that "the player listed as starting pitcher shall pitch to first batter until that player is put out or reaches base." We brought out the Home HC, told him that, and he brought F6 to the mound to pitch (and he left him in the game for the next 4 innings.) Reading a case play (3.1.1k) when I got home, it seems that we didn't NEED to do anything - if defensive team "ignores" the official lineup, then the only "penalty" is the player listed as F1 is not eligible to pitch for the remainder of the game. So, should we have just told the offensive HC, "Hey, I can't make him use the positioning he listed on the lineup card. We'll just make sure the guy at SS isn't allowed to move to the mound later." ??

Although I'm a relatively new umpire, due to the shortage of officials in our area I have found myself in the position of being the more experienced (or, at least the more "baseball aware") of our crew, typically working JV or low level Varsity games. While working the field, if I see what I judge to be Runner's Lane Interference (from A position) or Batter's Interference on F2's throw from B (or, less likely, C), should I get it or let it ride? To date, I have been in this position a couple of times but didn't make a call (and neither did my partner behind the plate.) None of the scenarios were questioned by the teams/coaches. My position in those prior scenarios has been that a) if a coach had come out to question and b) if my partner had asked for help/opinion, I'd give it. That seems like the most pragmatic approach, but I'm also looking to expand my confidence and progress to higher level games. I'm conflicted because part of me feels that if I see it, I should call it and get it right for the sake of the players/game. On the other hand, I don't want to develop the habit of making a call that I shouldn't own when working with a more competent partner. What advice do you have?

I posted this as a reply under another MC thread in the Rules subforum. Sorry for the duplication, but hoping for as many responses as possible. I am in my second season of umpiring, so lack a lot of situational experience. Here is a play that I had last night: NFHS high school JV, Runner attempting to score, relay throw from F6 reaches F2 who was standing along the line in fair territory about 3 feet up the line towards 3B. The throw reaches F2 about 2 steps ahead of the runner reaching F2's location. Extenuating facts that contributed to the optics of this play: (and this is no exaggeration) the runner is around 6ft & 315lbs, F2 is about 4'-8" and possibly less than 100lbs. (I have seen F2 for years through youth baseball in the area, he has some form of dwarfism but is athletic.) F2 catches the ball and moves over the baseline to apply the tag. When the runner sees the catch and the immediate forthcoming tag, he does not slide (truth is, he's probably so large/slow and so far up the line that he wouldn't have been able to slide and make it to the plate.) Instead of avoiding via a sidestep, the runner contacts the catcher with a "shrug" and then lifting of the arm. I think that he WOULD have lowered his shoulder, but the statures of the 2 players prevented that. The head of the catcher is about bicep height on the runner. The effect was the the runner essentially "flung off the catcher" by lifting his elbow, and knocking the catcher away and knocking the ball loose. I immediately ejected for malicious contact, which I am now questioning myself about. I have no doubt that the runner intended to dislodge the ball via contact above the waist. I don't think there was any intent to injure or even dislocate the catcher via a violent collision. I think it was a reflex reaction and neither player was injured as a result of the play. If the two players had been more equally matched in size, I don't think the OPTICS of the actions would have appeared as bad as it did. I have read and re-read NFHS 2-32 (slide definitions) and 8-4-2 b & c. In the heat of the moment, I knew (and still feel) that I needed an OUT despite the fact that F2 did not retain possession of the ball through the tag. Should I have left malicious contact alone and instead have applied 8-4-2b ("causes illegal contact" and got the OUT via Interference??) or 8-4-2c ("does not legally attempt to avoid..")??

Here is a play that I had last night: NFHS high school JV, Runner attempting to score, relay throw from F6 reaches F2 who was standing along the line in fair territory about 3 feet up the line towards 3B. The throw reaches F2 about 2 steps ahead of the runner reaching F2's location. Extenuating facts that contributed to the optics of this play: (and this is no exaggeration) the runner is around 6ft & 315lbs, F2 is about 4'-8" and possibly less than 100lbs. (I have seen F2 for years through youth baseball in the area, he has some form of dwarfism but is athletic.) F2 catches the ball and moves over the baseline to apply the tag. When the runner sees the catch and the immediate forthcoming tag, he does not slide (truth is, he's probably so large/slow and so far up the line that he wouldn't have been able to slide and make it to the plate.) Instead of avoiding via a sidestep, the runner contacts the catcher with a "shrug" and then lifting of the arm. I think that he WOULD have lowered his shoulder, but the statures of the 2 players prevented that. The head of the catcher is about bicep height on the runner. The effect was the the runner essentially "flung off the catcher" by lifting his elbow, and knocking the catcher away and knocking the ball loose. I immediately ejected for malicious contact, which I am now questioning myself about. I have no doubt that the runner intended to dislodge the ball via contact above the waist. I don't think there was any intent to injure or even dislocate the catcher via a violent collision. I think it was a reflex reaction and neither player was injured as a result of the play. If the two players had been more equally matched in size, I don't think the OPTICS of the actions would have appeared as bad as it did. I have read and re-read NFHS 2-32 (slide definitions) and 8-4-2 b & c. In the heat of the moment, I knew (and still feel) that I needed an OUT despite the fact that F2 did not retain possession of the ball through the tag. Should I have left malicious contact alone and instead have applied 8-4-2b ("causes illegal contact" and got the OUT via Interference??) or 8-4-2c ("does not legally attempt to avoid..")??