Coach Carl

I would say that given the language of 5.06(c), it is inherently obvious. It is an ingrained part of the game that, as a rule, nothing can happen when the ball is not live. Further, all the exceptions to this rule are either obvious (a fair batted ball out of play) or require the umpire to make a call and instruct the runner of his award.

Getting back to the specific instance in the OP: The runner's retouch is not acknowledged and he should be called out on appeal. 5.06 (c) explicitly states: While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be run and no runs may be scored, except that runners may advance one or more bases as the result of acts which occurred while the ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an overthrow, interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing field). All the approved rulings, comments and MLBUM interps that have been cited are given to help us adjudicate the situations in which a runner IS allowed to advance. In the OP, nothing occurred while the ball was alive to allow the runner to advance, ergo, he also cannot correct his missed base. Another question? Why would you allow the runner to correct his base running error when the defense cannot appeal. Allowing the runner to correct his miss while after time has been called would go counter to the whole basic concept of the "race" involved in the runner trying to correct his error before the defense makes a valid appeal. The cited exceptions to this basic concept (when a runner is awarded bases) even contain the words, "without liability to be put out." This is why the runner can correct his errors during a dead ball award. He has no liability to be put out.

Regarding the original question on the effect it might have: I would imagine in areas where a league has a regional reputation for excellence, that some parents would put their kids into that league on the hope that he gets to be a part of a generally better experience. In my experience as a league administrator and coach, I can see some parents striving for their kid to have better all-star and tournament experiences. But, there isn't much use in trying to project the long term outlook of the ability of a kid at age 7 or less. What I could see being a problem is some weak leagues losing people. As parents sign their 4 or 5 yr old up for T-ball, without a good experience, they may look around. My league already deals with Cal Ripken in this way. There is a local Cal Ripken league that any child can sign up for as well. So, if our program isn't up to snuff then they can try the Cal Ripken league instead. Now, there are any number of Little Leagues available as well.

I think you are misreading it. Starting in 2025, if you are league age 4-7, you may choose to participate in any league that you wish and may continue to play in it for as long as you like as long as it is continuous participation. Once that participation is broken, you must follow the normal residency/school boundry requirements. If you are league age 8+ (in 2025) then you do not have the option of playing anywhere you like but must play according to the current residency/school boundry requirements. I'm a Little League Board member and this is how it was explained by our DA in our January board meeting. Perhaps I misheard her but I don't think so.

If the league administration is not creating a culture where this is unacceptable, you have a difficult, if not impossible task to keep them in line. In my experience, many volunteer coaches in rec leagues don't understand umpire etiquette at all. They need to be taught (and they need to be willing students). If these guys are getting ejected and things aren't changing then all three of these problems are present (culture, teaching, learning). You've been with the league for 10 years so I assume you have some interest in it's well-being. If that is the case, I'd try to work with them on it and see if they are willing to be helped. Most people want their kids to be part of a good league. Most people don't want to see their kids playing in a game where all the coaches do is bitch and moan to the umpires. It really just becomes a matter of the league leadership doing something about it. If they won't, then they need to know that you won't work for them. There is an umpire shortage and there are all sorts of videos on social media of coaches acting like idiots. It shouldn't be too hard to convince them that they don't want their league to be in the next viral video. If they can't see that, then there is nothing you can do.

That sounds more like an incentive, not a fine.

In my local league the UIC is a parent volunteer. I can tell you that he would be ecstatic to have a trained umpire working on training and mentoring. Perhaps your league could follow our model and have a parent be the UIC, handling all the scheduling, managing payments, etc. while you work on the training side. You can then schedule classes at your convenience and come to watch umpires work when it suits you. If you are clear on your level of commitment, you can probably make it work.

Missing home on the way back to correct his leaving early is also only an out on appeal --7.10(b) includes language for both "advancing" and "returning". The defense is required to tag the base or the runner. When the defense tagged 3rd the runner was safe on appeal for leaving 3rd early. They can now appeal the miss of home by tagging home (which would be a clear appeal of the miss of home) or tagging the runner and giving you an indication that he missed home (to make clear what they are appealing).

OBR On a U3K, is the ball treated like a batted ball in regards to INT/OBS? Sitch: Swinging 3rd strike in dirt is blocked by the catcher and rebounds just out in front of plate. Batter turns toward his 3rd base dugout and takes a step or two before realizing he can run to 1st. He snaps around to run to 1st and is about to run into the catcher who is right there trying to grab the ball. In a defense mechanism, the catcher puts his hand and glove up, essentially pushing the runner in the mid section. Catcher picks up the ball and tags the runner. Offense argues obstruction. It seems to me, if we treat this as a batted ball we have interference before obstruction, but since it was not a batted ball do we have a different standard for judging INT/OBS?