HumblePie

Is it in the Case Book?

MadMax, There is no infraction for a "fake catch" in FED. YES ... it can cause just as much damage as a fake tag, but that rule does not exist. There is no case play that would imply that a "fake catch" is to be treated like a fake tag.

I'm quite aware of the NFHS rule on the fake tag. Is there ANY fake tag rule or interp in MLB or NCAA when the fielder doesn't push, pull, impede, block, or fall on the runner? I'm talking about simply tagging and holding the empty glove on the runner. Bobby Witt's play Saturday would tell me no ... that it's legal in MLB ... and I looked for the words FAKE and OBSTRUCTION in both rule sets and find nothing that would make it illegal. It's one of those rules in FED that I think is overkill. If it CAUSES the runner to slide when he would not have slid, I can see why they want it to be illegal, but simply holding an empty glove on a runner to make him think you have the ball is brilliant.

FED game, R1 and R2. 2 outs. Pitcher takes the mound in the set position with the ball in his glove, then reaches in and pulls it out with his pitching hand before taking his signs. I can't find anything concrete in the NFHS RULES or CASE BOOKS to balk this. Anyone?

The OP clearly describes a petty but retaliatory (intentional) act after a fake tag during a dead ball. If he ends up on the ground, I don't think you HTBT. 😎

Greatest example of "incidental contact" in MLB history??? 🌹🌹🌹

I believe the NFHS definition of Malicious Contact still uses the phrase, "if the contact is malicious or intentional" ..... I don't think you can have malice without intent, which makes the above phrase very poorly worded, which unfortunately, is common in the FED book ... an ironic fact being that the committees are all made up of supposed educators. ma·li·cious /məˈliSHəs/ adjective characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm. If you agree with the Oxford definition, then we can have intentional contact, which is not malicious. And sticking with the example California gives, a runner who tries to slap away the ball but inadvertently slaps the fielder who jukes him, should always be guilty of interference, but not likely guilty of malicious contact, if he did no real harm and intended no harm. And a defender who overzealously tags a runner and knocks him down, but clearly didn't intend to hurt him, did not necessarily show malice. I have long lobbied for a "middle ground" infraction called Reckless Contact. I would penalize it in exactly the same way as malicious contact without the ejection - but issue a team warning, just like with a fake tag. A very real example of why I hate the FED definition is, anytime a runner coming home sees that he's going to collide or slide, and he chooses not to slide, but raises his hands to defend himself from the collision, you have a large percentage of officials who interpret the raising of the hands to be a malicious act. If he doesn't lower the shoulder and hit the catcher like a linebacker, he's not trying to harm, he's trying to minimize the damage to himself. If his act of raising his hands in any way affects an ensuing play, then we have tools ... It's Interference. No need to kick the kid out of the game and the next two games for what I still would describe as incidental contact.

Is it a ground rule double? Book rule double? Automatic double? This is largely semantics, but there is a reason I'm asking.

Got it. Thank you both.

OK ... and I follow your line of reasoning here ... but is it stated anywhere in the rules book that you can't have MC under a dead ball? I don't believe it is. That's a large thing to assume. We deal with the same thing in basketball, when certain fouls can't be called when the ball is dead.

FED Game. R1. No outs. Runner is off with the pitch. Pitcher balks (stop/start). Umpires call "Time!" Horsing around, F4 slaps a fake tag on R1, and R1, who doesn't take kindly to it, knocks him on his arse. Umpires announce the Obstruction on F4 and give a team warning, but since the ball was dead and R1 was going to advance on the balk, there is no Obstruction penalty. Umpires then eject R1 for Malicious Conduct and call him out, reminding the coach that MC trumps Obstruction. Offensive Coach actually agrees with the ejection, but challenges that R1 cannot be called out since the ball was already dead on the balk. Umpires confirm that R1 is out, citing that the Rules Book doesn't stipulate that the ball must be live, and that any runner who commits MC is ejected and also called out ... with one exception ... a runner who has already scored. Who's correct?

OK. I think it was clear, that I described a ball that bounded fair over the fence. So, there is no question that the batter gets 2nd and credited with a .....

FED Game. R2, R3, Bottom of 7, Score tied 5-5, no outs. B3 hits a fair bounding ball that goes over the fence. Three Questions: 1) What's the final score? 2) Is it the same in all 3 rules sets? 3) What do we properly call (in each rules set) this "double?" I swear the FED Rules Book and Case Book are remiss for not clarifying the ruling to the first question. If you're one who says, "Don't worry about the score," then please don't chime in. I'm not worried. I'm annoyed.

I realize this topic gained zero traction, but we discussed this at length on a Zoom call with our Association last night, and I think it's worth divulging what my trainer explained. (I'm in Georgia.) GHSA does not want games forfeited because of illegal bats. I understand this is a Federation rule, but that was interesting to me. Since there are very specific guidelines for this very specific violation, FED wants us to eject the coach(es) on the second and ensuing violation(s) of an illegal bat. Rule 4-4-1e shall apply to any situation where there is not already a specific penalty listed in the rule book.

And neither of you guys are addressing my point and my question. The catcher wants to have a meeting because he just got crossed up. The PU did not get hurt or hit. There is no offensive conference going on. There is no illness or injury or loud music coming from the soccer field or any other reason that play has been delayed. The catcher wants a meeting. Common Sense says, LET HIM HAVE A MEETING. Whether you guys have read the NFHS study guide or not, you'll have to trust me, FED says "ALLOW NO MEETING." That is not COMMON SENSE, that is bull----.

Jim, those plays specify what is defined as a meeting and what is not. You blew right past 2.10.3-A This is defined as a meeting. If the catcher gets crossed up after such a meeting, he cannot meet again with the pitcher. Question 87 on the Rules Study Guide asks this very question: 87. In the fifth inning, F1 allows three straight hits to begin the inning. F6 asks for time to go to the pitcher and give his teammate a pep talk. After the meeting, the first pitch to the next hitter crosses up F2, who asks for time to chat with the pitcher about their signals. ANSWER: b) Time should not be granted, as this would be the second player-to-player meeting during the same inning. Patrick Faerber spends significant time explaining on the Umpire Classroom video why he disagrees with this ... it goes against other language FED uses on the same Study Guide as placing safety above all else. It is his suggestion to handle the situation by going to the mound, and allowing a battery meeting.

I think this is the justification I've been looking for ... with a dash of common sense thrown in for good measure. We can change most any call if we have close to 100% proof that we blew it. We change outs to safe on a dropped ball we didn't see, we change fair to foul and vice versa at all levels that use replay. We should be able and encouraged to fix an erroneous ejection, as long as we are not coerced or "shamed" into it. Thank you. MUCH appreciated.

OK ... my error. I'll tell you where my misunderstanding came from. A head coach in the state of Indiana put an ineligible player into a game, one who had dropped out of school, and it was almost immediately discovered by a parent on that same team. The official was made aware, it was not just an accidental illegal sub, and the head coach was ejected (and subsequently fired). I've carried the misconception that using an illegal sub is an ejection erroneously since then. I think the Official was within his rights to eject the head coach, based on the spirit of rules and fair play, it just wasn't mandatory by rule.

You were right, I was wrong, on the Illegal sub ejection. Plz read my comment on that thread in a few minutes. What casebook play supports having more than one player meeting per inning when it is, in fact, delaying the game? When no other activity is going on that would allow for it?

OK ... so we have a new FED rule ... for addressing "pace of play" concerns ... and they F*&(!ed it up again. EDUCATORS. WOW. NFHS 3-4-6 Each team, when on defense, may be granted not more than one player-to-player meeting during an inning to permit players to confer with defensive personnel. The umpire shall deny any subsequent player-to-player defensive team requests for meetings for that half-inning. So ... Inning 5, F2 confers with F1, F1 throws 4 pitches in the dirt and is pulled. New F1 comes in and crosses up F2 right away. F2 understandably says, "Blue, can I have time?" I'm following the sage advice of Patrick Faerber, and I'm saying, "YES SIR ... Let's go!" I'm walking out to the mound with him, not allowing other infielders to join, and getting the battery on the same page. I have NO IDEA (or concern about) what rule I'm invoking. I can't even invoke OBR 9.01(c), (or now OBR 8.01(c)), or FED 10-2-3(g) ... because there is a rule that says I must disallow the meeting. There will, no doubt, be a test question on it next week. And ya know what's funny? NO HEAD COACH who has a working brain will ever complain about this. HOGWASH. If FED is all about safety ... which includes the catcher and ... well ... ME ... I'm not only allowing the meeting, I'm insisting on it. Mr. Hopkins ... you're better than this ... fix it now. Don't wait until 2027. I'd suggest: INCOMPETENCE ALERT!!!!!! "Due to our committee's not being able to see the forest for the trees, In the name of safety, we have now given all baseball officials the discretion to allow, after a team has used its one allowed player-to-player meeting in an inning, an unlimited number of "battery meetings" which must include at least one umpire (plate or base) and only F1 and F2. If a coach joins for any reason other than injury or illness, this meeting will be charged as a defensive conference."

NFHS 4-4-1e "A game shall be forfeited to the offended team by the umpire when a team: e. willfully and persistently violates any of the rules after being warned by the umpire." Does anyone find it ironic that FED goes through such extreme lengths to explain and enumerate the procedures and penalties for persistently sending players into the game with illegal bats? With no enumerated limit??? 1. Batter is out, restrict coach 2. Batter is out, eject coach 3. Batter is out, eject acting coach 4. Batter is out, eject newer acting coach 5. Batter is out, eject dad who stepped in as newest acting coach 6. Batter is out, eject mom who stepped in as newest newest acting coach 7. Batter is out, eject school librarian/phonix teacher who stepped in as newest newest newest acting coach Several questions on the study guide and test are devoted to handling repeated violations of the illegal bat rule. I've never, in 26 years, had two instances of an illegal bat in the same game. The head coach, if he's worth his salt, is gonna tell his team, "The next one of you who uses an illegal bat, you're running laps for the next 7 days." I have a tool (namely 4-4-1e), that after the second instance of an illegal bat, I will call the player out, eject the coach, and warn the acting coach, "The first may have been accidental ... I don't care if the second one was intentional or accidental, it's GROSS CARELESSNESS either way. One more illegal bat, and the game is forfeited." I would rather have a root canal than have a reputation for having forfeited a Varsity game, but come on ... what is a more blatant act of cheating and "willfully and persistently violating the rules"???

Buzz, You hit the nail on the head with the common sense point. The problem is, common sense is not common. I'm not sure I'm okay with your partners coercing you to take back the ejection of the kid banging the dugout padding. They decided you were using poor judgment. My entire post is about when an Umpire makes an honest mistake ... Some guy dropped an f-bomb from the general direction of the head coach, but another umpire saw and heard that the f-bomb came from a parent. THIS VERY THING HAPPENED TO AARON BOONE A FEW YEARS BACK. Then yes, I'm in the camp that says common sense should prevail, and you can undo your own ejection. Unfortunately, I believe there is an annually debated FED test question that says under no circumstances can an ejection be undone. I've been disappointed in FED for DECADES for having such a concentration of supposed baseball experts, and still The Rules book and Case Book end up with ambiguities and vagueness. And, flat-out mistakes. Errors. There's absolutely no excuse for it. Anyone with an eighth grade education can read in the Case Book that there are times that an Umpire is authorized to restrict a player to the dugout. 3-1-1(f-k) Penalty. Yet, inexplicably, the FED test question (answer) says that an umpire cannot restrict a player to the dugout for an unsportsmanlike act. He can warn or eject, and there is no middle ground. The second glaring example is, when an Illegal Substitute is used (and discovered), the coach is ejected, and the player is RESTRICTED to the dugout.

Agreed. On all accounts. Especially that the rule book is vague. Nothing in that rule book should be vague. It is put together by educators. Please accept my apology, Dawg.

This absolutely does not address the question in my post. Why have you forced me to type out the rule you referenced? 10-1-6 ... The umpire's right to disqualify players or to remove nonplayers for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct is absolute. If I'm the ejector ... and I realize that I erred ... may I undo my ejection? "Absent a rule that says I can't, I can." Yes, I went Theodore Roosevelt there, but it applies.

Okay, but my question is, is there a rule (your case play} in the NFHS books that directly addresses this?