HumblePie

Little League has its own batter's box dimensions. I don't call LL, but I've spoken to dozens who do, and too many "coaches" and admins think there is no difference between LL and every other brand of big boy baseball. These are the same coaches and admins who don't know that fast pitch girls' softball has a longer box on the front end.

And I'm not doubting you, Velho, but to all ... make sure if you are accusing, you are measuring from the white edge of the plate (not the black) to the edge of the batter's box line ... should be precisely 6". I, too, have seen batter's boxes as close to 3" from the white edge in a Varsity game. The young coach's retort was, "It can't be wrong ... we use a template to draw our lines." So sad ...

Precisely! Among other brands, I do high school, and my Assignor has always told us that we "must go by the lines." Hogwash. Even Varsity High School fields are mismarked, especially batter's boxes, and we are not to be held hostage to them.

So ... I'm posing some questions because there is very little consensus of how terms are used such as: ... Strike Zone ... Corner ... River ... White line ... Paint I call a lot of travel ball at a high level (PBR) and unless we are calling the top of the top level, we call strikes for pitches that are up to but not touching the white lines (batter's boxes). For those counting at home, that is a precise width of 29". River (6") + plate (17") + River (6"). If you call just the plate, just the WHITE, and you call a strike for anything "painting" the white, that's a width of about 23" outside to outside of the ball. If you use the black, add 2 inches. When a batter asks, "Blue, was that the corner?" I am saying YES if the outside of the ball was painting the batter's box. When a batter asks if that painted the zone, I only say yes if it painted the plate. I would appreciate any discussions on the true width of zones you call. Even for Varsity HS, I would guess my zone is 27" wide from outside to outside of the ball. This came from a widely shared video produced by FED.

So ... I'm posing some questions because there is very little consensus of how terms are used such as: ... Strike Zone ... Corner ... River ... White line ... Paint I call a lot of travel ball at a high level (PBR) and unless we are calling the top of the top level, we call strikes for pitches that are up to but not touching the white lines (batter's boxes). For those counting at home, that is a precise width of 29". River (6") + plate (17") + River (6"). If you call just the plate, just the WHITE, and you call a strike for anything "painting" the white, that's a width of about 23" outside to outside of the ball. If you use the black, add 2 inches. When a batter asks, "Blue, was that the corner?" I am saying YES if the outside of the ball was painting the batter's box. When a batter asks if that painted the zone, I only say yes if it painted the plate. I would appreciate any discussions on the true width of zones you call. Even for Varsity HS, I would guess my zone is 27" wide from outside to outside of the ball. This came from a widely shared video produced by FED.

OK. So ... 1. R3 picks up a batted ball rolling 12" foul down 3B line. Judgment is likely a foul ball? 2. R3 picks up a batted ball rolling 2" foul down 3B line and spinning. Judgment is likely a call of Interference? 3. BR accidentally (umpire judgment) kicks a bunted ball rolling down 1B line ... still spinning ... about 2" foul. Foul ball? Lack of intent makes close proximity to the foul line irrelevant??

Batter-runner bunts down 1st base line. Batter-runner's foot contacts ball (unintentionally) about 3" foul, but it was spinning and moving toward the line. Is there any language in any rules set that says, "The batted ball has to have NO CHANCE of going fair for the ball to simply be ruled a foul ball"???

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.