rhanna

What are the appropriate positioning mechanics for the HPU on a passed ball (straight back to the backstop) with a runner coming home? Does it change based on whether the ball might go to the left or right? Are there any considerations for the catcher attempting to make a play? Thanks.

10U travel baseball, little league rules. Most games have a single PU. Catchers are generally taught to clear a lane behind batter to throw down to third. It is not uncommon for a batter to wander backwards into the lane as the catcher side steps into that lane to throw, especially after a K. Catchers are taught not to throw the ball into the batter. Natural reaction by catcher is usually to step around the batter a second time. The interference usually results in a late throw. I can't fault a single PU if the interference is missed, as they are usually trying to get into position to make the call at 3B. Is there anything a catcher can or should do to highlight to PU that they have been interfered with?

Thanks to everyone that weighed in and I appreciate the insight. OBR Rule 5.05(b)(2) says that a batter gets first base if: (2)  He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (A) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (B) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball; If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched. Based on the above discussion, it is my understanding that most of the umpires here interpret the "attempt to avoid" requirement not as a positive requirement to try to avoid a pitch but as "ensuring the batter doesn't do anything to allow himself to be hit?" Beerguy55 refers to the high speed of high level pitching. No one has time to actively avoid a 90mph pitch that they might be swinging at. Makes sense to me. Does the speed/skill of the pitching change this at all? If we're talking little league meatballs at 35 mph and the batter just stands there and watches the ball float in and hit them, same standard? I'm pretty sure I've seen an umpire refuse to award a base on a non-strike hit by pitch where he deemed the batter to be insufficiently active in avoiding a slow pitch.

How do you rule on this? Assume OBR. Assume that: 1) The pitch is not a strike otherwise, the swing is checked early enough that the batter has not offered at the pitch, the only action by the batter is the checked swing. There is no other attempt to avoid the ball. Does it matter where the batter is hit? - If the ball hits the batter's arms/hands and it is the swinging action that moved the hands/arms into the ball, can the better checking their swing be considered an attempt to avoid the ball? -If the ball hits the batter somewhere else, would you rule differently? E.G., maybe checking the swing is an attempt to avoid being hit by a pitch that this your hands, but it seems less clear that it could be an attempt to avoid a pitch that hits your hip. Thanks.

This situation is a missed base? Whoa. Is it because they ran to second by passing between first and home? No need to retouch if you just run through and then head to 2B, right? Your play feels closer to a missed obstruction for me, a call he failed to make on a play he didn't see, rather than an affirmative call on a play he didn't see. Totally get that a single umpire will miss obstruction or something else weird at 1B while watching a tag play at 3B. Attention is on a different part of the play, not completely away from the field of play. This is excellent insight.

Appreciate the feedback. Learning my lesson, here are the succinct questions: - If an umpire makes an affirmative ruling on a play he clearly did not see and has the option within the rules to reset the situation but does not, how should a coach discuss that with the umpire? -If a play outside of the rules is occurring, and my players know it, should they ignore it or react to it "just in case"? An example would be a batter taking off to first on a caught third strike (or a dropped second strike) to bait a throw and let other runners advance. -If an umpire signals time but does not verbalize time, is time actually called? If something on the field is going on when time is signaled, should my players continue to play "just in case" until the umpire really emphatically calls "time"?

JonnyCat, I appreciate the viewpoint and observations - but this situation was absolutely none of that, even though all of that may occur in other places. I'm a guy that really enjoys diving into small things and understanding them inside and out. This place appears to be the home of the most experts. As I've discovered, just reading the rules isn't enough, there is a lot of knowledge that the community here has that can't be understood from simply reading the rules. My post was long because there is a surprising amount to think about in this small situation. Also, I've read enough interactions on this site where the resident experts end up having a discussion something like "well, if x also happened, then y is the result, but if z also happened, than V is the result." Trying to avoid that by describing everything in detail. It's a puzzle to me that I'd like to understand. To be clear on this afternoon: At no point did a coach or parent raise their voice at the umpire, at a player, or at another coach. The only loud voices from parents or coaches was cheering. There was basically zero chirping at the umpire from either set of coaches or parents. Nobody really cares that an extra base happened, but its not weird to discuss the rule and its consequences with the umpire. The umpire was not "confronted." It was a rules discussion between two games of a double header and the coach used the video to help clarify. "Hi sir, can we discuss that ruling? This is where our pitcher was, how do you see that?" "Oh, you see it that way? Ok, good to know." It doesn't matter that we thought he was wrong at the time. He explained his ruling and that was the end of it. I respect and appreciate everything that umpires bring to the game and take no issue with the occasional incorrect call. The umpire was great, except for this one weird incident. He was young and developing. A step we can take to help him improve his game and our own understanding of the game is to discuss the reason for a strange ruling after the game in a calm and collected manner. To the extent that I don't know the rules, I'll have a discussion (keyword, discussion) with an umpire to learn the rules and how they understand them. If I think the umpire might have been wrong, I'll try to educate myself so that that discussion can be more productive in the future. Everything that you described probably does happen somewhere, but I fail to see how starting a conversation to understand the rules better is evidence of that.

Thanks that seems like a good approach. In this instance, F1 was definitely not unsure of the time call. Its also worth noting that a bunch of shouting started happening at this time and the verbalization could easily have been lost in the cacophony. Most of us were sure time had been called until the umpire stated that he hadn't verbalized it.

Thanks Velho: You're right about a lot of things here. Coaches did discuss rules, but obviously not every rule. Probably could have specified, "let's use rules from League X if there are any disputes." The kids should be having fun learning how to play baseball. The dead ball / pitching mound rule exists at 10U so that they can focus on and play baseball (i.e., the pitching, hitting, and fielding part) instead of running at every random opportune moment. Thanks Umpy: The modified deadball rule, for our purposes, is to prevent the runners from standing 5 feet off the base and daring the pitcher to throw. Otherwise, that runner never has to go back to let the play continue. We've all seen clips of 9 and 10 year olds doing this. That's clearly not "learning how to play baseball" and I think we can all agree that it is obnoxious and not fun. Thanks Coach Carl: This isn't really 'angst,' its more that I want to understand how the rules work as best I can, so that I can have a reasonable conversation with any umpire when it comes up. I don't care about the base. None of the players care about the base. I care about coaching these kids to handle all game situations properly and I care that I know the rules myself. As a coach, I think I owe it to them to figure out the rules and teach them properly, as well as know how best to handle in the future. It's not fair to teach the kids that runners can't run if they're within 10' of the mound but also that they have to remain super alert. That being said, your comment about a multi-way conference is spot on and we probably should have done that. Can you clarify waiting for a verbal cue? I spoke with F1, the timeout motion from the umpire was unequivocal, and F1 clearly believed time was called and was surprised by the whole situation. What about the situation where a pitcher is about to deliver a pitch (he took a sign and came set) and the batter or umpire is not fully ready (this is 10U, weird stuff happens). The pitcher has not yet entered the windup but is going through his pre-pitch routine. The umpire will put up their hand and does not always verbalize. I can't imagine coaching a kid to deliver a pitch in this situation? If not, are there other timeouts that don't count until they hear time? I'm just trying to figure this out how to properly explain this one.

I'm curious how the umpires would suggest that the umpire and coaches should have handled this play. My apologies for the wordiness (I really enjoy discussing all of the rule nuances and, as I write and think this through, there are a lot of intricacies here) and I appreciate any replies that address any portion of this. TLDR version: This is a 10U game that only permits stealing when the ball crosses the plate. At end of play when everyone thought play was dead, umpire's back was turned, and F1 is close to mound with ball, R1 runs. Umpire calls time before R1 reaches 2B but permits him to stay. In previous league match-ups between these two teams, modified little league rules were specified. This was a scrimmage at 10U and the two teams no longer compete in the same league, so there was no specified rule set. It is reasonable to assume that all coaches understood that the rule set for previous league match-ups was in effect. Under this modified rule set, no leads are permitted and runners are only permitted to steal/leave the base after the ball crosses home plate. A previous play is dead when the pitcher is within 10' of the rubber, at the umpires discretion, after which runners cannot advance until the ball crosses home plate again. Under these rules, an advancing runner must be at least halfway to the next base when the pitcher is in control of the ball within 10' or they have to go back to their originating base. It is not specified, but it is well understood that teams cannot use this rule after a batted ball to stop runners advancing (e.g., if the pitcher receives a cut-off throw on the mound, the runners don't have to go back if they are less than half-way). The rules further specify that, if a pitcher attempts to make a play on an advancing runner, he forfeits the dead ball. For additional context, the umpire here is a younger guy and was trying to project an air of greater experience. (He was unnecessarily silent on non-strikes, never verbalizing where a pitch missed on close pitches. His verbalization of a called strike was more of a grunted 'ha!' than a clear call and there was an extremely long delay between the pitch and the call. This always feels like an affectation to me in younger umpires.) He was good and I took no issue with him except for this play. Here's the scenario - a play ends with the F1 receiving a cut-off from the outfield, catching the BR in a pickle, and BR retreating to first base. F1 is standing next to F3 at 1B, BR is getting up and dusting off. All of the fielders begin to return to their positions, first base coach steps on field and high-fives BR. Umpire is still watching play. F1 walks about halfway to mound, receives a throw from F3 and begins walking back to rubber. F1 checks R1 several times as he walks back. Umpire turns his back on the play and begins to walk to home. After umpire turns his back, F1 checks R1 one more time, and then turns to head back to mound (he's about 15' away at this point). All other fielders return to their position. The play "feels" dead. When F1 is a few steps off of the dirt of the mound, approximately 10' from rubber (unmeasured, call it 50/50 as to whether he was actually within 10', but he definitely wasn't on the dirt), R1 (or are they still BR?) takes off. Umpire and F1 do not notice. Players start shouting. R1 is maybe 10' off of first (60' base path) when F1 is clearly several feet closer than 10' from rubber and there is no doubt that he is within 10'. R1 is close to, but clearly less than halfway to 2B when F1 is standing on rubber. Umpire hears shouting, raises his arms in the "time" motion, turns to face the play, notices the runner, and refrains from actually saying "time." With his back turned, the umpire clearly had no idea where F1 was when R1 ran or when he passed halfway. After turning, he sees F1 on the rubber and watches R1 run the last 20' to 2B and, without ever lowering his hands, watches the play finish, and then calls "time" when R1 steps on 2B. F1 never attempts to make a play on R1 and is instead looking right at the umpire with his hands in the air in the time out motion. If F1 was alert to the runner (I am nearly certain that he was not, prior to the commotion), he had time to make a play on F1 and, based on the movement of F6, would have had to throw the ball shortly after umpire motioned for time out. It is not unreasonable, however, to assume that F1 became aware of the commotion and opted to do nothing because the umpire was signaling for time out. R1 permitted to stay at 2B, defensive team unhappy. Defensive team points out "but you called time." Umpire states "I just raised my arms, I had not yet called time." Some annoyed chatter between the coaches ensues. Game continues uneventfully. After the game, defensive team head coach shows umpire the video demonstrating where F1 was when R1 ran. Umpire shrugs and says, "sure that's fine, but he has to be on the rubber." "Really, I thought it was 10'" says coach. "uhh... well... he at least has to be on the dirt," says umpire. Now, this play doesn't really matter as the defensive team lost by a bunch, but here's where I took issue (I am an AC, not HC in this scenario): Because we hadn't fully specified this rule, this is going to be a grey area at the umpire's discretion, I get that. For me, after I have thought about it, several different things point to "send the runner back." 1) Umpire has turned his back on the play, at least tacitly signaling to the players that the play is over. I know the rules don't allow for any type of implied time out, but these are 10U ball players, and the umpire is acting as if the ball is dead. 2) With his back turned, the umpire was never in a position to make a ruling on the developing play. In such a scenario, where an umpire now has discretion on a play they did not see, it seems to me that sending the runner back is the most "neutral" decision. The Umpire had no idea where F1 was when R1 ran. The first view of the play that umpire has is F1 standing on the rubber and R1 running and being about 1/3 of the way to the base. If the umpire was using the 'player must be on the rubber' metric as he first stated after the game, then there is no way for him to have known that R1 whether or not R1 passed half way before F1 was on the rubber (he hadn't) or even if R1 left 1B before F1 was on the rubber. Given the distances, if F1 had jogged after umpire turns his back, F1 could have been on the rubber at around the same time that R1 ran. If "at least he has to be on the dirt" is the metric, he also couldn't have known, but given the relative positions it would be relatively reasonable to assume that he was. 3) Umpire, with F1 staring at him, was very clearly motioning for time-out while R1 was on the base path at a time F1 still could have made a play. Even if the runner's actions were legal, the umpire was apparently calling the play dead. A good play that is well within these kids capabilities gets the runner out at this point (not guaranteed, as F4 has about a 10' lead running to beat R1 to the base, so call it 60ish% likely they make the out). Even if we assume that the runner was legally advancing, the time out signal should have killed the play. It should have been umpire's discretion on where to place the runners after inadvertent time out. Here, the defense wasn't currently making a play but nobody can know if they could have absent the time out signal. The time out call was either a) the umpire deciding to call time before he realized something was going on, executing the mechanic, noticing the runner before he could verbalize, and then letting the play develop before completing the verbalization because he decided it was the wrong moment to call time; or b) the umpire reacting to the commotion and beginning the time out as a "hey guys, knock it off, what are you doing, the play is dead" gesture, but then stopped when he realized that he had missed a good chunk of the play. I think its b) because the umpire did not call time after any other play. If, during the post-game discussion, the umpire said "you're right, sorry, I missed that one," I would be a lot less annoyed at all about this. In retrospect, I am more annoyed now than I was when I watched the play. After reviewing our typical rule sets, I don't know how to coach my players in such a situation and it feels more like the other team got an advantage due to the umpire's inexperience and inattentiveness rather than that of our fielders. I think they were aggressively running the bases, not trying to get one up on an umpire that wasn't looking. We coach our players to get back to the mound after runners stop advancing and to ignore runners that are trying to bait them by dancing around the bases, because once F1 is within 10', they have to go back. F1 was not yet in the 'dead ball zone' when they stopped checking the runner. But they were close enough, within 5', to the 'dead ball zone' that there is zero possibility for the runner to advance more than halfway prior to F1 entering the 'dead ball zone.' It is not unreasonable for the pitcher to have begun focusing on the next batter. If the umpire had been watching the play, he would clearly have seen that F1 was close enough to the mound and even on the rubber before R1 passed half-way. Instead of resetting the play, he let a play that he hadn't seen stand. Pretend for a moment that F1 became fully alert to what was happening at some point during the play. Attentiveness aside, his actions are at least one set of correct actions under our rule set. If he is within 10' of the rubber and the umpire is motioning time, he should legitimately expect that R1 be sent back. Attempting to make a play on R1 (which is not a sure thing because F4 is attempting to beat R1 to 2B), would have been the incorrect decision, because it would have forfeited the dead ball situation. Of course I will now coach my pitchers to be mindful of the runners until they are at the rubber ready to take a sign. However, even being fully aware doesn't necessarily preclude a similar play in other scenarios, because no fielder was at 2B. In this scenario, if F1 had been alerted early enough, he could have outrun R1 to 2B. But in another scenario, e.g., if F1 is coming back from a play at the plate and is on the other side of the mound. If F1 is 10' from the rubber, he's ~50' from 2B. In that scenario, if R1 runs, there is no guarantee that he beats F1 (60' base path) and the only proper move is to do nothing within the 10' radius and expect that the runner be sent back. If he does try to make a play, he forfeits the dead ball. How important is the umpire's hand signal vs. verbalization on a play like this? The umpire's argument is "time wasn't called because I made the motion but didn't verbalize." I always thought that the physical mechanic was the binding action. This umpire felt differently. Should I coach my players to wait for the actual verbalization before reacting or is the umpire incorrect? That seems dangerous as time is often called for safety reasons. In the actual moment after the play, would any of the following be appropriate: Tell the umpire that our team is going to play the game based on his signals, and he signaled time even if he hadn't verbalized? "How can our players play properly if your time signal doesn't kill the play?" Ask the umpire how he can make a ruling on a play he didn't see. "you don't know when the runner crossed the halfway point, how can you make a safe call?" crossposting to r/umpires

I have some experience with this sleeve. It is definitely a stabilizer and does not add velocity. I have clocked it through many pitching sessions with and without. There is no discernible velocity difference. OP is right that you could likely design an elastic device that is loaded or stretched during the throwing motion to pull the arm forward with extra speed. The Kinetic arm doesn't do that. I could imagine that some pitchers may achieve higher velocities with it. Not because it adds power, but because it stabilizes the arm and may give a pitcher more confidence to throw harder. It is almost certainly what Ohtani was wearing based on chatter from their social media.

I don't suppose any of the umpires here can point to the relevant portion of the little league rules? As far as I can tell, based on this discussion, there is no rules based (unless local modification) way for the batter to be out if the bat doesn't interfere with fielding the ball. Can someone point to the relevant rule on a batter throwing a bat? The comment for rule 6.05(g) says that a thrown bat that interferes with the play is interference, but I can't find what section would be relevant for ejection or removal.

Thank you, I appreciate your insight. This is 10U, official rules were NFHS (not Little League) for this game. Do you mind explaining further so that I can understand better? I see F3 stepping forward to occupy an obstructing position between runner and base when the ball is thrown and well before receiving ball. He could certainly have made the play on the ball from a different position. I see contact occurring just before F3 receives the ball - although I understand contact is not necessary for obstruction. In my view, the runner was clearly impeded from reaching the base by F3's positioning. The question, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is whether F3 had the right to take that position to make the play. I think you are saying that he is absolved of obstruction because he took the obstructing position "in the act of fielding the ball." Is this a timing issue between when contact occurred and when the ball was received? E.g., if contact or impediment had occurred earlier with respect to the ball's arrival, would that change things? Is it a timing issue as to when the obstructing position was taken? E.g., the fielder only occupied that position shortly before the ball arrived? I think this is ultimately a judgement call. Are there any guidelines that umpires use on the timing for this sort of thing? This wasn't a very long throw so everything happened pretty quickly. I don't think that fielders have complete leeway on plays like this? If that ball was coming from left field and everyone is waiting for it to get there, F3 can't impede the runners progress while waiting for the ball - can they? I'm having a difficult time understanding the difference between something like this and a play at home where the catcher is in the baseline, receives the ball after a lengthy flight from the outfield as the runner slides home, makes the tag and is called for obstruction.

Is this obstruction by the 1B? Why or why not? It looks to me that the red runner contacts the 1B prior to the ball reaching 1B. Am I missing something? pickoff.mp4

Thanks Maven for that explanation, and thanks to Kevin and beerguy as well. You're right that I don't love that answer, but I respect it and now feel like I can come from a better place when discussing rulings with umpires at our games.