jimurrayalterego

There is no protest in OBR although some leagues using OBR might have added it. I don't know of any OBR guidance other than what we see is allowed as pitchers take the rubber. Basically it would be you know it when you see it. This pitcher was correctly called for a balk. He also had a "start stop" step with his free foot as he got comfortable that we wouldn't call even though he was touching his plate. But you have segued to a more nuanced issue than the OP which clearly had a pitcher near the rubber and not attempting yet to get comfortable.

For FED you have to be aware of some caseplay wording but I'll just quote this from the BRD: "IN FED, PITCHING RESTRICTIONS BEGIN WHEN THE PITCHER INTENTIONALLY CONTACTS THE PITCHER"S PLATE. POE 1987, 1988, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2009." For all codes, think about when you would point the ball live. That would be when the pitcher is engaged.

I think he just got a generic pic from the net and is only trying to show the position of F1 in relation to the rubber. But why do you assume a LL mound?

I pulled up about 20 MLB videos of R1 with out at 2B. A little more than half had U2 outside. The distance from the grass varied some. Based on positioning I would say they all would be subject to UI but with more time to react. It looks like they don't go out on fly balls as that would have crews to have two sets of mechanics.

Other 60' orgs seem to keep the BU inside. 2man BUs do shade their B further back. I thought softball and LL have them outside for watching leaving the base.

Sounds to me as if he works with baseball umpires who do not or cannot put the effort into understanding the rule.

Added some notes in your text but as regards this: "I keep hearing umpires say , yes its live here, and we offense chooses. I have had umpires stop me from calling time and taking care of the situation saying "they get to choose". but I do not see there is any scenerio ... where there is a choice? please correct me if im wrong." There is an esoteric scenario regarding the doctoring the ball penalty where you can find the word "choice". Otherwise there is no choice in the OBR/NCAA balk rule. There are guys who dress as umpires who find it hard to understand what you understand correctly and revert to using "coach choice."

I think LL has U2 outside for different reasons than MLB umps who choose outside and that location is closer. I'm not sure of those reasons.

I've never seen an artificial turf field with bad lines anywhere.

If I'm the PU I wipe out inside, front or back if they are not right.

I think you would have to do your own research. Most of us amateurs would not care to put much effort into MLB's changing rules/interps regarding pitch clock. If it relates to an MLB happening Jomboy or CCS will cover it.

Batter became a runner on ball four. Runners, performing as normal, cannot be called out for interference with a throw unless you judge intent which doesn't seem the case in your OP.

NFHS use of the word "passes" generates what we call "string theory". In NFHS with fielders playing in a runner hit by a batted ball "passing" a string between fielders would not be out. They have some caseplays that confirm how they call it.

Nobody would or should ask that question in the OP unless it specified NFHS.

I want inside pitches that are not breaking balls to be closer to the plate.

Staying the way of the batted ball and getting hit by it definitely is INT. I object to NFHS adding that statement as it applies to vacating a base for a fielder. Standing still, as long as it is not in the path of the ball is reasonable.

You would know if you were aware of how he engaged in the set and the windup, ie: his mannerisms.

Not moving is not intentional INT unless you are dealing with NFHS umpires who take to heart Caseplay H.4.2 - H which I don't.

For completeness CCS left out a pertinent exception regarding a runner in contact with his base. The OP does not have that condition but it had the potential to have been a factor. The runner contacted the fielder's glove about a foot from 3B so we don't have a runner in contact with his base. "Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out."

He can't be called for interference with a fielder unless intentional. But why can't he be called for being hit by a fly batted ball, other than an Infield Fly, that satisfies the rule.

Your logic makes sense. I'm asking if there is a cite allowing a runner to interfere with a fielder fielding a batted ball that isn't a fly ball and most likely will be foul. And for your "squibber" what do we have if the ball rolls foul after the INT?

Let's say your mis view was correct. Do we care if the ball might have gone fair? The B-R interfered with a fielder trying to field a batted ball and touched it to make it foul. I can't find an exception to not call the B-R out.

Legal. You can feint to 2B from the rubber on any type of move. The feint requires a step toward 2B. No throw or arm motion is required. Once the step happened and the pivot foot came of the rubber the pitcher is considered disengaged and can run at the runner or throw anywhere.

Since @Biscuit was reading the rule I didn't address NCAA because it's in their rule.