jimurrayalterego

So that loophole was endemic?

"7-3- Art. 5...Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by: a. leaning over home plate, b. stepping out of the batter's box,"

Why do you need an interp? The rules cover it.

Me neither, but most if not all the threads had CI when even though the catcher went in front, R3 was safe. So no harm, no foul, except for the batter.

It's included in the discussion of the other CI. Your opinion of no CI due to the batter backing out was supported by a Jaska-Roder interp a long time ago. NCAA clarified some years ago that they wanted it called whether swing or not because if not called batters would be coached to clock the catcher. MLB Umps seemed to use the J-R interp in the past but this crew apparently confirmed J-R no longer applies it with a rules check in NY. Let's say the OP stayed in the box with his bat on his shoulder. Would you have CI then?

The big dogs argued back in day the that while it couldn't be a strike, a "not strike" is a ball.

I’m referring to Big Dogs defending no-calls by other big dogs when a no swing or a bailout happened. J-R was cited by others for bailout. No swing was rationalized as “what was interfered with” in various threads about the subject.

We have some ancient threads on U-E where big dog umps argued against calling this and even Jaska-Roder had an interp where it was not CI. There also were some doubtful no-calls in MLB in the past. Nice to see them go to NY for a rules check to confirm they were no longer using Jaska-Roder.

He wasn't set yet. He wasn't delivering a pitch yet unless he declared windup (not likely). He's just a pitcher on the rubber who does not step directly to the base when picking off.

So a long sleeve shirt is appropriate for cool weather and we have our choice of shirts. A long sleeve shirt is not appropriate for hot weather because the sleeve is designed to keep you warm. @MadMax might know if pro umps are wearing something not available to the hoi polloi. So in the meantime I advise our chapter's guys that we don't care what color sleeve they use to protect their arm from the sun. But others do care. What color do they want on the arm? As you say, even skin color is available as a cooling sleeve but I don't even trust their SPF when they come from China.

I think we allow pitchers to pick or step off to pick during their motion to come set. But it seems most of the time that MLB umps perceive it as starting and stopping. Since he was set it's not starting to pitch but I agree oit's not a direct step.

I'm an old lizard. Only need a beer the night before and coffee before an AM game. Normal hydration for a PM game. It might be a myth but some dehydration climatization worked for me as a runner. But, one of our guys started feeling bad due to heat and his partner kicked him off the field and called his wife to pick him up. Wife came and he told her to take him home he was going to lay down and take a nap. She said no and took him to an ER. Admitted for a kidney issue. Doctor said if he had taken a nap he might not have woken up.

Cora was asked in the postgame. He said (not exact wording) they told him the umpire was blocked by F5 so he asked for help and Will told him it was fair. Cora probably misspoke what Will, the PU, said and meant foul. U3 was not blocked but maybe he wasn't sure of bounding over the base and wanted help from Will. Looked fair to me and the announcers.

Tie goes to the batter.

Nothing shows him calling foul until after the conference. But that is U3's call.

MLB will be right along to explain. U3 calls fair. It looked fair. Ball Boy catches ball, most likely could judged INT by authorized person. PU points something, I didn't see time called but he talks to U3. Conversation over, PU signals foul or time and puts batter back in box. Don't know what he gave as count but scoreboard has it a strike. Did U3 reverse his foul? Did PU nullify the INT with a do over? 4 umps never got together although other two did straggle in at the end to no avail.

Looks like a bounding ball was fair and was interfered "intentionally" by a person, ball boy, authorized to be on the field. Somehow the batter was back at bat and no harm no foul got a base hit again. Off to my MLBTV. Red Sox manager Alex Cora furious after ball boy interference call

There is some confusion over "Projected substitutions are not allowed". My opinion is that you cannot project a defensive sub as a pitcher or catcher. There is only one caseplay regarding projected subs and it involves the catcher. If a coach wanted to tie himself down on offense he could give you all the batting subs at once. Some here say you have to tell him to give you them when their at bat comes up. I disagree with that interp of "projected". They would all be offensive subs and have been reported when the team is on offense. OBR and NCAA have no restriction on projected subs.

Can't copy and paste but Case Book ruling CR 17 does not allow a CR for a player who has not been the catcher of record in the last half inning. I think there is also a similar ruling for the pitcher. But I don't understand FED's rationale for not allowing a CR for a P/DH. Nevermind, they don't care if I understand that.

Which is why NFHS changed the call some years ago to calling the balk before calling time.

Notice that the bat has been brought down from his swinging position and he's not looking at the pitcher. You could probably make a case with frame by frame that the pitcher stopped first. Go ahead and do that if it will help you rationalize that a pro ump cannot have a bad judgement. Should he be balked if he started running off the field as in the 2013 clip?

After the 2013 balk MLB changed to any action by the batter, even in the box, could be cause for F1 to stop and not be balked. Did the thunder cause F1 to stop? Did the batter flinch? Was he ready to hit if he was lowering the bat? If I call time in that sit and someone wants to protest that it was a balk I have justification to not call a balk even if my initial judgement was to use common sense and kill it because of thunder.

5.02(b)(2) From a previous post: "In 2013 an MLB umpire balked a pitcher for stopping delivery when the batter raised a hand or said time, can't remember which. The rule in the book at that time only protected the pitcher if the batter stepped out although most of us used common sense and would not balk any action by the batter that caused the pitcher to stop. That MLB umpire was literally correct however. The next year MLB changed the wording from "stepped out" to "inadvertently caused". I think we could ascribe the "balk" to the batter's flinch. from 5.02(b)(2) Comment: "If after the pitcher starts his windup or comes to a “set position” with a runner on, he does not go through with his pitch because the batter has inadvertently caused the pitcher to interrupt his delivery, it shall not be called a balk. Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from “scratch.”"

The rule comment supports no balk. The batter's flinch inadvertently caused the pitcher to stop. I think he also started to drop his bat from the ready position.

That is a technique I recommend to new umps with any style set pitcher.