jimurrayalterego

Batter hit by a batted ball in the box is a foul ball in all codes. @Replacematt has a point as far as PU's judgement but the (PUN) point was directly at the fair territory which was in the box if you had lines left. Shaking hands makes me paranoid.

He was also in the box. Are protests allowed in NJ and how late can they be filed?

ditto

OBR, NCAA - CSFP, dead ball play stands. I think FED would be the same since R1 was going back to 1B.

I learnt it at a 2006 Desert Classic.

Moderator, do you see what he said? Is that allowed?

Am I reading this wrong? Every clinic I have attended taught the slot arm for "yes he did".

Why not right palm up like Joe West did? Never confused his crew.🙂

Was this a failure to read the whole effin thread? I just did the same thing on another thread last night.

Known as the "slot arm".

Even though NCAA has the semantic difference they have added some wording to confirm that the “force play slide rule” does not apply at 1B. OBR and FED don’t think that exception is needed but I think both codes have cites that mistakenly refer to a force at 1B. I’m sure of FED but my memory is vague regarding OBR.

Yes, I added an edit. Did not RTFOP

I doubt that what happened was a sideways pitcher windup but it was bases loaded. So I'll ask the question. Was the pitcher a sideways pitcher who winds up from what looks like the set with a stutter step with the free foot. These pitchers take the rubber differently when pitching from the set or windup. Some take the rubber hands together with a stretch of the arms to get comfortable when going to wind up. That would be legal for any windup pitcher no matter what the orientation of his pivot foot with the rubber. You would not mistake such a pitcher who was going to pitch from the set because they address the rubber differently with hands apart while looking into the catcher for a sign. New umpires sometimes do not recognize the nuance of such pitchers and also do not recognize the runner configs where such a pitcher would change his delivery. Edited to add. While my above treatise is worth reading it does not apply as I did not catch the OP as R1, R2 and assumed the event happened after the base hit.

I guess UDC did not patent their notches.

Is "other than the first throw from the infield" an exception to two bases?

I'm confused also. Does that have something to do with the local stealing rules? Throw out of play is always 2 bases, TOP or TOT depending.

Didn’t I say the cites did not apply to the play?

Is "giving the illusion" not the same as "creating the impression"?

Attempting or creating the impression, also known as feinting. "Rule 6.02(a)(4) Comment: When determining whether the pitcher throws or feints a throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play, the umpire should consider whether a runner on the previous base demonstrates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to advance to such unoccupied base."

"The shortstop (the fielder interfered with) is awarded the out." We don't care who gets the putout. We just have an out. "That part of the rule — when to get the “runner closest to home” for interference" There is only one time that is mentioned in OBR. When a batter willfully interferes to prevent a DP. Neither of the below apply to your play: 6.01(a) "(6) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j)); (7) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference (see Rule 6.01(j));" Your play was adjuvated correctly for OBR. You might be thinking of FED where they allow you to judge whether a DP was possible whether the INT was willful or not. And it should be an afterthought in FED.

Technically R1 leaving early is Marquez call and when it's close if they appeal to the wrong umpire usually we would tell the fielder to appeal to the appropriate umpire. When the leaving early is so obvious can we poach the responsible umpire's call if the appeal is a tag of the runner in front of us?

Yes, Jomboy's video makes it clear that Barrett's gesture was a catch signal to Marquez. Why Barrett didn't call it we don't know. Then why he safes R1 on his being tagged while calling the out on R2 with the tag of the base we don't know also. But getting an unassisted triple play that wasn't would not be his best look so thankfully he and Marquez share the goatrope.

With the benefit of my MLBTV subscription I think I can describe what happened. Barrett seemed to gesture to Marquez to call it although whether Barrett was in or out, in my opinion would give him a better look than Marquez. The defense knew it was a catch although there was a delay in Marquez looking for secure possession and VR. I can't judge if the offense was hindered as it seems they had made up their minds to run. But what I can't understand is Barrett safeing the tag of R1, knowing it was a catch and thus left early, while right after, calling the appeal out of R2 leaving early when the fielder stepped on 2B. That same fielder who tagged R1 for leaving early then got the out from Marquez at 1B for R1 leaving early. If Barret thought it was Marquez call, although it was effin obvious, you don't safe it, you tell them it's his call. Did Barrett not know you can tag a runner anywhere on the field to appeal a missed base or leaving early.

Pretty straight forward. Except for those that would parse the wording of "or" and argue that it wasn't "his" second visit. MLBUM "In a case where a manager or coach has made his first trip to the mound and then attempts to return a second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, he shall be warned by the umpire that this is not permitted. If the manager or coach ignores such warning, the manager or coach shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter then at bat until such batter is retired or gets on base (or the side is retired). After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner (or the side is retired), then this pitcher must be removed from the game. The manager should be notified that the pitcher will be removed from the game after pitching to one hitter, in order that the manager can have a substitute pitcher warmed up."

No matter where HP is you can construct 2 90 degree great circle foul lines. But I think the practical application uses a rhumb line with a fixed azimuth from HP. Negligible difference from HP to 320'.