jimurrayalterego

Even if their interp is the same as OBR the implementation is strangely different. A delayed dead ball, calling the assisted runner out at the conclusion of play.

OBR and FED the runner assisting must be "viable", ie: not out or scored. @grayhawk was going to check on NCAA.

Didn't we address OBR and NCAA in the thread?

FED requires the interp because they don't specify "in fair territory" in their rule. I don't think OBR and NCAA have an interp because their rule specifies fair territory.

Not out and "safe" doesn't apply but a "safe that's nothing" would be appropriate. Live ball, no INT in all codes. He was hit by a fair ball but not in fair territory. OBR and NCAA have the wording in the rule. FED requires an interp: "2010 SITUATION 4: R1 is at third base and is taking his lead a few feet down the line in foul ground. B2 hits a sharp ground ball that hits third base and caroms off the base and (a) hits R1 accidentally, or (b) R1 intentionally moves so that he is hit by the fair ball. RULING: In (a), the ball remains live and in play. In (b), the ball is dead, R1 is out for his interference and other runner(s) are returned to the base they occupied at the time of the interference. B2 is awarded first base. (8-4-2k, 2-5-1e)"

Thread is restricted to umpfans who watch the postseason. Nevermind, everyone is cutting the cable and MLB divvies up the postseason to some that might not be on your streaming service. Mute before watching.

Was the first OBS type 2 with no award required and the second was type 1 which is why they awarded 2B?

Exactly, as do you have a runner intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.

MLB doesn't have a rule to address fielder intentionally blocking view - they address it in MLBUM. MLB doesn't have a rule to address runner intentionally blocking view - ? People have mentioned needing more intent such as waving hands. While I wouldn't expect that ever to happen at the pro level, (nor would I expect AROD to do what he did), is that intent to interfere with a throw or intent to block the fielder's view and how would you address it. Can a runner wave hands on the way in to distract a fielder? Do we have to have him have eyes on the throw and intentionally get hit by or hit it?

There is no rule about a fielder blocking the runner's view, BUT: MLBUM: "(12) With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner—jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher. Ruling: While Official Baseball Rule 5.02(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder’s actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner’s view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the Rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection."

Yes, we have intent. Many and MLB are parsing the rule where he had intent to block the fielders view which is not covered by rule so no penalty. In a post above I did reference a fielder blocking the view of a runner. No rule against that but MLBUM does not like that. You do what Machado did in my game I have INT, FED, NCAA, OBR and I have a rule to use in each code.

I think it should be called in FED. And MLB/OBR and NCAA☺️

You or your association should have to pay for a print version. $12 is a little steep compared to NCAA $10 which is usually part of what you pay to your college association. The problem is with NFHS All Access. The app signs you out when it should stay signed in and they want $6.99 for the online edition. Cue @The Man in Blue

Blocking the fielder taking the throw is not illegal per how MLB calls it. Neither is fielder blocking the runner's view of the pitcher. But MLB doesn't like it: MLBUM: "(12) With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner—jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher. Ruling: While Official Baseball Rule 5.02(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder’s actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner’s view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the Rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection." Perhaps MLBUM should add my verbiage: "While no rule prohibits a runner from establishing his own basepath, if the umpire deems the runner's actions are a deliberate effort to block the fielder's view of a throw, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the rules. The runner should be called out under 6.01(a)(10), "intentionally interferes with a thrown ball"

MLB will be along soon to explain how Blakney called a foul ball on a fly ball that first fell on foul territory, in accordance with the Foul definition in the rule book and the MLBUM interp of calling this. Meanwhile announcers and the internet will be quoting it hit chalk. Confirmed on review. As far as I could tell less than half the ball was over fair, thus, assuming flat plate geometry, it first touched foul territory.

Not by me. He “intentionally interfered with a thrown ball”. Yes by MLB although I don’t know if they require more obvious intent or just allow runners to jink and jive on the way to the base.

Haven't seen it but you and another have described it to me. As described I would have INT but have seen many MLB plays where MLB umps do not call INT as the runner is allowed to make his own basepath. Runner interference with a throw has to be intentional which as described seems to be the case. Maybe they want some hands in the air to judge intent. MLB umps do not seem to call that and the defense did not seem to object as described to me. They probably did not object because the know how MLB umps call it in contravention to the rule, of course, judging no intent can be their out.

I don't understand this shinguard thing. Bought some Konigs K whatevers in 2006. Have taken 80 to 90 hits off them and never felt a thing. They have saved a few runs due to WP PB.

I don't know about your vast majority of the time but my experiences with steals of HP and squeeze plays have the batter in the box or retreating for a steal and the batter attempting a bunt for a squeeze. I never saw the need for them to vacate their position as of the catcher catching the pitch and attempting a tag. Catcher always had access to front edge of HP. And sometimes before he was legal to be there.

I think the OP wanted to the OBR rule which would have the pitcher bat in the removed defensive player's slot and the DH, now on defense, would stay in his slot. 10 player lineups should be used when a DH is used. Your example would be for HS where you can DH for anyone. A B Carl DH E F G H I J Dave F3 to A B Carl F6 E F Greg F6 F3 H I J Dave For an OBR lineup: A B Carl DH D E F H I J Ken F1 to A B Carl DH F6 E F Ken F1 H I J

Maybe you had that one year's rulebook where they left it out.

I think they are referring to a throw hitting the batter as opposed to the batter interfering with the catcher throwing. But we can still have INT with a batter hit by the throw who has moved into the path, intentionally or not. He no longer satisfies "standing in the box" allowed by MiLBUL/MLBUM.

"any other movement" is not standing in the box. A batter drifting over HP after the swing would be INT, intentional or not and feet in the box or not. Jimurray posting as guest, U-E glitch does not allow me to confirm email change.