jimurrayalterego

You have not seen this circa 2010: "SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g)"

Baseball dad until 2006. Evans Desert Classic started my 19 year umpiring. But for those that might peruse the thread as lurkers we have to have a firm ruling. There was no infield fly because of runners on 2B and 3B. The bunt resulted in a fly ball. Dropping the ball intentionally or not keeps the ball live. When we what if R1 and R2 we don't have an infield fly. We have an attempted bunt which results in a fly ball. Definitions: "An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt)" We might have a semantic problem with some FED wording. All of the codes have problematic wording on something or the other that we deal with. Do you agree with live ball in the OP?

What did you verify? "b. The ball stays live" makes sense. Other than the semantic issues @UAME has with FED.

What does your reference to "once" mean?

He said R2 and R3 and @wolfe_man said "I am assuming R2 is at 1st base and R3 is at 2nd base." the thread went downhill from there. But with no outs back when FED used that stupid method it would be R1 at 2B and R2 at 1B.

You were missing being prepared with knowledge of the rules for a sit we don't think happens very often. To prepare you further there is a caseplay or interp that confirms that a starting pitcher can be removed from the game and re-enter later to pitch.

Watched an out of town playoff crew at a high level stadium. PU would signal subs with a wave and then a point. He was waving however to the paid skybox behind HP. Scorekeeper box was up behind 3B. They did still get the changes so no harm.

Your OP is an example of a tag in live action, the leaving early not unmistakable, being an accidental appeal which is not recognized. His wording was specific to his OP where the appeal was unmistakable.

On a swing the no catch signal would be unambiguous. On no swing with a called strike it would come after the strike signal. In either case you might be making a "safe" signal when F1 is tagging the B-R and then would transition to the out signal. After using the no catch for many years with no problems I then transitioned to what I saw in MLB and continued to not have problems.

The absence of the out signal indicates the batter is not out. The no catch signal indicates the uncaught third strike. The right arm pointing a strike and no catch seems to work at pro, college and in my area, high school.

So Bucknor did get help from PU Iassogna but most likely he was watching the overthrow and had nothing. Why didn't he get the whole crew together? Two other guys had nothing else to watch.

Machado has agreed that what you said, "he was trying to jump over and just did a bad job.", he did. But how do we make that a meme? It would have a million uses going further.

You are wrong.

I don't think OBS is reviewable. But this and the Bucknor call has me wondering if nobody even thinks of asking the umps to get together. Call time and ask Bucknor to check with his partners if they saw the runner touch. Bucknor knows he was looking away and they get the call correct. Same thing here. Suppose replay has a valid tag. Can manager still come out and ask U2 to get together about possible OBS?

Most of us have transitioned to what we saw MLB change to. Right hand out. I've seen some lower level coaches ask what was that signal.

I agree and don't blame you. Legal and illegal is different than advantage and no advantage. Yes some things are called regardless of that criteria such as changing from windup to set. But that usually happens with runners on. With no runners on why are we thinking about illegal pitches. Yes NFHS thinks that the batter can be put at a disadvantage and that's true at that level. At the MLB level Strop and others have used the windup rules to disadvantage the batter without being called illegal and sometimes not. I think it comes down to whether the pitcher has violated the literal rule and has put a runner or batter at a disadvantage at the level you are calling. I'm on the lenient side of this issue.

Rant not at you. With no runners on what happens in the windup should be of no concern unless an advantage in momentum or distance occurs. That is what any rule verbiage is there for. My rant is with NCAA not being happy with a stutter step having a direction toward HP. There is no advantage. With runners on in windup sits we have to know the rule and be sure of TOP. But some get wrapped around the axle about stuff that has no effect on runners, or umpires that pay attention and understand the rules beyond their literal reading.

I would call all the prelim as @noumpere would say as "getting comfortable on the rubber". I have TOP after the hands come up. But since he looks like a sideways windup pitcher he probably would declare with R3. I would ask if @beerguy55 would test the waters and send R3 and argue that TOP was the initial part of F1 getting on the rubber.

F1 brought the tag to the BR. The BR did not comply with: "3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if they can reach the base without colliding." You can eject for flagrant violation of the collision rule but I think you are right as to ejection for after the collision action.

No it's not. Runner violated collision rule. Put shoulder down and did not attempt to avoid collision or tag.

Most pitchers that do not pitch sideways reset their pivot foot in transitioning to more sideways torso in their delivery. That involves violating two criteria in the rule that most of us ignore unless it gives an advantage of momentum or distance. The criteria exist to prohibit "running into the pitch" and getting closer to HP in their release with the pivot foot off the rubber and closer to HP. From 5.07(a) Comment...."The pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch." And 5.07(a)(1) ....."He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot." Our NCAA umps might not be as lenient as they have Randy Bruns taking a more literal stance as to pitching.

Sounds like a "toe tap" which MLB finally ruled illegal for Carl Edwards Jr. Subtle toe taps might get ignored.

That was legal because of this Comment: "Rule 5.09(a)(8) Comment: If a bat breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no interference called. If a batted ball hits part of a broken bat in foul territory, it is a foul ball" A "double hit" is an out. I can't recall any that were called out because you need slow-mo to see it.

FED baseball has a caseplay where the batter hits the ball and releases his bat which hits F2 or the Umpire. I think the rule applies when completing a swing and letting the bat fly.

I think bat hitting the fair ball twice is an out in OBR. Batted ball hitting the batter or his bat in the box is foul.