Central Cal Umpire

So it sounds like umpires aren’t supposed to give time to just anyone for just anything. Ok got it. Still seems like they could have called time sooner if third baseman is just stalling by keeping the glove down. But I’m not an umpire by some people's standards so what do I know.

It's a rather drastic over exaggeration to call it abuse. If it's a part of umpiring that needs correcting, I'll accept that for the purpose of improvement. Calling it abuse to justify your own overreaction and unnecessary response is nonsense. But your point has been made. Time to move on.

See. Now that's proper communication. And already made by someone before you. But thanks for the qualification. Now I have something I can apply on the field, don't I.

Point taken.

You could try communicating a bit more effectively. I said, So, I don't always It's on a case by case basis. But thanks for the poor communication anyway. Good to know this is a reasonably open forum where up and comers can voice their thoughts without being dumped on. That sounds like exactly why we're all here.

Based on the description and that diagram, I don't see an out in this scenario. Interference has to begin with physical contact or visual obstruction of the ball. It doesn't start with BR inside or out of the running lane. With F3 stretched out in foul territory and BR running in fair territory, it implies there was no actual interference to then apply the running lane violation. Not mention the runner clearly beats the ball. Where's the interference if the ball hasn't arrived yet? Unless there's some extraneous detail missing.

By the book, if you're calling it a non-swing, it has to be ruled HBP. That said, I don't always like calling an HBP on a check swing if the batter's own actions put him in the path of the ball. I'm like, well, I'll give you the check swing, but I'm not going to give you an HBP, too. I've called check swing strikes that hit the batter on more than one occasion in the past and one time specifically this year in a JV FED game because the batter committed most of the way and he could have avoided the pitch if he hadn't started his swing to begin with.

Here's the rule in question, I think: I think to justify an out call, it has to start with "...the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball." That's the justification for calling the guy out on a strike three. I don't see that here.

The Infield Fly rules for most leagues generally state that once it has been called, runners “advance at their own risk.” That means, once the IFR has been called, it’s to be understood by everyone on the field that the batter is out and the runners have now been warned that they don’t have to leave their respective bases. If one does leave and he’s tagged out, it’s now the responsibility of the runner and the coaches, not the umpire.

I'm not sure how I would have handled this, but here goes: Watching a Cal Ripken 12U Majors game while waiting for the next game on the same field. Umpires in my area regularly work solo, as was this umpire I was observing. So, the umpire had no help on the bases. No outs, no one on, two strikes on the batter. The batter swings at strike three. It's a foul tip, caught by the catcher. The umpire initially calls foul tip, then sees the ball was dropped. He changes his call to foul ball. The DHC yells that the catcher dropped the ball on the transfer. The umpire calls time and appears to be discussing something with the catcher. The umpire then changes his call to a foul tip caught, batter is out on strike three, stating the catcher dropped the ball on the transfer. The OHC and his bench are livid. At the half inning, the umpire does what I thought was a smart thing, walks over to the OHC and allows the OHC and his coaches to vent a bit. I was sitting on that side of the field for the shade near the dugout gate, so I heard everything. Understandably, the OHC and his coaches are furious that the call was changed from a foul ball to a foul tip strikeout. The umpire said that he asked the catcher if he caught the ball cleanly and the catcher said, yes, that he dropped the ball taking it out of his glove. That's why the umpire changed it from a foul ball to an out on a caught third strike. Here's the practical question: Does dropped transfer apply to foul tips? We call it all the time on fly balls and ground outs, but I've never experienced this myself, a catcher dropping a foul tip and still recording the out on transfer drop. Usually, when I'm behind the plate, I just assume the ball was dropped. Then the umpire said something I've never heard before. He told the OHC that he justified changing his call because, in his experience, at this age level, 12U and lower, the kids tend to be very honest with him on the field. He tells the OHC that whenever he thinks a batter is hit on a very close pitch that isn't obvious, he always asks the batter if he was hit by the ball. The kids will tell him, "Yes, it hit me," or "No, it didn't." So, the umpire basically changed his call because a player told him something he clearly didn't see for himself. Is that something more experienced umpires do? Ask the player, "What happened?" and then decided a call based on what the player said? The OHC did not like this explanation and vented some more. He said that wasn't the catcher's call to make, that the umpire needs to call what he sees, not ask a player what happened. The umpire said this is something that he does regularly and that he affords the same courtesy to both teams, discussing with players what happened on a particular pitch or scenario. Just wondering how I should handle a similar situation if it comes up, understanding not all things are ever equal in baseball.

Some additional context: First, yes, there's a good deal of HTBT involved here. But it appeared that *everyone on the field of play* meaning all players on defense and the runners on the bases, were cowing to this third base coach. It was like he had assumed control of the game. Even a couple of parents in the stands asked who the heck is making the calls out there. Once the catcher caught the ball, he kind of took his foot off the gas, like he was waiting for the umpire or someone to clarify the balk before he did anything. He only threw to third after his own coach and bench and crowd yelled at him to throw the ball. As an observer, it looked like this third base coach was intentionally interfering with play on the field and really more importantly the umpire's position of authority. This guy wanted a balk call, so HE called the balk, hoping to instigate the umpire to make a balk call. (That last sentence is strictly my opinion but that's how it looked.) It looked like the players were all waiting for the umpire to justify the third base coach's call, at least to me, and really, I think to a lot of people. Again, a 12U Cal Ripken league.

Okay, so R2 and R1 return to respective bases? They don't remain at second and third, do they?

12U Majors Cal Ripken League. I was not umpiring, only observing from behind home plate while waiting for the next game. Runners on first and second. One out, 2-2 count. Balk warnings had been issued to both sides a couple of times in the game for various set violations, both per Cal Ripken requirements at this level, once for the pitcher engaging from the stretch with hands together and never separating before coming set, one for the pitcher turning his shoulders to look at first base after coming set. The pitcher was in the stretch. He came to a set and tipped his shoulder slightly towards first. Not enough to warrant a balk call if you ask me, not at this level anyway, and I think the umpire probably thought the same thing. After the shoulder turn and as the pitcher lifts his leg to deliver to the plate, the head coach at third base starts yelling, "Balk! That's a balk!" and instructs R1 and R2 to advance to second and third. The pitcher hesitates in the middle of his delivery - I think he even turned his head to look at the coach at third - but the ball is delivered; it's called a ball. The catcher hesitates too, also clearly thrown off by the balk call, but eventually throws to third, where R2 reaches safely. The umpire calls R2 out on the coach's interference of the play by calling the balk, which threw off the pitcher's and catcher's concentration. The coach says it was a balk. Umpire then warns OHC for instructing players to advance, which is not his purview. R1 is sent back to first base. OHC continues to argue it was a balk. The umpire warns OHC if he makes another call that is not his to make, and if the umpire sees it influence play on the field, he's going to run OHC. OHC argues that R2 should not be called out, that R1 and R2 should only be sent back to second and first. The umpire sticks to his guns, the out remains. There's quite a bit of barking from the stands on that side of the field for the rest of the game, but nothing gets out of hand. OHC remained and apparently knew what he was doing because he shut the hell up for the rest of the game, not making any further arguments that I saw. It was late in the game, and I don't even remember how it ended, as I went around behind the stands to the concession booth to get game balls for the next game. Question: I agreed with the umpire's position, but isn't R2 out a NHFS rule? I also wondered if this should have been a delayed dead ball situation. Should the DFC have been given the option of either taking the result of the play or else accepting the umpire's out call? I realize he's going to want the out and the resulting return of R1 to first, but was the call itself by the book? Or close enough anyway? Also, I see this a lot in games I umpire, where the coach isn't familiar with a new umpire and they think they can maybe influence the umpire by making calls ahead of him. It happens to me fairly often, too. Is this something that should be addressed in pregame if the umpire is working with new coaches for the first time?

You probably wouldn't know the first time. I've had a couple of JV teams pull this more than once in a game this season. Sometimes it's the same player. One of those teams did it in multiple weeks. It was suggested to me by a more experienced umpire that it's worth a quick discussion with the coach that if someone pulls that one more time, someone's getting ejected. Probably the coach, but maybe the player, if it's a repeat offense once too often.

Connie Mack for one. "He was also cunning, though he cultivated a clean-cut image. He mimicked the sound of a foul tip and was so proficient at catching them that the N.L. changed its rule so that a batter was no longer out if the catcher snagged a foul tip with fewer than two strikes." Connie Mack – Society for American Baseball Research Also from a book by Norman Macht called Connie Mack and the Early Years of Baseball

The general reason a foul tip is different from a foul ball is that the mechanics of the foul tip are basically no different from a swing and miss. Other than the fact that the bat grazes the ball, there's no other practical difference. The catcher still catches the ball and no one has a chance to make any appreciable reaction other than as if the ball was missed in the moment. Action doesn't really change on a foul tip than on a swing and miss, so it's treated the same as a swinging strike with no contact. The reason the foul tip was implemented is that in the early days of baseball there were catchers who were mimicking the sound of a foul tip to get the umpire to call foul ball outs on swing and misses at a time when a foul tip was still treated the same as any other foul ball and an out could be recorded for catching a bat-contacted ball in foul territory before it hit the ground.

Just some additional context. The throw to third base was clearly ahead of R2, but close enough that R2 didn't have time to slide. Contact was basically a result of him trying to reach third base with 3B standing over the bag, but not in front. Nothing malicious on R2's part and R2's contact with 3B was certainly not after the out was recorded - contact amounted to the tag out. R2 simply outweighed 3B. A same sized kid probably wouldn't have been knocked over, as R2's speed wasn't great. All that said, sounds like the call was correct, leaving B1 at second base was correct, the dialogue that included "technical interference" was completely off and better left unsaid under similar circumstances in the future.

In an Under 10 Cal Ripken league with a typical slide or avoid contact rule, there was a runner (R2) on second base. A ground ball was hit back to the pitcher, who threw to first, where the first baseman dropped the ball. The batter/runner (B1) reached safely. R2 then attempted to reach third base. R2 was a heavyset kid, not a fast runner. First baseman threw to third ahead of R2 and 3B tags R2, who did not slide. R2 knocks over the third baseman who still records the tag out. B1 attempts to reach second base and reaches safely. The coach of the team on the field demands B1 be called out for interference by R2 because R2 did not slide or avoid contact, thereby preventing the third baseman from throwing to second ahead of B1. The umpire ruled interference technically did occur, but said the out applies only to R2, who was already out on 3B's tag. B1 remained at second base. If the umpire ruled interference did occur, shouldn't he have given the defense the option of the out on interference rather than the tag out, then sent B1 back to first base? Full disclosure. I was the umpire, and I think I blew the call.

The video seems to be in slow motion at the end. That alters perception, I think. At regular speed, it was probably a matter of F3 simply being surprised to see R1 barreling towards him and he put up an arm to protect himself. The little shove was probably just to shielding himself from getting knocked over himself. Assuming no priors in that same game and no ongoing issues with these teams or players over a season, I'd consider it incidental and leave it alone. I don't see anything that rises to the level of egregious. These guys are playing hard and running hard. Sometimes they bump into each other. Maybe have a discussion with the managers between innings to suggest we do our best to keep things civil, but even that, only if R1's manager raises the issue.

I think you got the gist of it right. It sounds like an E6 2-1 putout with the runner reaching before the out was made. I've come to realize - like a lot of people who have put on the umpire gear to learn the craft - a great many announcers, even regulars with plenty of experience don't know the rules of baseball even close to all that well. That includes a lot of ex-players. I would also think the official scorekeeper is almost certainly not asking the announcers for their opinions before etching things in stone.