Don in Washington

I recall a catch by Jay Buhner in Boston. http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=20184323 It was called a catch.

What do you have? http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/outfielder-makes-amazing-over-fence-catch-gives-home-100944382.html

Jeff Nelson missed one in a Ranger vs Mariner game last week. He said in a press report he'd like do over. Don http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130525&content_id=48609586&c_id=sea

Its not just between innings. LL rule 3.09 says ..."Managers or coaches must not warm a pitcher at home plate or in the bull pen or elsewhere at any time"... As a LL District Safety Officer we have been instructed to interupt this to also include practices. And to expand the interuption further, since any player can pitch, then all players are pitchers, therefore adults can not warmup (play catch) with any player at any time. The LGB specifically addresses what adults are allowed to do. Coach and manage, be a base coach, observe in the bull pen and hit balls during pregame in-field. My DA and myself went to my local league yesterday and saw adults doing both. (Playing catch and warming up pitchers in the bull pen.) We've already sent e-mails and made phone calls to correct this. Now those are the directives handed to us to enforce. So, my guess is that LL wants the kids to participate as much as possible. And in reality LL, is for the kids to play and not the adults. I haven't been to MLB practices but at the games, I have yet to see the coaches/managers warming up the pitchers. Maybe that's not a good parallel. But LL was created as a scaled down version of the Big League. The last line in the purpose of LL (in talking about the LL program)..."It establishes the values of teamwork, sportsmanship and fair play". I like the policy. It shows kids that small things can be done to contribute to the team. That's an attitude I see too little of, as kids grow up and enter the job market. Don

Does anyone know the status of Diamonds new and improved CP? If its out, what model is it. I'm looking to upgrade from my current one. Don

For LL no on-deck for 60' diamond, 90' yes. Don

MS This is where "indeference" comes into play. Your reference to 7.12 (I think you meant 7.11) indicates that the offense "SHALL VACATE" any space need by the defense. Shall equals must everywhere I know. With the bat in-hand, the ball thrown hits the bat, ball goes out of play. With the bat static on the ground, ball doesn't strike bat, ball stays in play. And continous action can still occur. Defense's option. Ball out of play, no option for the defense. The on-deck batter has to pay attention to where he is placing himself. He shall not get in the way. In 5.08 the base coach interfers with a thrown ball, runner can be called out based on umpires judgment. Much the same way type "B" OBS allows for umpires judgement. Point being, leave open the distinct possibilty the the on-deck batter screwed up and should have/could have left the bat alone for the time being. Continous play was not over and he injected himself into the ongoing play. That's indeference. Just like the umpires "ya' gotta keep your eye on the ball". For all who just generically just say no INT, they ott to review the thread and all of the scenarios that can occur had the ball not left the field of play. I guess we can agree to disagree. But consider that watching the entire play would certinly make the situation much clearer. Sometimes you just have to umpire. So if you rule no INT, what happened to R1 and the BR left out on the base path. If you ruled INT, what would you have done with R1 and the BR. Don

In the origional thread you have R1 rounding 3rd, & heading home. Right? Does the ball leave the field of play prior to R1 aquiring home? Is F2 or other fielder attempting to field the errant throw? If R1 reads the errant throw and continues on to score, with out a play, you still have BR out on the base path. Must the defense forgo any further play on him because the ball is now out of play? I've seen many off-line throws result in a out elsewhere on the field because the defense didn't give up on the errant throw. The old "give up a run and gain an out". What are you going to do the the BR at this point? The on-deck batter created a situation that brought to a halt all play and the offense shouldn't be allowed to gain any advantage due to his actions. This for me fits into the HTBT and see it before it becomes a concrete call. Don

The RIM is silent concerning the on deck batter. It only addresses the base coach, runner & umpire specifically and the offense in general. Agreed that it is common practice for the on deck to "coach" a runner coming home but he (the on deck batter) still can't physically inject himself into the play. I have not found any reference sustaining the position of no INT. If you have one please provide.

The mechanics that MS described are right on for everythng but FED ball. Why is Fed so different? Don

At the '08 LLWR JRBB tournament, I was asked why I said "play" and point after every dead ball. It caught me off guard. Of the 8 umpires on the crew, 6 said they put the ball back in play, while 2 said "no need to, it's implied". When you have umpires you haven't worked with at all, why would you place the base umpires in a position of uncertainty on a pick off or attempted steal if they can't tell when the ball is live. Surprisingly these 2 also work small college BB as well as LL. Don

The games I see type B OBS on a regular basis is for 14yo and younger. Bad coaching I guess. But in the last few seasons it's rare if I DON'T have a least 1 type B OBS in a game for these ages. But as my assoc made this a concerted effort to call/signal it, it disappeared quickly this season. The proper mechanic for type B OBS is to vocalize it while pointing to the spot where it occured and allow play to continue. If play stops, that's not your problem. If you don't announce it and then go to enforce it be ready for a headache. It's not something you have to go hunting for. Don

That's OBS. Exactly as you described happens with great frequency. BR is looking at the ball after the hit & reading the defense to continue to 2nd or looking at the base coach and doesn't see F3...collision, or gets held up due to avoiding the collision. Or we see this one alot. Base hit. F3 goes and stands on on the bag after the hit, even though there won't be a throw to first. BR has to side step/go around and reach-step for a touch of the base. I know. Poor coaching, but it happens. But it occures at all the bases. And each time we as umpires need to call it! This year my assoc made a point of calling it all the time, and by the end of the season the type B OBS had almost disappeared. Early in the year I was explaining the OBS call to many a coach/manager after the game. Or should I say holding class. Don

There have been several instances where one LL Region has taught differently than another. I can only address what is instructed by the Region where I get my instruction. Even Williamsport differs when responding directly to questions submitted for interpretation. In this thread we were discussing "type A" OBS, which I was addressing. Not "type B".

What level of play was this? Since I can't read the mind of the on-deck batter I have to read his actions. The on-deck batter is allowed in the on-deck area. That's a given. He's there to warm-up, not chase bats. His presence is not required anywhere else until we need a new batter. If the on-deck batter stays in the on-deck circle, the errant throw probably stays in the field of play. R1 might have the opportunity to advance to home if the ball gets away from F2. Or if F2 fields the ball the defense could have an opportunity to make a play on R1 at home because the pitcher covers the plate. We'll never find out since the on-deck batter got in the way. So what happened to R1? Did he come home or stay at 3rd base? What was F1 doing? Did he cover the plate or was he backing up the throw to F2? Since the ball left the field of play as the result of the actions of the on-deck batter, he influenced the continous play. The actions of the offense deprived the defense of the opportunity to attempt further play on the offense. But do these actions warrant a call of INT? Remember that Offensive INT by definition is "an act by the team at bat which interfers with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play ". The LL instructor notes in the Rules Instruction Manual indicate that the interference does not have be be intentional. I guess you HTBT. But I'm inclined to not allow R1 to score at the very least. Don