In this thread, we post LLWS observations

[Jimurray]

does LL use Fed guidelines for mound visits? I swear I saw the Panama coach make two visits in the first inning but wasn't watching close enough to be sure

No they don't - I believe it is 3rd in inning or 4 in a game. That resets for each pitcher.

Correct. And they mirror OBR but add another visit so the third visit with the same batter is prohibited. They don't give the procedure if this is violated as OBR does though. Edited to add that the RIM does say that the manager is removed from the game but not the pitcher.

[Thunderheads]

Did you guys see the INT play in the WA v. CT game?

Was that done properly?

Jeff - via Tapatalk

[UmpJM]

Jeff,

 

Yes.

 

JM

[maineump]

I think that the announcer even read the rule book quote, after it happened. The guy at 3B had it right away, you could see him point right away.

[blue23ll]

What happened? I wasn't watching the game.

[Rich Ives]

The fielder (F6) fielded the ball then ran (2-3 steps) into the path of the runner (R2) as R2 was headed to 3B - no tag made.

 

F6 threw home after the collision and R3 got into a rundown - eventually tagged.

 

R2 ended up at 3B.

 

R2 was called out for int and R3 returned to 3B.

 

I'm thinking train wreck because I think F6 forfeited his protection when he chose to start running toward HP. If he had just thrown and been hit during that act then I'd have int.

 

If it was thus a train wreck, then R3 is out on the rundown tag and R2 is at 3B.  Same basic result. 

[UmpJM]

Rich,

 

I disagree that the fielder "forfeited his protection".

 

It looked to me like he was running AT the fielder in an attempt to tag him or get him to commit either forwards or backwards.

 

That is a legitimate attempt at a "play" ( per the MLBUM) and he retains his protection and right of way. It looked to me like the fielder and runner ran into each other - they were both moving, so I don't see what it means that the fielder ran into the runner (or the runner ran into the fielder, for that matter).

 

Per 7.08(b) (or whatever the LL equivalent is), the runner hindered the fielder in his attempt to make a play on a batted ball. That's interference. The ball is dead, R2 is out, R3 returns to 3B, and the BR is awarded 1B.

 

Agree that the end result would not be materially different.

 

JM

[blue23ll]

JM, what was the protection the fielder was entitled to? He had possession of the ball, as I understand the play. So, he was protected to be able to tag the runner? He choose not to, correct? He was not hindered in his attempt to 'field a batted ball', as he already did that. I could see interference if the runner hindered a throw, or attempted to dislodge the ball from the fielder's hand. I don't see interference if both fielder and runner were doing what  they are supposed to be doing, but just ended up in the same space. You can't expect the runner to vaporize, and the runner is not obligated to try to get in a run down to avoid a tag.

 

Now, I haven't seen the play, just reacting to what I have read.

[SJA]

Oh well, my.02 . . . I saw the play several times over. I have the R2 INT (unintentional and that doesn't matter in this case anyway) . . . F6 had fielded the ball and moves forward for the play at home unaware or even thinking about tagging R2 out. IMHO, R2 had time / could have avoided F6. Dead ball on INT, R2 out, R3 returns.

Just my .02 guys.

SJA

[mstaylor]

I didn't see the play so I can't comment but it sounds like a nothing. 

[mr magoo]

Doesn't the runner have the right to a clear running lane ?

[maineump]

Doesn't the runner have the right to a clear running lane ?

It looked to me that he ran in front of the defensive player, (and had a lane behind him), as he was looking to the plate. I think the runner had plenty of time to get around the defense.

 

Looked like a good call, that was called right away.

[UMP45]

Doesn't the runner have the right to a clear running lane ?

Yes but the fielder had the ball. Changes things.

[SJA]

It looked to me that he ran in front of the defensive player, (and had a lane behind him)

That is a point I failed to mention in my post.

:-)

[maineump]

 

Doesn't the runner have the right to a clear running lane ?

Yes but the fielder had the ball. Changes things.

 

The fielder had control of the ball (I don't know why he didn't tag the runner?) and was looking to make a play at the plate. The runner interfered with that play to the plate. It looked to me, that the defense was trying to get untangled from the runner to make the throw.

I am sure, with the noise there, that the players didn't hear the call from U3, that is why the play continued.

[maineump]

Now that they are down to championship rounds, hopefully the umpiring will be up to par. It is only right for the kids. There seems to be some good umpires there, hopefully they will get the slots.

[SJA]

The fielder had control of the ball (I don't know why he didn't tag the runner?)

He wasn't concerned or aware of R2. He was concentrating on the play at home. THAT was the game changer!

[maineump]

 

The fielder had control of the ball (I don't know why he didn't tag the runner?)

He wasn't concerned or aware of R2. He was concentrating on the play at home. THAT was the game changer!

 

That says what kind of player he is - he was totally focused on the job and preventing the run. He was focused on the hit, made sure he had the ball before making the throw. It's amazing some of the plays the kids have made this week - they are heads up to the situations - good mechanics and seem to dive when they know they can make the plays.

KUDOS to the kids!!

[Rich Ives]

Rich,

 

I disagree that the fielder "forfeited his protection".

 

It looked to me like he was running AT the fielder in an attempt to tag him or get him to commit either forwards or backwards.

 

That is a legitimate attempt at a "play" ( per the MLBUM) and he retains his protection and right of way. It looked to me like the fielder and runner ran into each other - they were both moving, so I don't see what it means that the fielder ran into the runner (or the runner ran into the fielder, for that matter).

 

Per 7.08(b) (or whatever the LL equivalent is), the runner hindered the fielder in his attempt to make a play on a batted ball. That's interference. The ball is dead, R2 is out, R3 returns to 3B, and the BR is awarded 1B.

 

Agree that the end result would not be materially different.

 

JM

 

 

He already fielded the batted ball. He had taken 2-3 steps toward HP and went into the path of R2.  If he had stayed back and thrown from there and R2 ran into him there, then I'd have int. But the fielder moved a distance and then into the runner's path. If this is considered int then we'd have fielders running across the field to jump into a runner's path to get a call. The protection ends.at some point. I think the fielder went beyond that point.

[blue23ll]

 

 

Doesn't the runner have the right to a clear running lane ?

Yes but the fielder had the ball. Changes things.

 

The fielder had control of the ball (I don't know why he didn't tag the runner?) and was looking to make a play at the plate. The runner interfered with that play to the plate. It looked to me, that the defense was trying to get untangled from the runner to make the throw.

I am sure, with the noise there, that the players didn't hear the call from U3, that is why the play continued.

 

Was the fielder in the process of throwing to the plate? Or was he just looking at the plate? If the fielder wasn't trying to tag the runner then he was in the runners way, no?

 

I have a train wreck, unless the fielder was in the process of throwing the ball to the plate.

[SJA]

This is merely an observation and question for individual thought.

If you are moving ahead in a "straight line" and there is an "object" moving from right to left in front of you, wouldn't your instinct be to move to the right and behind it instead of left and in front of it?

?

Here's the video: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9595510

Watch from 1:43 to the end. Also the slow play.

[blue23ll]

This is merely an observation and question for individual thought.

If you are moving ahead in a "straight line" and there is an "object" moving from right to left in front of you, wouldn't your instinct be to move to the right and behind it instead of left and in front of it?

?

 

My baseball instinct tells me that if I'm a runner and I know a guy with the baseball is coming at me, then I would try to avoid the tag. My baseball instinct tells me that if I am a fielder and I have the ball, I tag a runner in front of me. So, apparently this play was out of the ordinary and surprised both the umps and players involved.

[SJA]

The fielder apparently was NOT attempting to tag R2 and he wasn't coming at him. 3rd time I'll say it . . . he wasn't even aware of him!

[blue23ll]

I saw the clip, I have nothing on this play. Fielder has no protection in this case.

[KLAH316]

Japan vs. Mexico PU looks pretty solid.