Pray this never happens in your game!

[grayhawk]

Yes: the defense should appeal R3's missed base, which has the potential to negate both runs.

Is that what you wanted to discuss, Jeff? Just making sure I'm doing this right.

yes sir!

Ok maven, stay with me ...... R3 came back to touch though, yes?

Yes, but after R2 scored. He cannot legally return to touch and would be out on appeal which would negate R3's run if the appeal is the third (or fourth) out.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

Yes: the defense should appeal R3's missed base, which has the potential to negate both runs.

Is that what you wanted to discuss, Jeff? Just making sure I'm doing this right.

yes sir!

Ok maven, stay with me ...... R3 came back to touch though, yes?

 

Yes, but after R2 scored. He cannot legally return to touch and would be out on appeal which would negate R3's run if the appeal is the third (or fourth) out.

 

ok..... thanks, that's what I was getting at .....R3 can't retouch once R2 scores

[JaxRolo]

 

Yes: the defense should appeal

R3

's missed base, which has the potential to negate both runs.

 

Is that what you wanted to discuss, Jeff? Just making sure I'm doing this right.

yes sir!

Ok maven, stay with me ...... R3 came back to touch though, yes?

 

Is hard to tell which one touched Home first. But why not appeal?

[zm1283]

I don't have MC here either. It looks to me like R3 pulls his arms up toward himself and braces for the contact, but he doesn't initiate anything malicious and only hits the catcher's arms/glove. 

 

I would definitely appeal R3 if I were the defense. Who knows if they actually did or not. R2 scored before R3 retouched.

[Forest Ump]

My take. Looks like a college level game.  They appear to be working three man with less than two out, R2 and R3. No MC. Doesn't exist at the college level. Score two runs unless they appeal R3 missing home. If the appeal is upheld, and it should be, then you have one run scoring with two or no runs scoring with three outs. Teach PU to take point of plate and then go to 3BLE for this play.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Forest Ump

[maven]

If the appeal is upheld, and it should be, then you have one run scoring with two or three outs.

 

@Forest Ump, suppose we have an appeal of R3's missed base, suppose that the appeal is upheld, and suppose the appeal is the third out of the inning.

 

You want to stick with 1 run (R2, presumably) scoring in that scenario?

[Forest Ump]

Good catch Maven. I didn't think that one all the way through. No run can score when the third out is made by a preceding runner. Fixed it.

[noumpere]

My take. Looks like a college level game. 

It does?  Not to me.  99% it's a HS game.

[UmpJM]

It was a HS game.

 

Train wreck. Live ball, play the bounce.

 

If R3's miss is appealed for the 3rd (or "apparent 4th") out of the half inning, no run scores on the play.

 

PU did not appear to be in a good position on the play.

 

JM

[Forest Ump]

I was looking at the full beard of F1 so I thought it might be college. Course I have seen freshman with beards. I see the catcher has a one piece also, so I think you're right that it is HS. Dosen't change anything. No MC on this.

[goody14]

It is high school.  They are two teams from Northwest Indiana - about 30 minutes from Chicago.

 

Assuming this is 2014 video, Portage played and beat Merrillville 10-0 last Saturday (http://www.portage.k12.in.us/Page/749)

 

Merrillville is the team batting in this video.  Since we know they got 0 runs...this was either called MC or there was a successful appeal of a 3rd or 4th out.  

 

So, I just spent 10 minutes to tell you exactly what you already knew (I guess it does rule out any scenarios without appeals as a run would have scored then)...this is the type of value I bring daily.

 

The local newspapers did not cover the game in their on-line additions.  

[grayhawk]

According to a commenter on Youtube, the result of the play was:

 

R3 called out for interference (not MC).  R2 returned to second and BR was awarded first.

[Thunderheads]

According to a commenter on Youtube, the result of the play was:

 

R3 called out for interference (not MC).  R2 returned to second and BR was awarded first.

ok ..

let's say R3 IS out for INT.  Why would they return him to second? Did he not establish third at the time of INT?

[Rulekeep]

I cried when I saw that play.

[maven]

 

According to a commenter on Youtube, the result of the play was:

 

R3 called out for interference (not MC).  R2 returned to second and BR was awarded first.

ok ..

let's say R3 IS out for INT.  Why would they return him to second? Did he not establish third at the time of INT?

 

 

That's an excellent question, Jeff. I wouldn't put it in terms of "establishing" anything: runners return to their TOI bases per 2.21.1B.

 

PU must have judged that R3 intentionally knocked the ball out, violating 8-4-2-r. I don't agree, but if that's what he's calling it would be INT.

[grayhawk]

 

According to a commenter on Youtube, the result of the play was:

 

R3 called out for interference (not MC).  R2 returned to second and BR was awarded first.

ok ..

let's say R3 IS out for INT.  Why would they return him to second? Did he not establish third at the time of INT?

 

 

Just went back and re-read the comment.  They put R2 on third, not second.

[mjr_2013]

Anyone else here have obstruction on F2? He seems to be in legal position to start, but then takes a hop right into R3's basepath at the last second, BEFORE he has possession of the ball.

 

Secondary question - Say we do have OBS here, is R3 allowed to touch home after R2 because of the OBS?

[maven]

Anyone else here have obstruction on F2? He seems to be in legal position to start, but then takes a hop right into R3's basepath at the last second, BEFORE he has possession of the ball.

Secondary question - Say we do have OBS here, is R3 allowed to touch home after R2 because of the OBS?

That's not OBS: you're right that he's "in the path," but the runner's not there yet. No hindrance = no OBS. If F2 walks past the plate in the runner's "path" while he's still at 3B, are you calling that OBS?

In general, if you rule OBS and you rule that the OBS caused the runner to miss a base, you can award the touch as part of nullifying the OBS. Simply deny the appeal, if one is made.

[grayhawk]

I think it's close to OBS, but F2 got the ball in time. Hard to tell from the camera angle because the runner doesn't come into the frame until F2 gloves the ball. It's one of the reasons 3blx is a better angle because it's all in front of you.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

That's an excellent question, Jeff. I wouldn't put it in terms of "establishing" anything: runners return to their TOI bases per 2.21.1B.

 

PU must have judged that R3 intentionally knocked the ball out, violating 8-4-2-r. I don't agree, but if that's what he's calling it would be INT.

 

He could also have INT for "failing to make a legal attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" or whatever the specific wording is -- somewhere early in 8-4-2 (maybe "c"? -- I need to get my books here).

 

Also not sure I agree with that -- but it's a possibility for the PU

[maven]

Very good: it is indeed 8-4-2-c: "does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him."
 

Some guys seem to feel that contact requires a call.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

 

That's an excellent question, Jeff. I wouldn't put it in terms of "establishing" anything: runners return to their TOI bases per 2.21.1B.

 

PU must have judged that R3 intentionally knocked the ball out, violating 8-4-2-r. I don't agree, but if that's what he's calling it would be INT.

 

He could also have INT for "failing to make a legal attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" or whatever the specific wording is -- somewhere early in 8-4-2 (maybe "c"? -- I need to get my books here).

 

Also not sure I agree with that -- but it's a possibility for the PU

 

isn't 8-4-2 c verbiage for 'not diving over' or jumping over a fielder?

 

Like Grayhawk asked me when I posed the same question ..... "how did he ILLEGALLY avoid the fielder?"

[ALStripes17]

That's an excellent question, Jeff. I wouldn't put it in terms of "establishing" anything: runners return to their TOI bases per 2.21.1B.

PU must have judged that R3 intentionally knocked the ball out, violating 8-4-2-r. I don't agree, but if that's what he's calling it would be INT.

He could also have INT for "failing to make a legal attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" or whatever the specific wording is -- somewhere early in 8-4-2 (maybe "c"? -- I need to get my books here).

Also not sure I agree with that -- but it's a possibility for the PU

isn't 8-4-2 c verbiage for 'not diving over' or jumping over a fielder?

Like Grayhawk asked me when I posed the same question ..... "how did he ILLEGALLY avoid the fielder?"

Open up a space-time continuum in front of F2 which propels R to the HP side of F2. Would cause fits with the presidential administration. Illegal in some aspect (perhaps a common law within our galaxy committee). Ok, I stayed up too late and its way too early ... coffee coffee coffee coffee

[noumpere]

 

 

 

 

 

That's an excellent question, Jeff. I wouldn't put it in terms of "establishing" anything: runners return to their TOI bases per 2.21.1B.

 

PU must have judged that R3 intentionally knocked the ball out, violating 8-4-2-r. I don't agree, but if that's what he's calling it would be INT.

 

He could also have INT for "failing to make a legal attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" or whatever the specific wording is -- somewhere early in 8-4-2 (maybe "c"? -- I need to get my books here).

 

Also not sure I agree with that -- but it's a possibility for the PU

 

isn't 8-4-2 c verbiage for 'not diving over' or jumping over a fielder?

 

Like Grayhawk asked me when I posed the same question ..... "how did he ILLEGALLY avoid the fielder?"

 

Diving / jumping are examples of illegally attempting to avoid.

 

But just running through (even non maliciously) is an example of not attempting to legally avoid.

 

Not saying it happened in this play, but I have seen it and it might be what the PU had.

[maven]

isn't 8-4-2 c verbiage for 'not diving over' or jumping over a fielder?

 

Like Grayhawk asked me when I posed the same question ..... "how did he ILLEGALLY avoid the fielder?"

No, that's d.

 

And it's crucial to understand the difference: diving might yield no contact at all and not hinder the fielder. By itself, it is not INT: the runner is out for diving, but the ball remains live on a dive.

 

This PU ruled INT (whatever the basis), and that made the ball dead.