Hidden ball trick

[Thatsnotyou]

What do you have here? Fed rules. Watch it a few times so you can see when and why the runner came off the bag. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cdyunr3PlI6/?fbclid=IwAR1r8qtbVw7KajAP0B1qH9xsTUZ4vXVl1NxYCdvc0kP8LZvxOKbxqlZceXE

[Jimurray]

23 minutes ago, Thatsnotyou said:

What do you have here? Fed rules. Watch it a few times so you can see when and why the runner came off the bag. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cdyunr3PlI6/?fbclid=IwAR1r8qtbVw7KajAP0B1qH9xsTUZ4vXVl1NxYCdvc0kP8LZvxOKbxqlZceXE

In any code you could have unsportsmanlike conduct with the kick and the out would not happen. But you would have to see the kick.

[ErichKeane]

So do I see it right, he slowly 'kicked at' the BR, so that the BR would move his foot, then tag him?  If he'd made contact, I'd probably eject him with 3-3-1m (malicious contact). 

Otherwise, this is an unsportsmanlike act, so 3-3-1f:
commit any unsportsmanlike act to include but not limited to...

(4)behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play;

Penalty is likely going to be a verbal or written warning, though written warning is a 'restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game', which is essentially an ejection on the player.

 

I'd hope I'd see what caused it and would think quickly enough to make that determination, or at least had a partner who would discuss it with me enough to come to that conclusion.

[agdz59]

Yeah.  If 1B waits until he leaves the bag on his own, that would be one thing, but he 'cleans' the base with the swipe of his foot and the runner steps back to let him do it.  You don't want to encourage that  IMO. 

[Catch18]

So do I see it right, he slowly 'kicked at' the BR, so that the BR would move his foot, then tag him?  If he'd made contact, I'd probably eject him with 3-3-1m (malicious contact). 
Otherwise, this is an unsportsmanlike act, so 3-3-1f:
commit any unsportsmanlike act to include but not limited to...
(4)behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play;
Penalty is likely going to be a verbal or written warning, though written warning is a 'restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game', which is essentially an ejection on the player.
 
I'd hope I'd see what caused it and would think quickly enough to make that determination, or at least had a partner who would discuss it with me enough to come to that conclusion.

You put quotation marks around “kicked at”…making me think you’re trying to somehow get there….and you want to rule MC? To me, that looked like the least malicious malice in the history of maliciousness.

[ErichKeane]

35 minutes ago, Catch18 said:

You put quotation marks around “kicked at”…making me think you’re trying to somehow get there….and you want to rule MC? To me, that looked like the least malicious malice in the history of maliciousness.

Quotes were to highlight the possible justification. But I think if, even with minimal force, a player walked up and kicked another player, I'd have a hard time NOT calling MC. Kicking a player is absolutely MC all day, even if it is gentle (barring some level of friendly banter/etc, but that is typically obvious).

In this case it fails at "contact", not "malicious" because the BR avoided it.

I think my most justifiable punishment is a written warning, which is banishment to the bench (which is essentially what an ejection is for a player).

[agdz59]

You think he kicked at the runner?  Looks to me like he's brushing off the bag.

[ErichKeane]

1 minute ago, agdz59 said:

You think he kicked at the runner?  Looks to me like he's brushing off the bag.

Maybe?  How would you brush off a base with cleats on?  Perhaps hard to tell with all of 3 pixels in the video.  That said, watching it on a bigger screen, I can see it is a much less violent looking of kick than I thought.  I don't think I could defend Malicious Contact now that I see it better.

That said, the definition of 'malicious contact' is undefined in NFHS (though, currently watching this, as it is on my youtube watch-later playlist:

.

The softball rule is interesting, but obviously not all-encompassing.

 

Now that I see this better, I think a written warning for unsportsmanlike conduct would be overkill, I'd probably just call the BR safe and have a chat with F3 and his coach.  I think it fits Obstruction in this case, which would have the award of giving him back the base.

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, ErichKeane said:

 I think it fits Obstruction in this case, which would have the award of giving him back the base.

In FED, and in OBR with a play being made, OBS has a minimum award of one base -- you can't just "give him back the base"

[maven]

It's not MC, because it's not malicious. Malicious acts may vary, but generally they involve violent intentional contact with the intent to injure. None of those apply here.

It's not OBS because the runner isn't hindered in his attempt to reach a base.

I gather this is from pro ball: the out stands. In amateur ball, I'd kill it, put the BR back on 1B, and tell F3 to KTSO.

[ErichKeane]

33 minutes ago, maven said:

It's not MC, because it's not malicious. Malicious acts may vary, but generally they involve violent intentional contact with the intent to injure. None of those apply here.

It's not OBS because the runner isn't hindered in his attempt to reach a base.

I gather this is from pro ball: the out stands. In amateur ball, I'd kill it, put the BR back on 1B, and tell F3 to KTSO.

I agree on MC.

As far as OBS, by my reading (and perhaps I'm just being overly pedantic with the parsing of the NFHS rule book), it is still OBS, but falls under the Rule 2 penalty, not the 1 base minimum in 8-3-2, as it doesn't apply (since he isn't attempting to advance/return to a base).

 

2-22-1:

"Obstruction is an act (intentional or unintentional, as well as phsyical or verbal) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team, or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of the play as in 5-1-3 and 8-3-2; or when a catcher or fielder hinders a batter as in 5-1-2b, 8-1-1e, 9-3-1c, and 8-3-2.  When obstruction occurs, the ball becomes dead at the end of the playing action and the umpire has the authority to determine which base or bases shall be awarded the runners according to the rule violated(Exceptions 8-4-2c, 8-4-2d).

 

 

From my reading, this is obstruction as it 'an act.. that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of the play'.  It however does NOT fall under the 5-1-3 (as it isn't an intentional walk or baserunning award) or 8-3-2 (as he his not advancing nor returning).  'As in' (at least in ISO/ANSI phrasing) means "for example", but not an exclusive list.  Since it isn't 8-3-2, there is no requirement of a single base, so we fall back to the "When obstruction occurs" sentence, so the ball becomes dead and the umpire has the authority to determine the bases.

THAT SAID, if 'as in' is being used incorrectly here, I could see that list intending to be exhaustive.

 

 

 

[maven]

This is not OBS, it's a hidden ball trick that involves more than the usual amount of deceit. You'll live longer and have better games if you invert your approach: stop looking for a way to call something based on a definition in the book. If your explanation starts with "Technically..." don't call that.

I'm a football official, and when we officiate trick plays, all the ticky-tack stuff we usually ignore has to be done perfectly. So that slight illegal shift, as the motion guy starts just as everyone comes set, or that slight illegal formation, where technically 5 are in the backfield, will now get called.

This video is an example of how to apply the same philosophy in baseball. If the defense wants to run the hidden ball trick, fine, but they don't ALSO get to trick the runner off the base (except maybe in pro ball, which I don't work). Kill it & fix it.

[ErichKeane]

3 minutes ago, maven said:

This is not OBS, it's a hidden ball trick that involves more than the usual amount of deceit. You'll live longer and have better games if you invert your approach: stop looking for a way to call something based on a definition in the book. If your explanation starts with "Technically..." don't call that.

I'm a football official, and when we officiate trick plays, all the ticky-tack stuff we usually ignore has to be done perfectly. So that slight illegal shift, as the motion guy starts just as everyone comes set, or that slight illegal formation, where technically 5 are in the backfield, will now get called.

This video is an example of how to apply the same philosophy in baseball. If the defense wants to run the hidden ball trick, fine, but they don't ALSO get to trick the runner off the base (except maybe in pro ball, which I don't work). Kill it & fix it.

My point is to try to find justification for killing and fixing this.  So "Sportsmanship" is as best I can come up with, but as it is so subjective, it would be nice to have a separate rule to apply as further justification.

[maven]

If I see it developing, I'll kill it to tie my shoe.

If I don't, I'll treat it like being pushed off the base.

If the other coach hears you claiming a sportsmanship issue, you'll need to impose the proper penalty for that kind of violation.

[Thatsnotyou]

On 5/24/2022 at 7:21 AM, maven said:

It's not MC, because it's not malicious. Malicious acts may vary, but generally they involve violent intentional contact with the intent to injure. None of those apply here.

It's not OBS because the runner isn't hindered in his attempt to reach a base.

I gather this is from pro ball: the out stands. In amateur ball, I'd kill it, put the BR back on 1B, and tell F3 to KTSO.

This is exactly how I’d handle it in Fed. Time, no that’s not an out, knock it off. Coach will likely want an explanation. Well coach, the runner came off the bag only due to your fielder’s action, swiping at his foot. We’re not getting an out for that. 

[beerguy55]

To the other half of the trick here - I'm not sure I have a tag even if the fielder stepped off voluntarily...the ball is not held securely IN the glove, is it?

Could we be real pricks to the defense and call it a lodged ball?