KYFEDUMP

You're partially right. It is a delayed dead ball. However,if the runner from third was tagged out on the play, time would be called and he would be awarded the plate. Runners advancing on a catcher's obstruction (even though it's commonly called interference) would be awarded the base they are advancing to and the batter would be awarded first base. In this game ending scenario, either the runner from third scores or ,if he is tagged before reaching the plate, time is called and he is awarded the plate. Either way, he would score. You would not send him back to third. (If he was not advancing on the play, he would not be awarded the plate and your take on the situation would be correct.

Gene Copley from the 15th Region.

First Round Winners 1 - Lawrence County 1 - Bullitt East 1 - Lexington Catholic 1 - Harrison County Championship game 3 - Bullitt East 3 - Harrison County State Champ 5 - Harrison County Total Runs - 9

KY Thorobred, In the section of the NFHS rulebook relative to bench and field conduct, the restriction option is only mentioned in relation to coaches behavior. When a penalty for a violation of a player conduct rule is mentioned, ejection is the only option.

KY Thorobred, It's the penalty part of NFHS 1-5-1. The warning goes to the coach of the offending team only, not the player. It's a team warning (not an individual warning). The next member of the team who deliberately removes his helmet during a live ball (after the warning) is ejected. The other team is not affected. They would be subject to getting a warning first as well.

JBC, I have read the numerous posts on this thread regarding the play (including yours). Due to misconceptions by some of the posters regarding rule application to the situation, I thought I would post some clarifications from an umpire's perspective. 1. I know the plate umpire in this game personally and he is an excellent umpire. I was not there personally but I'm sure that he got the call right. The key for an umpire is "did the runner have time to read the situation and avoid the contact?" . When a runner makes a conscious decision to go into the fielder with a lowered shoulder, it is malicious regardless of the speed that it occurs. If the arrival of the ball and the runner occur simultaneously, the runner will typically put out his hands/arms to "brace for impact". He does not lower his shoulder. 2. By accepting your detailed post as fact,the runner at 2nd that was safe intially could have been called out for abandonment. However, that is a judgement call. A batter who can run on a dropped third strike but doesn't initially cannot be called out until he has entered the dugout. He can head to first at anytime before that point. Runners already on the bases can be called out if they obviously abandon the right to proceed. They are not protected until they enter the dugout. #3. Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction. Bottom line, being obstructed does not give the runner the right to clear a path to the base they are trying to acquire. They must go around the obstruction. It is up to the umpire to determine if the obstruction causes the runner to be called out. If that happens (runner called out after being obstructed), he calls time and awards the runner the base. #4 A runner cannot be called out for removing his helmet during a live ball situation. A warning is issued and the next offender for that team is ejected. The ejected runner is replaced and no out is called. #5 Runners are never required to slide. However, if they do slide, it must be a legal slide. #6 The base coach for Beechwood was ejected for charging an umpire. NOTE: New rule in Kentucky this year, if an assistant coach is ejected; the head coach is restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game. Clyde has already stated most of the above points but I thought that a second opinion on the numerous issues raised couldn't hurt...

CTK, The tournament manager has nothing to do with the game schedule. KHSAA has all of the scenarios covered. The only changes have been due to graduation schedules and they are on the Riherd scoreboard. All of the semi-states begin either on Monday or Tuesday (after which point, they are governed by the KHSAA guidelines). Check out the following link for details. http://www.khsaa.org/baseball/semistateinstructions.pdf

I believe that the above language should have read "He should have already been in the dugout". That statement, my friends, is a very public and direct way of arguing balls and strikes. Any coach that knows the game should know that he was stepping off a cliff with a "public" statement like that...:ohbrother: On the information supplied by this post and the previous posters, he needed to go and the umpire accommodated him...:clap:

You are correct, Clyde....I wondered if anyone else would notice that fact. Did this no call have a bearing on the outcome (i.e. runs scored after this play with two out)? If so, it would have been a shame. In a four man system, the second base umpire should have had a clear view of this particular play.

WOW....honestly, did anyone see this one coming? I thought Greenup was in the same position that Lawrence County was in the 15th last year...everyone else playing for runnerup...

Gentlemen, Welcome to the yin and yang of the public view of the great profession of umpiring....as one of the great sages once said, " Beauty (or lack thereof) is in the eye of the beholder". :lol:

As a general rule, your statement is correct. And, in relation to the "ball toss", it would depend on "how" the player tossed the ball towards the umpire and the player's demeanor as he did so. Either the statement OR the ball toss would warrant an ejection. However, anytime criticism is "personalized" (i.e. using the word "you" as part of a derogatory comment) as a public (loud enough for others to hear) statement, the offender is ejected (coach or player).

Clyde, Note the part about calling the pitch either a ball or a strike. If a strike on the pitch (you could get another for stepping out with both feet without time), you COULD get two strikes on one play. I've seen it called once in a game several years ago when the HS rules at that time necessitated that the batter keep one foot in the box. As a general rule, you'll never see that called unless some player/team makes a habit of calling time and stepping out before it's granted. If you did have to call it, you could add "eject coach" on the end of the rule.

In that case, it should not have been a balk. I have quoted the entire rule from the 2009 NFHS rule book. NFHS 2009 Rule Book6-2-4-d-1- "if the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or © holds up his hand to request "Time", it shall not be a balk. In (a) and ©, there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b), and ©, if the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a ball or a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the umpire judges the batter's action to be deliberate attempt to create a balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1-o." NOTE:3-3-1-o mandates ejection for someone that deliberately tries to cause a balk.

I'm just curious about this call, did the batter step out of the box or make any other motion that indicated that he had already been granted time? The actions of the batter in these kinds of instances (including yelling TIME, TIME) cannot cause a pitcher to balk. The right call would be a no pitch-do over. OR, is it a HTBT situation?

Very accurate observation, Clyde. If you are an umpire and you do care about fan criticism, you're definitely in the wrong profession. The sad part of this "time honored" tradition is that it does cause a number of otherwise good, young umpires to question the wisdom of their choice. The more experienced umpires have to tell them that the heckling is part of the deal (and usually has nothing to do with the job they are doing that day) and that they need to learn to block it out or they're in for a very unsatisfying experience. Every year two or three umpires quit or "retire" because they can't get used to the abuse or they finally get tired of listening to it. The guys that remain consider it an "occupational" hazard and tune it out. PS...You learn a lot of self control in this business that carries over well into other aspects of your life. It's just that sometimes someone (or something) gets under your skin no matter how well trained you are to ignore it. You have to put on a "happy" face and pretend not to care. Like it or not, we're judged at a higher standard that players, fans, or coaches regarding our behavior.

CCHS Dad, Kudos for your most excellent and accurate post.:thumb: HT2005's posts remind me of the old Indian saying "Do not judge until you have walked a mile in his mocassins" (or something to that effect).

JPA, That situation is a little different, but you're basically correct. If the BR touches second, comes off headed towards third, and then reverses direction (for example, on a caught fly ball on a hit and run play), he must retouch second on his way back to first. If he misses second on the way back, it's a timing play on the appeal. If he retouches second on his way back, he does reinstate the force at second (for example, thinking that the ball had been caught when it wasn't, retracing by way of second to return to first base, and then being forced out at second on the reinstated force play). In the first instance, runs may score if the third out is made on the appeal play. In the second instance, no runs will score if the third out is a force out (which would technically not be an appeal in this case). The umpire might have to indicate to the coach (and/or official scorer) the nature of the out if the ball was just thrown to second for an "obvious" appeal.

Clyde, You are absolutely correct....

All the above points are correct, Clyde. As we (or I) learned from an earlier rules quiz post, under OBR the play could be appealed until the first pitch to a subsequent batter in the next inning. :thumb:

Clyde, 2009 NFHS Casebook 2.29.3 Situation

Two outs...no runs score. By returning to first after touching second, the force out situation at second is reinstated. Since the third out was a result of the force out at second, no runs score.

Or....it could be that the two coaches got involved in an "altercation" for some reason and both of them got dumped at the same time. I wouldn't automatically assume that "questionable" calls were the reason.

Clyde, You are correct...I was referencing NFHS (which is what I deal with 90% of the time). Glad you pointed that one out.