KYFEDUMP

CK...You are correct....I skipped over the "while advancing" requirement. If lodged in a defensive player's uniform under the same scenario, the award would be third base if the runner had acquired second before the ball became dead. PS....Yes...it was funny...the only reason that I was able to know where the "missing" pitch was that I keep a max of three balls in each ball bag and I discovered that I had four in the right hand side.

The rule reference is dead on....however, the umpire might rule that the player had legally acquired second base at the time the ball became dead and send him on to third. One base is the award on a lodged ball in equipment or uniform regardless of whether the player is on offense or defense (or an umpire for that matter). Once,I had a pitch find its way into my ball bag and had to make the award. The catcher ran around the backstop three times trying to find it. :lol:

Lights Out 30, Each situation is different but I do have some comments. As a current HS umpire, IF the batter does show you up, you eject him (not restrict). As one of the later posters stated, restriction is for coaches not players. The manner and severity of the degree of protest would dictate whether you give him a brief etiquette lesson or the heave-ho. The problem that I see everyday is, for the most part, coaches do not step in when player "misbehaves". In fact, some coaches use your etiquette lessons as a reason to jump in the fray themselves. I do college ball also, and you never see this kind of situation happen there. Even if its a bad call, they know that protest will get them a quick trip to the bus (or their coach on their rear end). And, to answer the second question, the posters have it right. You do not have an out, the substitute batter for the ejected/restricted player takes over the at bat with the inherited count.

TGG, I'm convinced that you have hit the nail squarely on the head....too many times this year, I've had to quieten a team down from making derogatory statements directed at the other team (ex. get a bucket, he's throwing up...) and other comments along with cautioning players about questioning calls, throwing equipment in the dugout, etc. Not once this past year have I seen a coach take a player aside after an unsportsmanlike display or get any help from them in keeping their players in line when they needed it. It's a sad comment on the times we live in. AND, to add insult to injury, we generally get some grief from the coaching staffs when we have to apply their discipline for them. Are coaches afraid that players will quit if they discipline them? Or, are they afraid of potential fallout from players' parents and/or administration? I would like to know what all of you think that the reason(s) for the lack of sportsmanship and discipline is relative to baseball? Anyone?

I would be more interested in what he had to say to them when they were in the midst of the nine game losing streak that took them into their first district tournament game That is, if it could be repeated in print :fire:

You are correct....same result as malicious contact after scoring...run counts, runner ejected, and no out recorded...:thumb:

cshs81, you are exactly correct....NFHS rules, he's out

cshs81, you hit the nail on the head. Rule 2.28.3 of the NFHS Rule Book defines the "time of pitch". It is when the pitcher has committed himself to delivering the pitch to the batter. Lot of language in there, but basically it's any movement of the arms or legs after coming set (either windup or set position) that would commit the pitcher to delivering a pitch. Using that definition, I have to rethink my original opinion on whether the catcher actually moved out of the box prior to "time of pitch" on the controversial no call. It might have just "looked" bad but a legal move. (Note: Next time you see an intentional walk in a MLB game, notice when the catcher moves out of the box to the side. It's when the pitcher first starts his motion (which is consistent with the wording of the NFHS rule). In other words, it appears that the rule is the same for OBR.

QS, and anyone else for that matter....what was so poorly officiated in the title game? The two calls that have been discussed, (the catcher's balk, which is rarely called at ANY level), and the interference play at second (which I saw with a good angle) that was the right call, though not a popular one. There was a tangle up at third that COULD have been obstruction, but the tangle up was going back to the base,not with the runner trying to advance. In my judgement, it could have been called if the runner had then tried to make it home, but he didn't. But that one was IFFY at best. And, I saw a mechanics error with the ump at second coming to third (with a runner) to make a call with the third base ump standing there (which was definitely the right call BTW). Mechanics errors sometime happen when you go to four man because this is the only time all year that you work with that many umps. They have a two hour class the day before the tournament starts to go over coverages but it's difficult to get in the flow because you have to think quite a bit prior to the play happening (ex. ball hit to right field with runner on first, two outs, I go here, check tag there, watch touch of base here). It's tough because we do it so rarely. We do two man all year, three man in the district, and four man in the regional. And, the plate umpire (who is the umpire in chief for the day) calls the coverages in pregame and not all umps do things the same way. (I know, I know, we should go by the book, but there are options, such as which side of second that the second base umpire should set up on in four man with runners on). So at best, four man is sort of strange, even with a crew that have worked a lot together, which these umpires had not due to being from different regions. But, back to my original point, what was so terrible about the officiating? It appeared to me that the plate ump had a good consistent strike zone. All of the safe-outs I saw appeared to be correct. There was only one banger that I remember at first and I thought the ump got it right. Anyone who was at the finals, weigh in here. What was so bad? I did see a couple of judgement calls in the semi-finals that I thought were booted, but none of them changed the course of either game. I did not see Wednesday or Thursday night's games so I can't comment on them. Where they THAT bad?

SM, remember I don't write the rules, I just enforce them!

I hate to hear that....a person in his position should stand up for his "employees", not publically denigrate them. Poor officiating or not, he should have stood up for them.

I have a question, then, is this secondhand information or did you hear him say that personally? If secondhand, the reliability of the sources come into question.....

Fairfan, I witnessed this play with my own eyes and the contact was clearly made on the left field side of the bag, not on top of it. Anyway, HS ball (and a lot of the rules) are all about safety. You see double plays broken up all the time on TV with wide slides, or sliding over the bag. It's just not legal in NFHS. Grab a rule book and read the above referenced rule (2-32).

I don't believe you regarding your statement about Julian on the interference call at second. Also, I don't believe he would publically say that the officiating was poor either,regardless of what he might have thought personally. I saw some blown calls but not enough to make a blanket statement that the officiating was poor.

That is pretty much correct for NFHS rules, you have to slide directly to the base and not overslide it and make contact. You can break up a double play by executing a legal slide and making contact but on the first base side of the bag. If you overslide and make contact, it's an illegal slide by rule. Pop up slides are not illegal per se, but they are if they alter the fielder's play (either catch or throw). In other words,pop up slides are not interference by automatic rule, but interference due to umpire's judgement. The slide leg cannot be raised above the fielder's knee or no intent to "slash" or "kick". This information is in the NFHS rule book Rule 2-32 (Articles 1 and 2), which is the definitions for legal and illegal slides.

I have to disagree with you....I was at the game and I saw the interference call from the third base side. It was definitely interference, the runner is not allowed to slide past the bag and make contact (which he did). His legs made contact with the fielder on the left field side of the bag (and put the fielder on the ground). I saw a few questionable calls during the tournament and some out right "blown" calls, but this play was not one of them. The second base ump got this one right. As to the catcher's balk, I believe that one was missed. One of the other poster's is correct however, it's not interference unless the batter attempted to swing. So, if there's a call on that play, it would have to be a catcher's balk. (Note: Typically, this is not called on an intentional walk, even though it could be because there is typically no advantage for the defense). IMO,during the play in question is an instance where the catcher's balk should have been called because it gives the defense an advantage.) However, if the correct call had been made, the Lex Cath coach would have been down at the plate instead of Myeroff.

Sandman, Your #2 and #3 are actually catcher's obstruction, not a catcher's balk. The difference is that a catcher's balk is an immediate dead ball, and a catcher's obstruction call is a delayed dead ball. In a catcher's obstruction call, it may be ignored (if everyone including the batter advance at least one base), or if there is a play, the offense may decide to accept the play rather than the award.

cshs81, In NFHS Rule 6.1.1, the last sentences states that, "The catcher shall have both feet in the catcher's box at the time of the pitch". In 6.1.3, it is stated, "PENALTY (ART.1,2,3): The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner, a ball is awarded the batter. If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk. In both situations, the umpire signals dead ball. By definition, it is an illegal pitch when the catcher is not in the catcher's box at the time of the pitch. And, I'm pretty sure, it's the same for OBR, I remember Javy Lopez getting one called on him several years ago, and Cox getting tossed because of the call.

If that's the price they have to pay....it's worth it.I've been to the baseball championships (AA and A) in Virginia and it's nowhere near as big time as Applebee's. If you didn't have signs up, you would think it's just another high school baseball game(s). The KHSAA got it right on this one.

Go to http://khsaa.ezstream.com/ and listen to the taped broadcast. All of final 8 games are available.

Beechwood 5-2. They seem to be a team of destiny, just as LCA was last year. We'll see.....

Woody Jr, Like you, I was not there. While expressing my viewpoint on what MAY have happened, I realize that I am trying to simplify a complex situation. And,you are correct, I did not consider the actions of the umpires that may have worsened the situation, I was trying to defend them. I hope that my fellow "blues" did not make matters worse by publically "showing" players or coaches up as described, but you are right, it COULD have happened. I just assumed that it didn't, due to the fact that the umpires chosen to do semi-state are usually the highest rated umpires (by the coaches) in their respective regions and they are "chosen as much for attitude as aptitude". (The previous quote is contained in the notification e-mail sent to semi-state umpires from the KHSAA). HOWEVER, umpires are human beings (contrary to popular belief ), and everyone loses their cool on occasion, even experienced umpires that SHOULD know better. I just did not think that scenario was likely, but I should have mentioned it as part of my earlier response. The part of this story that we don't know, are the events that lead up to this particular inning. The ejections (and the so-called) inappropriate responses by the umpires did not happen in a vacuum. Did previous actions from the start of the game (or the previous game) by the player(s) and coaches discussed contribute to the described "over the top" reactions by the umpires? I would wager that it did. One point I would like to comment on. Posters on different threads always refer to actions by umpires such as, "A good ump always does this, and a good umpire always does that". There are no absolutes in dealing with "situations", every situation is different in some way. There are absolutes, but not in player/coach/umpire "situations". Getting off of my soapbox here,I will agree that umpires DO make mistakes and sometimes add to situations instead of diffusing them. We're not perfect(as most of you know very well) , even though everyone expect us to be. And, I did not mean to disrespect your team with the "bad" attitudes remark,but considering the information provided by bgpreppy, four ejections in a calendar year for the team (which is high by HS standards), coupled with the umpire's ejection record, lends even more credence to my viewpoint about player/coach attitudes during the game. But, agreeing with your earlier statement, we would have had to been there...and still we might not know enough to judge either the players or the umpires.

My apologies.....

:sssh: HT,Not that it makes any difference to anyone but YOU, but I've called bigger games than this coach will ever be in....but it doesn't really matter, because coaches of his described type almost never get to the really "big" games. And, if by chance they do, it's not because of their superior "gamesmanship", it's because they've got an automatic "feeder" system and great assistants. Longevity is not a mark of a great coach, just a great politician. Coaches such as the one described, don't lift teams up, they drag them down. Bobby Knight comes to mind....

The statement was meant in jest.....and, I do not know this particular coach, but I know the "type" described. I hope they're taking their "meds" :jump: on the day I draw one of them....