KYFEDUMP

:thumb: Amen, sticky mitts,Amen. (during the break between half innings)...that is the proper way to handle returning balls to the plate umpire. If the previous descriptions of this act were accurate,this coach's lack of respect for the authority of the umpires was evident with his "statement". (A funny thought, this action reminds me of an animal "marking" his territory.) IMO,if I had been one of the umpires present during this action, I would have considered this an attempt to "show me up". Living legend or not, a coach doing something similar to this in one of my games gets a very public warning :irked: , and based on his response, confinement to the dugout, or a trip to his car (:walk: ) to listen to the remainder of the game on the radio. (NOTE:I've never met the aforementioned coach personally so I'm speaking theoretically here about a coach "type" that is described in this thread by other posters). And,before, anyone says I'm too thin-skinned, this is all about who the ultimate authority on the field is,whether we want to be or not). Some umpires (like some coaches) take pleasure in proving this point to the public, I do not. It has been my experience that coaches that like to play these "undermining" tricks typically employ a number of "minor" displays that have an additive effect during a game (or even a season). Then, when we decide that the last straw has buckled our camel's knees, the claim is always that we've overreacted. :argue: Coaches that historically act in ways such as the situation discussed, are always looking for an "edge", and an umpire that might be intimidated on that game deciding banger. And, sadly, it sometimes works....which reinforces their behavior. Alas, it's not a perfect world. :lol:

Amen:thumb: . Bottom line, regardless of the circumstances leading up to the ejections, coaches of teams of this caliber still playing at this time of year should know better....and so should the players. Heightened emotions in postseason necessitate lower tolerance levels by umpires to insure that they keep games under control. (This is made even more difficult while handling an argument over a "blown" call,but if that's the case, it comes with the territory.) Don't get me wrong,I'm not condoning the reasons for the ejections, only stating the fact that this time of year, coaches and players should be more aware of their conduct than usual and err on the side of caution (particularly, in dealing with umpires from other regions that they are not familiar with). There are two ways for teams to handle unfamiliar umpires, (1) Err on the side of caution, (2) Push the envelope. It sounds like the players in questions chose #2 and they chose unwisely. And, from my way of thinking, it's the coaches' job to keep their players from doing anything that might get them tossed. (Sometimes, a player just "goes" off and there's nothing a coach can do about it)Judging from the reactions of the ejected players described by several posters after the ejections, I (again guessing) would conclude that the pot was ready to "boil" from previous events, or that these same players were discipline problems (read "bad attitudes") from the beginning. Either way, they just learned a tough lesson. And, if any of these players are going on to play in college somewhere, they will find out that the tolerance level of umpires goes down (way down) :irked: from the tolerance level of most HS umpires, not up.

Games are on the Wednesday(the 7th), Thursday(the 8th), and Friday(the 9th) (if needed) at Shelby County. All the games in Semi-state #4 are scheduled to start at 6:00 PM.

Games are on the 7th,8th, and 9th (if needed). All of these are scheduled to start at 7:00 PM (weather permitting). BTW, weather looks fairly good for the next three days. According to weather.com, 30% chance of isolated thunderstorms tomorrow, 20% for the next two afternoons.

You are correct.

CSHS81, you are right....providing that, in the umpire's judgement, no other fielder (other than the pitcher) had a play on the ball. This might pop up on a ball hit in the hole with the third baseman in, and the shortstop deep and playing the batter (right handed) to pull. In this case, the runner would still be out if the umpire was convinced the SS still had a potential play on the ball.

I don't know....we haven't been notified by the KHSAA yet. I'm not sure if they have a standard starting time for all of the games or if it's left up to the individual semi-state director(s).

All of the semi state games are on June 7th, 8th, and 9th. The KHSAA website did have it starting on the 8th, but it has since been corrected.

All of the state sectionals are on June 7th, 8th, and 9th. KHSAA originally had the dates wrong on their website.

Gentlemen, This is from the 2006 NFHS (FED) Rules Case Book verbatim; Rule 8.1.1 Situation A: "With R1 on first base, B2 bunts to F3 who fields the ball on the first bounce near the foul line. B2 stops and reverses toward home to avoid being tagged out by F3, who then throws to F6 for a forceout on R1, and the relay throw fails to retire B2 at first base. RULING: As long as B2 did not touch or run beyond home nor leave the base path to avoid a tag, the action is legal." Except for the try for the force out at second, this covers the situation you described exactly. I knew the runner could stop (to avoid being tagged) in order to make the defense throw the ball to the base to get the out, but was unsure of the exact rule that permitted it so I looked it up for you. Well, anyway, here it is....

Yeah, "coach", I guess you guys can't stand not having the last word on something. (BTW, I think you meant to spell "quiet", not quite). Was old blue right on that one?

BD 77, You are correct...I should have explained further. I have seen a number of ballclubs with losing records that are well coached with rules knowledgable coaches. Level of competition and team inexperience can lead to a losing record. The point I was trying to make was, when a team has a coach that does not know the rules well (not ALL, but most), usually IMO they underachieved. And,IMO,the lack of rules knowledge went hand-in-hand with a lack of baseball knowledge. I did not mean to slight anyone. It has just been my experience over the years I have been umpiring that coaches that argued some of the viewpoints I have mentioned in the previous posts (hands part of the bat,etc.), were not the coaches from the better programs. I'm sure there are exceptions, I just can't recall any at the moment.

The same can be said for good coaches...:sleep:

The good "blues" do....the first time. Then, I refer you to my earlier post. Geniune inquiries are met with geniune explanations. My experience has been that the better coaches already know the rules. However, at least in my case, I do not suffer ignorance gladly. For example, this year alone: 1.The hands are part of the bat. 2. You should warn a pitcher before you call a balk. 3. He's out....he didn't slide 4. That's not inference, he was in the box. Inquiries like this are not subject to long explanations from me. These coaches should have known better. And, I might add, they were all from ball clubs with losing records. Usually, the more knowledgable the coach, the better won-loss record. Nothing personal, but you probably wouldn't like me doing one of your games(judging from your viewpoint in your previous posts).:argue: It doesn't mean you're a bad guy, just means we have a different view on what is acceptable. I guess we can agree to disagree.

DD, You don't know anything about me....and I don't know anything about you. But it appears you're living in LALA land. We're not out there to argue the rules with you....you should know the rules. And, if one of us "blues" misapply one, then you come out and talk about it. But, too many times, I see coaches come out because either (A. They don't know the rule) or (B. They are tried to get their team or crowd fired up).(And,in the case of B, who's trying to be noticed?) In A, I expect to explain the rule and have the coach return to the dugout promptly. In B, the second time you start out, you might be heading to the bus.:walk: I don't want anyone to notice me while I'm on the field, and I'm going to make sure that you don't put the "spotlight" on me. In the case of situation B, all you are doing is trying to show me up. Good umps don't appreciate it and good coaches don't do it.

:laugh: What do you mean probably? One of my biggest peeves is coaches who do not know the rules (or coaches who try to test your knowledge of them). Either of these types are on a very short leash after they initiate a discussion with me during a game.:irked:

The baseball region is at Pike Central. All four first round games are on Monday but not sure of the proposed starting times yet.

I've sent most of the teams in the region this year and my vote goes to Justin Andersen of Pikeville. He's an excellent contact hitter, solid defensively, and the ace of a subpar (for Pikeville that is) pitching staff (meaning no disrespect to Chase Huffman but arm troubles have limited his effectiveness this year). He has had to pitch a lot of games against the best teams on Pikeville's schedule (which has hurt his W-L record) but he's still the guy you want to have the ball in a must win game. And I think most would agree, he's the best clutch hitter in the region. IMHO, he has carried a young Pikeville team to a better record than a lot of people thought possible.

IMHO, the fellow blue booted the call. Just guessing, but I would bet that he called the out too quickly and then would not change the call (sometimes you have to "eat" one). PS...BTW,you are correct....you also have to have voluntary release in NFHS rules...that rule is universal regarding the definition of a catch.

This is covered in the rule book as well. A runner cannot leap or hurdle a defensive player unless he is prone (lying flat on the ground). If he does, he is automatically out. This is another safety rule to prevent injury.

Here's my two cents based on your description (and pretty much black and white from the rule book). Defensive players (and catchers in particular) are not permitted to block a base without the ball. If the ball arrives first, you can block. If not, the correct call for this situation is to signal a delayed dead ball, and then award the runner the base for obstruction, regardless of what happens on the play (out or safe). (However, I'm aware that quite a few umpires do not apply this rule properly. I've had to do it twice in my "career".) But, in no case, does obstruction supersede malicious contact (rule book quote). In other words, an obstructed runner does not have the right to clear his own path to his intended base. He should be called out for malicious contact (and he should be ejected as well). Note: It is not malicious contact if he does not slide. The malicious contact comes from lowering his shoulder in an attempt to dislodge the ball. You can have a legal "inadvertent" collision when the ball and runner arrive at the same time that is legal. The question an umpire must answer is "did the runner have time to make a decision to avoid the defensive player". (It's sort of like the difference between a charge and a block in basketball). If he did, and chose to collide with the defensive player rather than avoid him, then you've got an out for malicious contact and an ejection.

Very well stated and correct....just one point to add. If on a force play on the back end of a double play, the runner must either slide or run out of the baseline to avoid the throw to the next base (first or second). Going straight in to the bag standing up is automatic interference, and will result in an automatic double play for the defense. (PS...As you mentioned, a smart infielder will not try to throw around the standing runner, but at him, which is very dangerous for the runner). But, I've seen it happen because HS players think that they have to break up the DP no matter what. I had a game situation several years ago when a throw on the back end of a DP (from 10 feet away) went off of a standing runner's helmet and went into the dead ball area on the fence side of first base on the fly. I hate to think what would have happened if the throw had hit the runner in the face. PS...The result of the aforementioned play was a second out for interference, which ended the game. And, unbelievably,the coach tried to argue the call.

Yes....I have played the infield before (even though, I will admit, it's been awhile)....and, I guess in this situation, I did not have complete information on the play from the previous post..... but, anyway,I was just curious why the original play did not go to first. I know the destination of the throw for the out would depend upon whether the ball was hit sharply or not and directly to a fielder, how fast the batter-runner is, how good of a jump the runner on first got,etc. I was just saying as a "general" rule, the play on a grounder with two outs is to first base. And, MAYBE, that's why the second baseman was slightly surprised by the throw from the SS. Your post cleared that matter up....and the second baseman should have been ready for the throw regardless..

This may be a little off of the subject....but with two outs and the runner at first going on contact (and the ball being hit directly to the shortstop), why was the play not at first base. I know the second baseman made it to the bag, but I also do not blame him for being surprised that the throw came to him. In that situation, unless the ball is a "trouble" ball(where the play at first would be in doubt), my play would be at first. Coach should talk to the SS in addition to the second baseman.

I guess you missed the IMO qualifier (which,for the uneducated, means In My Opinion). I have never claimed to be the definitive authority on judging talent (unlike others on the board). I also stated "so far", meaning the season's still young and I've not seen a lot of different teams yet. PS...Just an observation, but you seem to be extremely sensitive whenever an umpire's opinion is offered. Just a thought, but you might want to leave your personality conflicts (and attacks) at the door and contribute to the discussion constructively. :argue: I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but with your attitude, it's hard for anyone to take you seriously.