WPBL Ejection - Hawkins/Perez for...What Exactly?

Valerie Perez made history as the first player ejection in WPBL history as umpire Cody Hawkins ejected the New York Heights SS after an interference call on teammate Keira Izumi vs San Francisco.

With one out and the bases loaded in a 12-0 game with New York leading, Heights batter Claire Eccles hit a ground ball toward second base, where it hit baserunner R1 Izumi's foot before reaching Fireballs 2B Amanda Gianelloni, ruled interference by field umpire Hawkins.

Upon consultation, umpires declared R1 Izumi out and ordered baserunner R2 Perez back to second base, R3 Studer back to third base, and awarded batter-runner Eccles first base on the fielder's choice/interference play.

Hawkins subsequently ejected Perez, who hesitated before ultimately returning to second base while speaking with the umpire.

At the time of the ejection, the Heights were leading, 12-0. The Heights ultimately won the contest, 14-2.

Wrap: San Francisco Firebells vs New York Heights (WPBL), 9/4/26 | Video as follows:

Rocchio Out Of Base Path, But Did Pitcher Obstruct Him First?

As Guardians batter-runner Brayan Rocchio ran toward first base during a ground ball in Cleveland, he saw a pair of Royals in 1B Salvador Perez and pitcher Daniel Lynch standing in his base path and veered to his left to avoid a tag. 1B Umpire Paul Clemons called Rocchio out for running more than three feet out of his base path to avoid the tag, but did non-fielding pitcher Lynch's presence on the first baseline obstruct Rocchio on his way to first base? Was this indeed out of the base path, or should this have been obstruction instead with Rocchio awarded first base?

Play: With two out and none on, Rocchio hit a soft ground ball up the first baseline, drawing both F3 Perez and F1 Lynch. Perez fielded the ball and BR Rocchio ran to his left to avoid both F1 Lynch and F3 Perez's tag. U1 Clemons called Rocchio out for running more than three feet away from his base path to avoid the tag.

Conflicting Rules: There are two competing rules with opposite penalties to discuss. One pertains to out of the base path, as Clemons called. The other pertains to obstruction regarding Lynch standing in Rocchio's way.

Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(1) states, "Any runner is out when they run more than three feet away from their base path to avoid being tagged unless their action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base they are attempting to reach safely." This is the rule Clemons enforced in calling Rocchio out.

OBR 6.01(a)(10), which pertains to interference protection, however, states, "If two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball."

This rule is relevant because the non-protected fielder, which in this case was F1 Lynch (F3 Perez was protected), is liable for obstruction if they violate that rule, which states, "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."

When there is a question of violation, whether it pertains to this obstruction rule, runner's lane interference, or any other rule, the benefit of the doubt goes to the team that has not violated.

In this case, we have a clear sequence of events. First, F3 Perez fields the baseball. Second, F1 Lynch who is not protected, stands in the runner's base path. Third, BR Rocchio runs to his left, more than three feet away, to avoid F3 Perez's tag.

Because of this order, it would appear Lynch's illegal positioning and obstruction came before the runner ran more than three feet away to avoid a tag. Had the pitcher not been in the runner's way, could the runner have remained within three feet of his base path? We will never know. There is a question of violation, which means the benefit of the doubt goes to the team that has not violated.

But because both teams violated, we must consider the order in which they violated. Because the defensive team Kansas City violated first, the benefit of the doubt goes to Cleveland batter-runner Rocchio, which suggests F1 Lynch obstructed the runner before the runner ran more than three feet away from his base path to avoid a tag. Because Type 1 Obstruction is an immediate dead ball, the play effectively stopped before the runner committed the base path violation; this is obstruction.

Video as follows:

Cubs PCA Argues Uncalled Balk vs Arizona, Was Chicago Right?

As Chicago baserunner R3 Pete Crow-Armstrong danced down the third base line in Arizona, his distraction prompted Diamondbacks pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez to rush his delivery, with PCA upset at the uncalled balk as umpires determined, after crew consultation, that a balk had not occurred. But was it?

The Play: With two out and a runner on third base, Cubs batter Michael Busch stepped in for a 2-1 pitch from Diamondbacks pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez as Chicago baserunner R3 Pete Crow-Armstrong danced down the third base line. Rodriguez was pitching from Windup Position, having declared Windup while standing in a Hybrid stance (footwork indicating Set Position, but opting to pitch from the Windup), giving R3 PCA a little more time for baserunning antics near 3B, which pitcher Rodriguez noticed mid-delivery and rushed his motion home, turning the 2-1 pitch into a pitchout of sorts to catcher James McCann, who exited his box to receive the ball.

Chicago campaigned for a balk, while 3B Umpire Malachi Moore gestured for the crew to convene. After consultation with 1B Umpire Mike Estabrook and 2B Umpire Lance Barrett, HP Umpire and Crew Chief Alfonso Márquez explained via public address microphone that the crew deemed there was no balk, drawing Cubs manager Craig Counsell for an argument.

Was This is a Balk? To determine whether this was a balk, we first narrow down the types of balks this could conceivably qualify as. Pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 6.02(a)(1), "if there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher, while touching their plate, makes any motion naturally associated with their pitch and fails to make such delivery"; however, pitcher Rodriguez did fire home.

We next investigate the so-called catcher's balk, aka OBR 5.02(a), which states, "the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. PENALTY: Balk."

Upon closer inspection, this is a balk pursuant to OBR 6.02(a)(5): "the pitcher makes an illegal pitch" because of Rule 5.07(a) Comment, which states, "The pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset their pivot foot in their delivery of the pitch. If there is a runner, or runners, on base it is a balk under Rule 6.02(a); if the bases are unoccupied it should be treated as an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b)."

Replays indicate Rodriguez in his rushed delivery reset his pivot foot by stepping off the back of the pitcher's plate/rubber entirely, this disengagement (inadvertent or otherwise) making this an illegal pitch. This was a balk that was not called.

Video as follows:

Pirates Balk After the Fact? Pitchers, You've Gotta Declare!

Pirates pitcher Braxton Ashcraft appeared to have induced an inning-ending groundout from Padres batter Jake Cronenworth, but not so fast declared HP Umpire Dan Merzel, who had called a balk to score baserunner Freddy Fermin from third base. It's another Hybrid Stance & failure to declare Windup Position issue. Pitchers, you've gotta declare!

The relevant regulation is Official Baseball Rule 5.07(a)(2) Comment, which states, "With a runner or runners on base, a pitcher will be presumed to be pitching from the Set Position if they stand with their pivot foot in contact with and parallel to the pitcher’s plate, and their other foot in front of the pitcher’s plate, unless they notify the umpire that they will be pitching from the Windup Position under such circumstances prior to the beginning of an at-bat."

Prior to the previous batter Fernando Tatis' at-bat in the bottom of the 6th inning of Tuesday's Pirates-Padres game in San Diego, Pittsburgh pitcher Ashcraft declared to the umpires his intention of delivering from Windup Position while using the hybrid stance as prescribed by OBR 5.07(a)(2) Comment. But after Tatis struck out, Ashcraft did not re-declare his use of Windup prior to the ensuing Cronenworth at-bat.

By rule (presently, until and if MLB ever changes it), the hybrid declaration (to use Windup while footwork is in Set Position [or an ambiguous diagonal angle]) must be made before each new batter the pitcher intends to invoke OBR 5.07(a)(2) Comment.

HP Umpire Merzel made this same call on Braves pitcher Chris Sale, resulting in the ejections of pitcher and manager Walt Weiss on August 12.

Related Post: MLB Ejections 090-1 - Dan Merzel (x2; Weiss & Chris Sale) (8/12/26).

The history of Hybrid is that pitchers sometimes opt to use the stance when there is a runner on third base. The rule allows a pitcher to declare if a runner advances during the middle of a plate appearance (e.g., stolen base): "A pitcher will be permitted to notify the umpire that he is pitching from the Windup Position within an at-bat only in the event of (i) a substitution by the offensive team; or (ii) immediately upon the advancement of one or more runners (i.e., after one or more base runners advance but before the delivery of the next pitch)."

In this case, San Diego batter Dustin Harris' groundout with Fermin at second base allowed the baserunner to advance to third. Pitcher Ashcraft then immediately notified umpires of his intent to pitch out of Windup while standing in Set prior to Tatis' at-bat. Ashcraft just didn't re-declare prior to the Cronenworth at-bat. Pirates manager Don Kelly briefly sought explanation from HP Umpire Merzel, but was not ejected. Managers are allowed to seek explanation but not permitted to argue such a balk.

Because the penalty for failing to declare is a balk (technically a start-stop balk in Set Position for starting the natural motion but failing to deliver the baseball on the first step [OBR 6.02(a)(1)]), there is no penalty for a pitcher who uses Hybrid without declaring it when the bases are empty.

Video as follows:

1st WPBL Ejection - Jemile Weeks "Watch Your Mouth"

WPBL Umpire Joelyn Pullano ejected Boston Hunters manager Jemile Weeks for arguing a no catch/safe call in the top of the 6th inning of the Hunters-Heights game. With one out and one on, Heights batter Katherine Murphy hit a 2-0 pitch from Hunters pitcher Denver Bryant on a line drive to short, fielded by shortstop Raine Padgham, who threw to third base in an attempt to double off Heights baserunner R3 Claire O'Sullivan. Following crew consultation between Pullano and HP Umpire Emilie Herpick, umpires determined shortstop Padgham did not catch the ball on the fly, ruling the batter and baserunner R3 safe. At the time of the ejection, the Heights were leading, 8-4. The Heights ultimately won the contest, 9-4.

This is the first ejection in Women's Professional Baseball League history.

Wrap: New York Heights vs Boston Hunters (WPBL), 8/20/26 | Video as follows:

Failed Fourth Out Time Play in Toronto vs Boston

Boston scored a run during Ceddanne Rafaela's sacrifice fly despite Red Sox runner R3 Anthony Seigler failing to tag up, bringing Blue Jays manager John Schneider out of Toronto's dugout as Umpire Crew Chief Chris Guccione explained a cavalcade of rules from time play to fourth out, appeal, and retouch. BOSS Operator & scoreboard factors played a key role in the confusion and we review it all here.

The play: With runners on first and third and one out, Red Sox batter Rafaela hit a fly ball to Blue Jays CF Brett Bateman as baserunners and R1 Nick Sogard and R3 Anthony Seigler ran the bases as if there were two outs, failing to tag up. Toronto appealed R1 Sogard's failure to tag up at first base and ran off the field as the inning ended on the fly out-appeal out double play.

The controversy: Umpires ruled that R3 Seigler's run counted, despite Seigler failing to tag or retouch third base, as required by rule on a caught fly ball.

The confusion: Toronto's Ball-Out-Strike System (BOSS) operator mistakenly keyed two outs on the scoreboard, instead of one, erroneously attributing a second out to the prior play which featured a close catch/no catch call with Blue Jays 1B Vladimir Guerrero Jr. short-hopping Sogard's sharp line drive, ruled no catch (safe) by 1B Umpire Nestor Ceja. The BOSS operator then changed the scoreboard's displayed "2" outs during Rafaela's fly ball, which occurred on the first pitch of the at-bat. The Red Sox baserunners may have falsely relied on the scoreboard's erroneous "2" out display and ran the bases as if there had been two outs.

The rules review: First and foremost, we visit Official Baseball Rule 5.08(a) regarding how a team scores: "One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three players are put out to end the inning." When a play occurs during which a runner may or may not have touched home plate prior to the third out occurring at another base on another runner, a time play occurs in which the plate umpire must determine if the touch of home plate occurred prior to the third out or not.

There is an exception to time plays in OBR 5.08(a): "EXCEPTION:  A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before they touch first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because they failed to touch one of the bases."

Toronto may have argued that exception (2) regarding force plays applied, but this is incorrect: "A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses their right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner. (Force Play) Comment: Confusion regarding this play is removed by remembering that frequently the “force” situation is removed during the play."

Accordingly, R1 Sogard may have been forced to advance at the beginning of the play, but the force situation was removed when the batter was retired on the fly out to CF. An approved ruling in OBR 5.08 further reinforces that failing to retouch a base is not a force play.

The definition of appeal play thus becomes a factor: "Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when: (1) After a fly ball is caught, they fail to retouch their original base before they are or their original base is tagged."

Because R3 Seigler touched home plate prior to the appeal play third out on R1 Sogard at first place, R3 Seigler's run counts due to the time play. In order for R3 Seigler's run not to count, the Blue Jays would have to appeal that R3 failed to retouch third base after the caught fly ball. Toronto did not.

Although the third out was the appeal on R1 at first base, R3 could still be appealed under OBR 5.09(c)'s fourth out rule: "If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage."

Appeals must be made before the next pitch, play, or attempted play, but because the appeal on R1 ended the inning, a fourth out appeal on R3 would have to occur before the defensive team leaves the field, defined as the pitcher and all infielders crossing the foul line/leaving fair territory on the way to the bench.

With no appeal, we revert to a time play, meaning that R3's run counts and the inning is over.

Video as follows:

MiLB Ejection on Non-Interference with 2 Outs in 9th

An interference no-call when a runner collided with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball with 2 outs in the 9th allowed Double-A's Senators to tie its game with the Eerie SeaWolves, resulting in ejection and extending the minor league game that was ultimately decided in the 10th inning.

3B Umpire Brandon Spevak ejected SeaWolves manager Tony Cappuccilli for arguing the non-interference call when Senators batter Johnathon Thomas singled on a ground ball past third base. Senators baserunner R2 Maxwell Romero Jr, running into third base, collided with SeaWolves third baseman EJ Exposito, allowing the ball to trickle by while Romero scored and Thomas advanced to second base. At the time of the ejection, the Senators had just tied the game at 2-2. The SeaWolves ultimately won the contest, 3-2, in 10 innings.

The relevant rule is Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10): "Any runner is out when—they fail to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interfere with a thrown ball."

Is there an exception, however, to this rule when a runner is either in contact with or running toward a base?

The answer is no. On a batted ball, the fielder has the right to field it.

At any other time, the runner has the right to run the bases.

Bear in mind, only one fielder is deemed 'protected' during a batted ball, which is an umpire's determination as to which fielder is entitled to field the ball. A non-protected fielder may be guilty of obstruction if they impede the runner.

There is one exception during which the base is a safe space when it comes to questions of batted ball interference: "If a runner is touching their base when touched by an Infield Fly, they are not out, although the batter is out" (OBR 5.07(b)(7)).

Other than that, however, the base is not a safe space and this is interference. Video as follows:

Interference Ends Rockies-Pirates Game as Runner Clips Fielder

An umpire crew's interference call ended a one-run Rockies-Pirates game when Pittsburgh runner R2 Billy Cook ran in front of Colorado 3B Kyle Karros and, in doing so, interfered with the fielder's ability to field the batted ball. Let's take a look.

With two out and the bases loaded in the top of the 9th inning of a game Colorado led 2-1, Pirates batter Jake Mangum hit a 1-2 changeup from Rockies pitcher Jaden Hill on the ground toward 3B Karros, who prepared to field the ball as Pittsburgh baserunner R2 Cook ran by.

Although neither 2B Umpire Tyler Jones nor 3B Umpire Clint Vondrak called interference in real-time, Crew Chief Todd Tichenor convened his crew and, alongside HP Umpire Adam Hamari, exited the brief consultation by ruling baserunner Cook out for interference, resulting in the third and final out of the inning and of the ballgame itself.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10) states "it is interference by a batter or a runner when they fail to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball." Meanwhile, "obstruction is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."

Interference on the other hand is defined as follows: "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." Note that contact between runner and fielder is not required for interference to be called. All that is needed is an act by the runner that simply impedes or hinders the fielder in their attempt to, in this case, field a batted ball.

From these rules and definitions, we are able to assemble a general baseball axiom.

During a batted ball, the fielder has the right of way to field the ball.

At any other time, the runner has the right of way to run the bases.

In other words, because 3B Karros was attempting to field a batted ball, that means he as the fielder has the right of way. Therefore, illegal interaction with the runner results in an interference call, even if there was no actual contact between the players, although in this case, the runner's left foot appeared to contact the fielder's glove prior to the ball's arrival.

Video as follows:

Umpire Warns Caballero for Pitch Clock Delay Strategy

When Yankees batter José Caballero delayed looking up at Blue Jays pitcher Spencer Miles in Toronto, HP Umpire Steven Jaschinski warned New York for an illegal delay tactic, leading to widespread confusion and online outrage that one viral content creator described as the umpire creating a new rule mid-game to punish a player he found annoying.

Rather than click-bait our way to viral monetization at the expense of factuality and reason, we've waited a bit to digest the play, research the rules, and cite our sources as we analyze what exactly happened at Rogers Centre.

With none out and one on in the top of the 6th inning, Caballero stepped into the batter's box, but kept his head down as he took his preparatory stance. By doing so, Caballero might have sought to induce pitcher Miles to come set and commit a pitch clock violation for coming set before the batter was alert to (looking at) the pitcher.

When MLB first introduced its pitch clock rules in 2023 Spring Training, it prescribed three timed responsibilities: catchers had to be in the catcher's box by the timer's nine-second mark, batters had to be in the box and alert to the pitcher by eight seconds, and the pitcher had to begin their delivery prior to the expiration of time.

Shortly thereafter, pitcher Max Scherzer attempted to catch batters off-guard by coming set and immediately firing home as soon as the batter began to look up. Nary a week later, MLB issued a new rule prohibiting pitchers from coming set before the batter becomes alert.

Related Post: Is Max Scherzer's Set Position Pitch Clock Strategy Legal? (3/4/23).

Related Post: MLB's Max Scherzer Rule - Pitcher Can't Come Set Before Batter is Ready (3/12/23).

One month later, Red Sox pitcher Kenley Jansen found himself called for three Scherzer Rule pitch timer violations as HP Umpire Derek Thomas ruled that Jansen came set before Cardinals batter Willson Contreras took his position with both feet in the batter's box and became alert to the pitcher. Once again, MLB issued a memo declaring a new pitch clock policy: batters could no longer induce Scherzer Rule violations by delaying their box entry or alertness by momentarily looking at the pitcher and then looking away as the pitcher comes set. Batters would now be considered alert (and thus pitchers eligible to come set) once they placed one foot in the batter's box and upon the first moment they looked at the pitcher, even if they looked away again.

Related Post: Kenley Jansen Called for 3 Pitch Timer Violations in Boston (5/14/23).

Related Post: Pitch Clock Chaos - Introducing The Contreras Rule (5/24/23).

This new Contreras Rule explained Diamondbacks batter Josh Rojas and Phillies pitcher Craig Kimbrel's pitch clock violation duel in May 2023, culminating with a confrontation that umpires had to break up. MLB effectively declared that neither pitchers (Scherzer Rule) nor batters (Contreras Rule) could attempt to circumnavigate the pitch clock rules to try and gain an unfair advantage.

Back to the present day, when Yankees batter Caballero stepped into the box, he briefly flashed a glance at Toronto pitcher Miles before looking down and delaying his gaze at the pitcher. But because of the three-year-old Contreras Rule, HP Umpire Jaschinski warned Caballero for attempting to circumvent the pitch clock rules to gain an advantage by trying to bait the pitcher into a violation, the first infraction of which is a warning. Had Caballero committed a second Contreras Rule violation, he would have been charged a strike.

So while the Daily News declared, "Caballero did nothing wrong," that declaration happens to be devoid of accuracy.

Video as follows:

Did Jays' Clement Run Out of the Base Path to Avoid Henderson?

Did Blue Jays runner Ernie Clement run out of his base path to avoid Orioles SS Gunnar Henderson's tag attempt? 2B Umpire Nic Lentz didn't think so, signaling safe ruling the play legal because the runner was attempting to avoid the fielder who was fielding a batted ball. So what happened? Let's take a look.

With one out and two on (R1, R3) in the bottom of the 6th inning of the #Orioles-#BlueJays game, Blue Jays batter Brandon Valenzuela hit a 1-1 knuckle curve from Orioles pitcher Shane Baz on the ground to Henderson, who fielded the ball and attempted to tag Blue Jays baserunner R1 Clement before ultimately throwing the ball to first baseman Pete Alonso to retire the batter-runner as Baltimore campaigned for an out of the base path call, claiming R1 Clement ran too far to avoid Henderson's tag attempt.

Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(1) states, "Any runner is out when they run more than three feet away from their base path to avoid being tagged unless their action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball.  A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base they are attempting to reach safely."

Baltimore manager Craig Albernaz discussed the play with Lentz, who ruled that runner Clement remained legal in his circuitous route to second base, stating he did not illegally run more than three feet to avoid a tag.

After the game, Lentz acknowledged that Henderson did reach out for a tag attempt, Clement's base path was nonetheless legal: "The runner has the right to establish his basepath, and so Clement had established his basepath to avoid the fielder from potential interference."

In doing so, Lentz applied the OBR 5.09(b)(1) exception to OOB, ruling that Clement's action was "to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball."

Even though Henderson had already fielded the ball before Clement veered far to his right, the MLB Umpire Manual's interpretation of what fielding a batted ball actually is provides further context: "If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before they are able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference."

Although this MLBUM rules interp extends the act of fielding protection to after the fielder has already fielded the baseball, the fielder's act of running toward a runner with the ball and reaching an arm out in a tag attempt signifies that the fielder has achieved "able to throw the ball" status; they have simply chosen not to throw quite yet.

Whereas at first glance, the runner clearly ran more than three feet from his established base path to avoid a tag, the question thus becomes whether his action was to avoid interference with a protected fielder, which U1 Lentz ruled is precisely what it was.

Added Wendelstedt, "It actually is a very gentlemanly thing to do." He really said that.

Video as follows:

About Cubs LF Matt Shaw's Fair Infield Single in San Diego

What is a fair ball? Cubs batter Matt Shaw hit an infield single in San Diego when Padres 3B Ty France picked up a batted ball as it rolled along the foul line, HP Umpire Dan Merzel explaining to manager Craig Stammen what he saw as Padres fans expressed outrage at the call.

So what happened?

This play comes up every few years, so we refer to the 2023 season's case of a fair infield single in New York, when HP Umpire Lance Barrett ruled Royals batter Bobby Witt Jr's bunt a fair ball after Yankees 3B DJ LeMahieu swiped his glove at the ball in fair territory.

Related Post: Why Was This Ball Called Fair in New York? (7/23/23).

To begin, we review the Official Baseball Rules' definition: "A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that is on or over fair territory when bounding to the outfield past first or third base, or that touches first, second or third base, or that first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base, or that, while on or over fair territory touches the person of an umpire or player, or that, while over fair territory, passes out of the playing field in flight."

There are two main standards for judging fair/foul: situations that consider whether a ball is on fair territory and situations that consider whether a ball is over fair territory.

A ball must be on fair territory to be considered fair in the case of: a batted ball settling between home and first/third base or first falling on fair territory beyond first/third base (e.g., in the outfield).

A ball must be over fair territory to be considered fair (whether or not it also touches [or is on] fair territory) for: a batted ball bounding to the outfield past first/third base, a batted ball that touches an umpire or player, or passes out of the playing field in flight (home run).

And, finally, a batted ball that touches first/second/third base is a fair ball.

Eagle-eyed viewers might also notice the rulebook's definition of foul ball is extremely similar, just substituting the phrase "foul territory" for "fair territory."

Thus we must also consider the following definitions: "FAIR TERRITORY is that part of the playing field within, and including the first base and third base lines, from home base to the bottom of the playing field fence and perpendicularly upwards. All foul lines are in fair territory"; "FOUL TERRITORY is that part of the playing field outside the first and third base lines extended to the fence and perpendicularly upwards."

Finally, the MLB Umpire Manual interprets FAIR BALL as, "When in contact with the ground, a ball must be in contact with fair territory and not merely over fair territory in order to be adjudged to be fair."

MLBUM added this interpretation following the introduction of Replay Review ahead of the 2014 season, and it works well for outfield fair/foul decisions on reviewable plays in which the ball may or may not fall on the foul line, generally observed from a parallax-prone camera angle.

For the infield fair/foul decision regarding a batted ball that contacts a person, however, a few key differences arise. First, this is the infield not the outfield. Second, this is not presently a reviewable play. Third, the rulebook criteria for this infield play remains on or over fair territory, as opposed to the outfield play's on foul territory criterion. Fourth, the umpire's angle in calling this play generally positions their head above the foul line, not entirely "top-down" but at an angle greater than 45-degrees and, thus, closer to top-down than ground level.

And herein lies the problem: The umpire, looking from above the height of the ball (unless they were to place their head directly on the dirt), generally will see a baseball over fair territory, all else equal, if any part of the baseball is over the foul line, even if the baseball itself is not in contact with the line (it's a sphere, after all). Pursuant to the Official Baseball Rules, the umpire calls this a fair ball when touched by the fielder, which conflicts with the MLBUM interpretation, which itself conflicts with OBR. Lovely.

Video as follows:

Alonso Strikes Out on Pitch Clock Violation, Orioles Argue

After striking out on a pitch clock violation, Orioles 1B Pete Alonso argued HP Umpire John Tumpane's automatic strike call, claiming that because Diamondbacks pitcher Kevin Ginkel wasn't looking at him at the timer's eight-second mark, he shouldn't be called for a batter violation for not looking at the pitcher. O's manager Craig Albernaz briefly discussed the call with Tumpane before returning to the dugout.

Let's clear up the pitch clock confusion.

When Major League Baseball introduced the pitch clock prior to the 2023 season, the league released a set of procedures outlining the pitcher, catcher, and batter's responsibilities. Because we are concerned with a timer-specific violation, let's review the timer-specific requirements:

At 9 seconds remaining on the timer, the catcher must be in the catcher's box.

At 8 seconds on the clock, the batter must be in the batter's box and alert to the pitcher.

Prior to 0 seconds on the clock, the pitcher must begin delivery (or disengage if there are runner(s)).

HP Umpire Tumpane called batter Alonso for failing to be alert to pitcher Ginkel at the eight-second mark, but Alonso's (and the Baltimore broadcasters') argument that he shouldn't have been called for a violation because pitcher Ginkel wasn't similarly alert to (or looking at) the batter doesn't have any basis in the pitch clock rules or procedures.

To be clear, the batter is required to be alert to the pitcher by eight seconds remaining on the clock, but the pitcher is not required to be alert to the batter: the pitcher's only obligation is to deliver the pitch (or disengage the rubber [e.g., attempt a pickoff] if there are runners) prior to the expiration of time.

The pitcher is not required to be alert to the batter at eight seconds; the batter is required to be alert to the pitcher at eight seconds, and thus, HP Umpire Tumpane called a batter violation when Alonso wasn't alert at eight seconds.

Video as follows:

Cubs Wanted Infield Fly Rule on Dropped Ball in Chicago

Cubs manager Craig Counsell sought an infield fly rule call after Chicago 1B Michael Busch lost track of Brewers batter William Contreras' fly ball in the sun, allowing Milwaukee to load the bases in the 1st inning of NLDS Game 3.

With runners on first and second base with one out, Contreras hit a high fly ball in front of first base, on the infield.

The Official Baseball Rules defines the infield fly: "An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations themself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule."

Accordingly, the infield fly rule has four criteria: 1) first and second (or bases loaded), 2) before two are out, 3) the batter hits a fair fly ball (not line drive nor bunt), 4) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.

The first three criteria were plainly satisfied, which leaves us with #4: the ordinary effort criterion.

We thus turn to OBR's definition of that term: "ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions."

Because F3 Busch, the fielder we would expect to make a play on this ball, lost the ball in the afternoon Chicago sun, the "weather conditions" provision of the ordinary effort definition gets triggered: 1B Umpire Lance Barksdale, looking directly at Busch, ruled that this particular weather condition turned Busch's potential catch from requiring effort that was ordinary into extraordinary.

Umpires therefore ruled ordinary effort was not satisfied, which is why an infield fly was not declared.

Video as follows:

Catcher's Interference No-Call in TOR-NYY ALDS

Blue Jays catcher Alejandro Kirk did not interfere with Yankees batter Trent Grisham in Game 3 of the Toronto-New York ALDS, following a Replay Review that upheld HP Umpire Jordan Baker's interference no-call as Grisham's bat came awfully close to making contact with catcher Kirk's mitt.

With none out and none on in the bottom of the 3rd inning of Game 3, batter Grisham attempted to check his swing on a 2-2 knuckle curve from Blue Jays pitcher Shane Bieber, ruled ball three. 

Upon Replay Review as the result of a manager's challenge by Yankees manager Aaron Boone, HP Umpire Baker's call was upheld, with Replay HQ ruling "call stands" as to the question of catcher's interference. 

Specifically, clear and convincing evidence did not exist to indicate whether or not catcher Kirk interfered. Because of the "call stands" ruling, we know the Replay Official judged the play solely on the merits of whether or not Grisham's bat made contact with Kirk's mitt.

The Official Baseball Rules defines catcher's interference as defensive interference: "an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."

Because replay only concerned itself with potential batt-glove contact, the judgment call as to whether hinderance actually existed (beyond the question of whether contact occurred) was not on the table.

In high school (NFHS), catcher's interference is called catcher's obstruction, as NFHS defensive interference is specifically an act that occurs prior to the pitch.

OBR 6.01(c) specifies the penalty for catcher's interference: "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided they advance to and touches first base) when the catcher or any fielder interferes with them."

Video as follows:

Fan Interference AND HR? Blue Jays-Rays Replay Rewind

Rays batter Brandon Lowe's home run stood on review as umpires called both fan interference and a home run on the same play. Blue Jays manager John Schneider met with 3B Umpire Laz Diaz afterward to discuss the unusual ruling, which we now analyze.

With one out and two on in the bottom of the 3rd inning, Rays batter Lowe hit a 2-2 changeup from Blue Jays pitcher José Berríos on a fly ball to deep right-center field. Blue Jays right fielder Nathan Lukes jumped in an attempt to catch the ball, but a fan reached out of the stands and caught the descending fly ball, ruled a home run by 1B Umpire Brian O'Nora.

Upon Replay Review as the result of a Crew Chief initiated-second look (potential home runs are chief reviews), Replay determined that while the fan did definitively commit spectator interference, the home run would ultimately stand because, absent the fan's interference, the ball would have left the yard anyway.

In crafting this ruling, the Replay Official relied on two different rules concerning spectator interference. The analysis thus relies on two different parts.

First, the Official Baseball Rules definition of terms delineates what spectator interference actually is: "Spectator interference occurs when a spectator (or an object thrown by the spectator) hinders a player’s attempt to make a play on a live ball, by going onto the playing field, or reaching out of the stands and over the playing field."

Upon review, Replay HQ in New York determined clear and convincing evidence did exist to declare that spectator interference did occur. To that end, the call on the field of no interference was overturned.

Second, OBR 6.01(e) is triggered only if the spectator interference definition's criteria are satisfied. OBR 6.01(e) states, "When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in their opinion will nullify the act of interference." An approved ruling allows the umpire to award an out if the fielder would have caught the ball if not for the interference.

This second part of the equation is where Replay Review encountered more difficulty. Because the video angles available were all from press box/behind the home plate area, and no side angle (e.g., parallel to the fence-line) existed, Replay HQ could not definitely determine what would have happened had interference not occurred. In other words, Replay had trouble with the "nullify the act" portion of the rule.

With a lack of clear and convincing evidence to determine how to nullify the act of interference, that leaves with a peculiar ruling of overturn for the interference part of the equation, but call stands for the nullification portion.

Accordingly, the technically correct language and outcome for this play is that the call on the field of no interference was overturned. It was spectator interference, but because of a lack of clear and convincing evidence to suggest what would have occurred absent the fan's illegal involvement, the home run ultimately stands as called.

Video as follows:

Did Runner Interfere So Teammate Could Score?

Chicago trapped Colorado batter-runner Yanquiel Fernández in a rundown as Rockies lead baserunner Warming Bernabel attempted to score. As Cubs second baseman Nico Hoerner received a throw from Michael Busch, BR Fernández collided with him, 2B Umpire Alan Porter ruling an out on the tag, but not interference, the delay from the collision allowing R1 Bernabel additional time to score, with a slide into home plate just ahead of the tag attempt.

Should this have been ruled interference or, because Fernández hadn't yet been tagged until after the initial collision (although he was tagged while being shoved away by Hoerner), does the relevant rule pertaining to a retired runner not apply? For reference that rule is Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(5): "Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

Video as follows:

Obstruction in Boston as Runner & Catcher Collide on Batted Ball

"Obstruction!" announced umpire Jordan Baker after Guardians batter-runner José Ramírez and Red Sox catcher Connor Wong collided on a batted ball up the first baseline. Instead of an out, Ramírez was awarded first base and Cleveland's Brayan Rocchio scored from third. What's the rule and did Baker's crew get the call right?

With one out and runners on second and third in the top of the 2nd inning of Wednesday's Guardians vs Red Sox game, batter Ramírez hit a check swing ground ball in front of home plate toward first base. Boston catcher Wong initially pursued the batted ball before stopping once he saw pitcher Steven Matz running to field it, turning around to head back to cover home plate as R3 Rocchio raced in.

But as Wong turned toward home, he collided with batter-runner Ramírez. Initially ruled interference on Ramírez, chief Baker called his crew into consultation, ultimately ruling that, because Wong was not entitled to protection under the rules for fielding a batted ball, he therefore obstructed the batter-runner. Accordingly, the batter-runner was awarded first base and all runners advanced one base.

In general, baseball's right-of-way rules give the fielder the right to field a batted ball (meaning the runners must avoid the fielder lest they be guilty of interference) while the runner has the right to run the bases at any other time (the fielder must get out of the runner's way). However, only one fielder is entitled to right-of-way protection on a batted ball and, in this case, that protected fielder was not the pitcher, not the catcher. As such, the unprotected catcher obstructed the runner's right to run the bases.

This is the correct call pursuant to the following rules:

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10): "It is interference by a batter or a runner when they fail to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball."

OBR 6.01(h)(1): "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before they touch first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base they had last legally touched before the obstruction."

Wrap: Cleveland Guardians vs Boston Red Sox, 9/3/25 | Video as follows:

Runner Touched by Fair Ball in Little League - What's the Call?

What happens when a runner is touched by a fair ball? During the Canada vs Aruba Little League World Series game, a baserunner from first base ran into a batted ball after it passed the drawn-in first baseman, but before it got to the second baseman backing up. Umpires, what's the call here?

With one out and one on, a ground ball to the right side eluded Aruba's diving first baseman, without touching him or his glove, before striking baserunner R1 behind him, as the second baseman ranged to his left to potentially back up the play. After initially ruling runner R1 out, umpires ultimately placed R1 on second base, deeming that he did not interfere with the batted ball.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(11) states it is interference when "A fair ball touches them on fair territory before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball."

Little League Rule 5.09(f) is nearly identical in outcome: "If a fair ball goes through, or by an infielder and touches a runner immediately back of said infielder or touches a runner after being deflected by an infielder, the ball is in play and the umpire shall not declare the runner out. In making such decision, the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the infielder and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball; runners advance if forced."

Given that the ball did not make contact with the first baseman, the operative question, thus, is whether or not the second baseman had the chance to make a play on the ball. If he did, then the runner is out. If he did not, then the runner is not out. What's your call?

Video as follows:

Umpire Ejects Batboy (Ballboy?) After Controversial Call

Umpire Richy Arrendondo ejected a ball boy for arguing a series of calls during a Loons vs River Bandits game in MiLB's Midwest League. Having already tossed Quad Cities catcher Canyon Brown and manager Jesus Azuaje, the umpire mouthed "What are you doing?" toward the ball boy, who used the delivery of replacement baseballs as an opportunity to argue with the umpire, a no-no for auxiliary personnel.

HP Umpire Richy Arredondo ejected River Bandits catcher Canyon Brown, manager Jesus Azuaje, and the ball boy for arguing a ball four call, foul ball no-call, and balk call in the top of the 7th inning of the Loons-River Bandits game of MiLB's High-A Midwest League. With one out and one on, Loons batter Logan Wagner took a 3-1 pitch from River Bandits pitcher Mauricio Veliz for a called fourth ball, resulting in the ejection of catcher Brown. Following a two-RBI double by Jake Gelof, batter Joe Vetrano swung at a pitch for strike two, ruled a wild pitch that allowed Gelof to advance to third base, resulting in an argument from manager Azuaje that batter Vetrano actually fouled the pitch off (Azuaje was ejected here). Shortly thereafter, Gelof scored on a balk, resulting in the ejection of the ball boy for arguing while he delivered replacement baseballs.

Although we don't often encounter it, ball or bat attendant ejections fall under a lower category on officiating's tolerance hierarchy than managers, players, assistant coaches, and bench personnel. Attendants (in this case, a ball boy) are considered auxiliary personnel, are supposed to be impartial (e.g., not to argue or have a competing interest in the game and not to favour one team over the other), and are to be dismissed if they fail to maintain neutrality, as the ball boy did during this game.

Wrap: Great Lakes Loons vs Quad Cities River Bandits (Midwest Lg), 8/21/25 | Video as follows:

Jen Pawol is First Woman to Umpire MLB Regular Season Game

Jen Pawol will be the first woman to umpire MLB regular season baseball during the Marlins-Braves game in Atlanta this weekend, a move generations in the making. Here's a brief history of why it took so long and why women and minorities—including Angel Hernandez—had to keep suing professional baseball for a chance to take the field.

Bernice Gera, who in 1972 was the first woman to officiate a minor league game had to file litigation against professional baseball in order to compel the powers that be to allow her onto the field.

At the time, Hall of Fame Umpire Al Barlick allegedly said Gera "belongs in the kitchen — where all women belong, or most of them." Years later, Barlick allegedly told then-minor leaguer Al Clark, "I’ll tell you one thing. As long as I’m alive, there will never be another f*n’ Jew umpire in my league."

Barlick served as a National League supervisor after retirement from umpiring on the field and was partially responsible for hiring decisions. He was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1989, despite his history of purportedly sexist and racist statements.

And THAT level of systemic discrimination has been baseball's rot-from-within for years and decades.

Since then, several women, including Pam Postema who made it all the way to Triple-A in the late 1980s, have been stopped short of the major leagues, though multiple sex discrimination lawsuits filed by Postema and others have resulted in settlements along the way.

When Angel Hernandez sued baseball alleging racially-motivated discrimination in 2017, it served as a turning point in how the league treats marginalized groups working their way through the umpiring ranks. In addition to promotions of minority crew chiefs Alfonso Márquez, Laz Diaz, and Kerwin Danley in the years that followed (after a decades-long gap without a non-white chief), professional baseball changed its hiring outlook, both at the MLB level and the MiLB level, with more diverse classes each year.

If you haven't yet read our analysis of Angel Hernandez's lawsuit against MLB alleging racial discrimination, and discussing baseball's historical trend toward a nearly-universal umpiring underrepresentation of protected classes, you might want to consult the following links:
Related Post: Angel Hernandez, MLB, and Discrimination (Part 1) (7/12/17).
Related Post: Angel Hernandez, MLB, and Discrimination (Part 2) (7/13/17).

Video as follows: