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:

MANAGER Hit by Pitch During Ejection Tantrum

Quebec Capitales' manager was hit by a pitch thrown by his pitcher, on purpose, after being ejected by HP Umpire Jordan Alfonso of the Frontier League. Patrick Scalabrini's antics followed Ottawa Titans batter Jackie Urbaez's hit-by-pitch in the 9th inning, Urbaez's fourth HBP of the game.

Scalabrini's lively demonstration suggests an argument concerning whether Urbaez should have really had four HBPs, or whether he failed to follow the rule that would require he attempt to avoid the pitch.

Official Baseball Rule 5.05(b)(2) states, "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when they are touched by a pitched ball which they are not attempting to hit unless (A) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (B) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball."

If the pitch is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it is a dead ball strike, and if the pitch is out of the zone and touches the batter who makes no attempt to avoid being touched, it is a ball (no award of first base). The batter only gets the base award if they make an attempt to avoid a ball.

Meanwhile, in college, NCAA Rule 7-4-i awards a strike if the batter "is judged to intentionally make a movement to be hit by a pitch, regardless of where the pitch is located; or allows themself to be intentionally hit by a pitch that is not thrown within the boundaries of the batter’s box unless it was not possible to avoid being hit."

High School (NFHS 8-1-d) is similar to professional ball: "If the batter permits the pitched ball to touch oneself (7-3-4), or if the umpire calls the pitched ball a strike, the hitting of the batter is disregarded except that the ball is dead. It is a strike or ball depending on location of the pitch."

Video as follows:

Balk or Ball? When An Umpire Should Ignore a Balk

When is a balk not a balk? Umpires correctly called A's pitcher Jeffrey Springs for a no-stop balk during a 3-2 pitch to Mariners batter Julio Rodríguez, but awarding baserunner R1 Ben Williamson second base was only half of the equation. Instead of Rodríguez awarded first base on ball four (the pitch was low), the crew returned the batter to the plate, where he proceeded to strike out swinging on the next pitch.

We first note Official Baseball Rule 6.02(a)(13) pertaining to balks, which states, "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher delivers the pitch from Set Position without coming to a stop."

Because pitcher Springs failed to come to a complete stop while in Set Position, as in OBR 5.07(a)(2), 1B Umpire John Tumpane was correct to call out "balk" when the infraction occurred.

OBR 6.02(a) continues, specifying the penalty for a balk violation: "The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk."

Although the ball ultimately becomes dead on a balk, if the pitcher pitches, that pitch may still count, as long as it results in the batter-runner reaching first base and all other runners advancing at least one base.

In this situation, the pitch missed low for ball four, which meant that runner R1 Williamson would have been forced to advance to second base, by virtue of batter Rodríguez becoming a runner on the base-on-balls.

But instead of applying the "play proceeds without reference to the balk" portion of the penalty due to both batter and runner advancing at least one base, the umpires enforced the base award for the runner and returned the batter to home plate, where he proceeded to strike out instead of taking his base.

Video as follows:

Narváez Called for CI for 2nd Day in a Row - Balk Too!

Called for catcher's interference one day earlier, Red Sox catcher Carlos Narváez again committed CI, this time with a side of balk as HP Umpire Edwin Jimenez ruling he stepped in front of the back edge of home plate prior during a pitch and prior to receiving the ball as Phillies runner Bryce Harper looked to steal home plate.

Catcher's interference is defined more broadly as defensive interference in the Official Baseball Rules: "an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch." 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.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(g) directly addresses this case of the so-called catcher's balk: "If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or their bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."

Video as follows:

Phillies Win on Walk-Off Catcher's Interference

A walk-off win due to catcher's interference in Philadelphia left some Boston fans perplexed as Phillies batter Edmundo Sosa's bat made contact with Red Sox catcher Carlos Narváez during a 2-2 pitch, HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott announcing Replay Review's verdict over the stadium PA much to the delight of the home crowd. Because the bases were loaded at the time of the interference, all runners advanced and the tied game ended in the 10th inning.

Catcher's interference is defined more broadly as defensive interference in the Official Baseball Rules: "an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch." 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."

It is a rules myth that the batter must actually legitimately swing for catcher's interference to be called. For instance, catcher's interference also occurs when a catcher steps on or across home plate prior to the pitch's arrival, whether or not the batter actually swings at the pitch. Instead, catcher's interference occurs when the catcher's physical positioning (of body and/or glove/mitt) deprives the batter of the opportunity to choose whether to swing or not.

Because batter Sosa is said to have been deprived of this freedom of choice by virtue of the bat-mitt contact, the Replay Official overturned the on-field no-call and awarded the interference penalty, resulting in a walk-off win.

Video as follows:

Little Turf Means It's a Trap & Tag Attempt Base Path Plays

Consecutive plays confused Tigers manager AJ Hinch as Replay upheld a no catch/trap call on Rangers batter Kyle Higashioka's line drive to Riley Greene before 2B Umpire Alfonso Márquez ruled an out of the base path infraction did not occur when runner Higashioka avoided Detroit fielder Javier Báez's tag attemp on Jonah Heim's ground ball, resulting in an error. Let's review.

We begin with one out and none on in the bottom of the 3rd inning with Higashioka's line drive to left fielder Greene, ruled no catch by 3B Umpire Carlos Torres and challenged by Detroit. Replay Review returned a "call stands" verdict, deeming that video evidence was not clear or convincing to suggest the call's quality of correctness. 

The TV broadcast pondered what would happen if half of the ball was cleanly caught by the glove while the other half bounced off the turf. The Official Baseball Rules' definition of catch states, "A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in their hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing they do not use their cap, protector, pocket or any other part of their uniform in getting possession."

Because "IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder," a half-glove, half-ground situation would not qualify as a catch.

On the very next play, Rangers batter Heim hit a ground ball to Báez, who attempted to tag baserunner R1 Higashioka before ultimately throwing to first base (an overthrow for an error). 2B Umpire Márquez ruled R1 Higashioka did not run out of his base path, explaining to a befuddled manager Hinch there was no tag attempt.

Although replays indicate there actually was a tag attempt later in the sequence, OBR 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."

Because the runner already ran to the right field side of the baseline between first and second base prior to the fielder's tag attempt, R1's base path was established from this point and, therefore, he did not run more than three feet away from his base path to avoid the tag (even if he ran more than three feet away from the baseline...just not his personal base path).

Video as follows:

Red Sox Score Tie-Breaking Run on Obstruction vs Rays

3B Umpire Scott Barry's obstruction call on Rays third baseman Junior Caminero for base blocking broke a 0-0 tie, giving Boston a lead when Red Sox runner Marcelo Mayer found himself seemingly picked off by Tampa Bay catcher Matt Thaiss, only for umpire Barry to quickly reverse course and rule that Caminero impeded baserunner Mayer's return to third base due to improper footing.

The Official Baseball Rules define obstruction as "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."

Although Rays fielder Caminero was indeed in the act of fielding at the time of obstruction (by virtue of preparing to receive the throw), umpires ruled that he did not need to block the base in order to do so. Because Caminero blocked the base voluntarily and outside the scope of simply fielding the ball/throw, obstruction was the proper call.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(h)(1) prescribes the penalty for Type 1 (Type B) obstruction: "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before they touch first base...the obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base they had last legally touched before the obstruction." This is why baserunner R3 Mayer scored, rather than remained at third base.

Umpire Barry initially stated "stay here" in regard to Mayer's slide back into third base, as HP Umpire Adam Beck walked up the line, the umpires ultimately applying the proper ruling in OBR 6.01(h)(1) to award the runner his next base.

Video as follows:

A Balk of Lightning - Umpire's Thunder Jump Scare Call

A surprise lightning strike during Norfolk Tides pitcher Roansy Contreras' delivery resulted in a thunder-scoring balk for Jacksonville as HP Umpire Derek Thomas called Contreras for illegally stopping his pitching motion. Was this the correct call or did Tides manager Tim Federowicz have an argument due to the extreme nature of the inclement weather.

With none out and a runner on third in the bottom of the 1st inning of the Tides vs Jumbo Shrimp game in Triple-A, lightning struck somewhere near Jacksonville's stadium, and the thunder just happened to clap as Contreras was beginning his delivery. Replays indicate that in the wake of the thunder, both the pitcher and batter left their respective positions (pitcher stepping off the rubber and batter exiting the box). HP Umpire Thomas ruled that Contreras balked first and waved home Jacksonville baserunner R3 Jakob Marsee to put Jacksonville on the board.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(1) governs the start-stop balk and states, "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." To that end, the balk call was technically correct.

However, OBR 5.12(b)(1) addresses the case of calling "Time" during inclement weather: "The umpire in chief shall call 'Time' when in their judgment weather, darkness, or similar conditions make immediate further play impossible." This rule would have empowered the umpire to call "Time" during play itself, if the loud thunder clap were to have been deemed a condition making immediate further play impossible.

Finally, OBR 5.04(b)(2) discusses what happens when both a pitcher and batter violate a rule, such as both leaving positions during delivery: "Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from 'scratch.'" Under this rule, the play could have been nullified and ruled no-pitch, effectively baseball's version of a do-over.

It should also be noted that in college, NCAA Rule 4-2-b, the lightning rule, addresses what to do in a lightning situation: "In the case of lightning, the game administrator and umpire-in-chief shall follow lightning guidelines..." Under these guidelines, games must come to an immediate halt upon lightning striking within a certain distance of the stadium and the suspended games may not be resumed until at least 30 minutes have elapsed since the last lightning strike within the prescribed radius. High school is similar.

But professional baseball has no such rule, meaning that the entirety of lightning or thunder-related pauses falls into the umpire's hands of judgment.

Video as follows:

Marlins Lose Run on Umpire Interference as Ball Hits U2

Miami lost its tying run, then the game, vs Minnesota when Kyle Stowers' single hit 2B Umpire Emil Jimenez, positioned inside with Marlins baserunner R2 Jesús Sánchez at second. Although appearing to score on the outfield base hit, an umpire interference call returned runner Sánchez to second base, prompting a brief discussion between Marlins manager Clayton McCullough and Crew Chief James Hoye at home plate.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(f) defines umpire interference: "Umpire’s interference occurs (1) when a plate umpire hinders, impedes or prevents a catcher’s throw attempting to prevent a stolen base or retire a runner on a pick-off play; or (2) when a fair ball touches an umpire on fair territory before passing a fielder."

It's important to note that the final word of this citation—"fielder"—does not include the pitcher for the purposes of this provision. However, if the pitcher (or any fielder) first touches the fair ball, then it is not umpire's interference even if the ball subsequently strikes an umpire working inside, as U2 Jimenez did here.

OBR 5.06(c)(6) proscribes the penalty for umpire interference: "The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out when a fair ball touches a runner or an umpire on fair territory before it touches an infielder including the pitcher, or touches an umpire before it has passed an infielder other than the pitcher; runners advance, if forced."

This means that all returns return to their base as a result of umpire interference, unless forced to advance by virtue of the batter becoming a runner and assuming occupation of first base (e.g., if there's only a runner on second, that runner returns, but if there were runners at first and second at the start of the play, both runners would advance to accommodate the batter-runner's placement at first base).

Video as follows:

Angel Campos' College World Series Ejections of Coastal Carolina

Sunday's College World Series championship finale featured two ejections: Coastal Carolina head coach Kevin Schnall and 1B coach Matt Schilling by HP Umpire Angel Campos (formerly MLB, now NCAA Division 1). Were the ejections justified or overly aggressive, as the broadcast (and Schnall in a post-game press conference) suggested? Let's break it down.

In the first inning, 1B coach Schilling left the first base coach's box and walked toward home plate to argue balls and strikes after HP Umpire Campos called a strike during a stolen base attempt. Campos then issued a balls/strikes warning to Coastal Carolina (which is how it's done in NCAA baseball).

Chanticleer head coach Schnall (yes, that's their school mascot) then exited the dugout, in his words, to seek clarification on the warning. But when Campos responded it was a balls/strikes warning, Schnall responded by gesturing a number three with his hand while exclaiming, "you missed three pitches."

Because Schnall left his position (leaving the dugout) to argue balls and strikes after directly being warned not to continue arguing balls and strikes, he was ejected from the game.

Interesting note: NCAA Rule 3-6-f states, "If a coach leaves the dugout or their position to argue a ball or strike call (including a half swing or hit-by-pitch), the coach may be ejected without warning."

Schnall then continued arguing while walking toward home plate, eventually engaging with other umpires who had arrived to assist. One umpire fell and upon standing issued Schnall a two-game suspension (which, again, is a college-specific procedure) pursuant to NCAA Rule 2-26 regarding excessive arguing after being ejected: "No team personnel may continue to argue or to continue to excessively express themselves with prolonged actions or offensive language after an ejection. Penalty: An additional two-game suspension."

To conclude, the ejection followed a warning pursuant to the book—my only gripe is Campos' "shoo fly" gesture, which the head coach took offence to (as did I). The shooing gesture is not just an unapproved mechanic, it rarely if ever actually works to diffuse a situation. Instead, a firm stop sign might have done the trick, but considering this coach's aggressive posture regarding "you missed three pitches," I would surmise the ejection would likely have occurred either way.