Did Shoemaker Obstruct Wilkerson's Arrival at First Base?

As Twins first baseman Alex Kirilloff tagged first base to retire Orioles batter Stevie Wilkerson on a groundout, a third party entered the fray as the odd man out in the form of Minnesota starting pitcher Matt Shoemaker, leaving 1B Umpire David Rackley to not just rule on the issue of who tagged first base first, but whether Shoemaker's presence posed an obstructive influence on the play.

After the leadoff groundout call to start the 3rd inning of Monday's Orioles-Twins game, Baltimore manager Brandon Hyde approached Rackley and Crew Chief/HP Umpire Larry Vanover to advocate for an obstruction call, alleging that Shoemaker's out-of-place presence impeded Kirilloff's attempt to reach first base.

The Rule: 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." Furthermore, OBR 6.01(h)(1) states that, "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches 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."

Premise: Thus, Shoemaker, by virtue of being a fielder not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball (or taking a throw from another fielder, as Kirilloff took the ball to the bag himself), could qualify as a fielder who, if ruled to have impeded the progress of any runner, might be guilty of obstruction, the penalty of which would be to award obstructed batter-runner Wilkerson first base.

Analysis: To determine whether or not Shoemaker obstructed Wilkerson is to consider whether Wilkerson's progress was impeded. Because Kirilloff did not touch first base until a fraction of a second before Wilkerson's arrival, one can not state that the out negates the potential obstruction: Shoemaker's potential impeding act occurred prior to the moment of truth at first base, so to speak.

This is also not a nullify the act obstruction play (as it would have been had obstruction occurred while no play was being made on a runner other than the batter-runner on a ground ball before touching first base) and leaves no further room for interpretation: If Shoemaker interrupted Wilkerson's progress negatively—thus impeding it, even by a fraction of a second—then obstruction is the proper call.

If Shoemaker's unprotected presence did not have any influence on Wilkerson's progress, then there is no obstruction.

Gil's Call: Ultimately, it looked like Shoemaker obstructed his own first baseman more than Wilkerson in real-time, but there is no such rule as a fielder obstructing a teammate while there is very much a rule about a defensive player obstructing an opponent on offense.

In real-time, I didn't see Shoemaker's act as obstruction, but on replay (noting that this play is not eligible for Replay Review), and especially given Kirilloff's failure to tag first base on his first jab at it (thanks, in large part, to Shoemaker, but, again, the defensive team cannot obstruct itself), this does strike as a potentially obstructive act. The complication is that Wilkerson would have slowed his run to first base with or without Shoemaker's presence, due to Kirilloff's presence (which is protected as Kirilloff had the ball and was making a play). Accordingly, this is a 50-50 call that I could see both justifications for: a no-call or a ruling of obstruction.

What's your call? | Video as follows:

Case 20-3 - Twin Out, Triple Play, Or Intentional Drop

"Triple play!" squealed the Minnesota Twins broadcast as a bases-loaded dropped line drive dissipated into a one out sequence as called by 2B Umpire Umpire Ryan Blakney, upheld after crew consultation with Chief Laz Diaz, and confirmed after Replay Review challenge by Twins Manager Rocco Baldelli. What magic trick turned three outs into one?

The Play: With none out and the bases loaded, White Sox batter Danny Mendick hit a 1-2 curveball from Twins pitcher Rich Hill on a line drive to second baseman Luis Arraez, who dropped the batted ball before fielding and flipping to shortstop Jorge Polanco, who stepped on second base and threw onward to first baseman Miguel Sano, who tagged White Sox baserunner R1 Luis Robert, before throwing back to Twins shortstop Polanco, who tagged White Sox baserunner R2 James McCann, who was standing on second base at the time of the tag. R3 Edwin Encarnacion remained on third base and batter-runner Mendick stood at first base.

UIC DJ Reyburn and CC Laz Diaz explain.

The Call: In the middle of the action, 2B Umpire Ryan Blakney ruled F4 Arraez failed to catch the batted ball ("safe" call) before ruling baserunner R1 Robert out at second base on the force out by F6 Polanco. 1B Umpire and Crew Chief Laz Diaz made no call on F3 Sano's tag of R1 Robert (no need for a call, as Blakney had already called Robert out on the force play), before 2B Umpire Blakney ruled R2 McCann safe at second base for McCann was standing on the base at the time he was tagged.

F4 doesn't tag R2, meaning R2 is safe.

Analysis: This play was officiated correctly—as long as Arraez's drop of the batted ball is deemed unintentional. Chicago's R1 Robert was forced out at second base, making the subsequent tag of Robert at first redundant, while the defense failed to make a play on R2 McCann until the force was removed and he was allowed to return safely to second base without being forced to advance. No play was ever made on R3 nor the batter-runner; thus, only one out was recorded on this play (BR = Safe, R1 = Out, R2 = Safe, R3 = Safe).

Only one Q: Is this an intentional drop?

Case Play Question: As stated, the only way this play could have turned out differently is if the umpires deemed that F4 Arraez's drop of the baseball was intentional. The relevant rule is 5.09(a)(12), which puts a batter out when—"An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases."

Had the umpires deemed the dropped ball an intentional act, all else equal (the same sequence having occurred, tags and all), what would the proper call have been?
Hint: It's in the rule itself, which makes this exercise rather rhetorical, perhaps.

Video as follows:

Case Play Solution 2020-2 - Pitcher's Hidden Ball Trick

Previously in Case Play 2020-2 - Pitcher's Hidden Ball Trick, we asked whether an usual delivery was legal or not. Now, having consulted the Official Baseball Rules, we have an answer also applicable to NCAA college and NFHS high school baseball, with a few caveats.

To solve this pitching puzzle, we went rule-by-rule for those listed on the Case Play. Here were the findings:

OBR 3.07(a): At the professional level, the glove crotch (or webbing)'s color may or may not be legal. Enforcement of the PANTONE 14-series rule is rather difficult without carrying an entire color swatch onto the playing field. Likewise, leave this alone at the lower levels, which have no such rule. All levels of baseball require the glove not be white or gray, which this glove does not appear to be (brown/yellow). This case play pertains to a college pitcher; his glove is legal.

OBR 5.07(a)(1) / NCAA 9-1-a / NFHS 6-1-2 / 6-4-2d: We turn to a compare-and-contrast example of an overseas professional pitcher attempting a similar hidden ball trick maneuver, but ultimately failing due to an interruption to his delivery while transferring the ball from pitching hand to gloved hand behind his back. For the purpose of our case play, there does not appear to be an interruption nor alteration (OBR/NCAA/NFHS) and the pitcher remains in continuous motion (NFHS). This is legal.

OBR 6.02(a)(10) / 6.02(b): Whereas an illegal pitch carries the penalty of a balk with runner(s), this balk rule (remove one hand from the ball) does not transform into an illegal pitch with no runners on base. This rule thus is not applicable.

OBR 6.04(c) / NCAA 5-15-a-3: The unsportsmanlike conduct/game misconduct rule is the thorniest since it is subject to the greatest degree of judgment. In college, this likely would not qualify as unsporting as it would at a lower level (e.g., Little League).

Video as follows:

Case Play 2020-2 - Pitcher's Hidden Ball Trick

A recent video of University of Massachusetts Dartmouth baseball pitcher Adam Horowitz's pitch from Windup Position while removing an empty pitching hand from his glove before loading the hidden ball and delivering to a stunned batter who takes the pitch for a called strike has led baseball fans and umpires to wonder about this delivery's legality.

Case Play Question: Can a pitcher attempt to conceal the baseball from the batter during delivery by separating and reuniting his hands three times during the windup? Is it legal to pin the ball against the outside of a glove using the index finger of the gloved hand?

If this is illegal, what is the penalty with no runners on base and what is the penalty with runners?

Is a mound magic trick featuring a (feel free to read up on the seven basic principles of magic here [Penn and Teller have a fine act on the subject]) steal, misdirection, and load legal?

Answer: Rule-by-rule explanation as to legality of F1's windup trickery (4/14/20).

The following video analysis lists all relevant rules (OBR/NCAA/NFHS) and what to watch for when making your call and interpretation of whether this pitcher's delivery is legal or not. Thanks to the Umpire Video Archive for sharing.

Rules Library & Video as follows:

Case Play 2020-1 Answer - Standoff is Out of Line

After a college stalemate between catcher & runner led to a benches-clearing brawl, we made a Case Play of it. After consulting the relevant rules, it is apparent that the umpire could have declared the leading runner out earlier for running more than three feet away from his base path to avoid a tag.

Recap: Attempting to score on a hit to the outfield, a runner evades a catcher's tag near home plate, incidentally failing to touch the plate in the process. As the runner prepares to correct his base touching error, he sees the catcher ready to apply the tag and waits somewhere well behind the batter's box until the catcher acts.

The catcher, who in turn starts to chase the runner, quickly retreats to cover home plate, wary of the trailing runner who might attempt to score. A stalemate ensues, and finally ends with the preceding runner diving into an out with the catcher quickly tagging the trailing runner as well for a double play.
Related Post: Case Play 2020-1 - Home Plate Standoff & Brawl (3/2/20).

The two primarily related rules here are those of the appeal play and those of the out-of-base-path. Let's tackle each possibility.

The catcher begins to chase the runner.

Appeal Play: NCAA rule 8-6-a-4 states that a runner is out on appeal when "the runner does not touch home plate and does not make an attempt to touch it. The fielder may touch either the runner or home plate." Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(12) is the related professional rule and states, "[Runner is out when] in running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home base and appeals to the umpire for the decision." And, for good measure, NFHS (high school) rule 8-2-6b affords a live ball appeal for a runner missing a base, with 8-2-5 declaring, "If a runner who misses any base (including home plate) or leaves a base to early, desires to return to touch the base, he must do so immediately."

In this situation, because the initial "you missed the base" interaction between catcher and runner occurs off camera and we cannot conclusively determine what any potential catcher-umpire interaction was, it is difficult to determine whether the catcher actually appealed the runner's legality. For this reason, we err on the side of the call on the field, but nonetheless, the rule is designed such that the catcher is not required to physically chase a runner who makes no attempt to score or correct his no-touch error.

Runner clearly deviates by more than 3 feet.

Out of Base Path: NCAA rule 8-5-a states that a runner is out when, "In running to any base, while trying to avoid being tagged out, the runner runs more than three feet left or right from a direct line between the base and the runner’s location at the time a play is being made." The pro rule is OBR 5.09(b)(1) ("more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged...established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base") and high school is NFHS 8-4-2a ("runs more than three feet away from a direct line between bases to avoid being tagged...he establishes his baseline as directly between his position and the base toward which he is moving"). Remember, the MLB Umpire Manual states, "Base path rules still apply to the runner" in situations when the runner misses home plate.

Sidebar: NFHS uses the term "baseline" while OBR is "base path".

Ichiro Suzuki safely slides into home.

This is the rule the runner violated; he clearly runs more than three feet away from the direct line between his position at the time of the play or attempted tag (when he's off-camera behind the left-handed batter's box) and home plate. This is evident when he winds up well beyond the right-handed batter's box and more than three feet away from home plate. We contrast this in a video with Ichiro Suzuki successfully avoiding this call during a game in Baltimore.

Other Potential Outs:
Teammate Interference: OBR 6.01(a)(4) would declare the runner out for interference and cause the ball to become dead when "any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders." Naturally, it would appear the runner's own act of running well outside of his base path caused the on-deck batter to become more involved in the play than he would otherwise have been, in which case the on-deck batter's presence would become somewhat of a red herring (also: did he actually confuse/hinder or attempt to confuse/hinder his opponent?).

Video as follows:

Case Play 2020-1 - Home Plate Standoff & Brawl

A runner attempting to score fails to touch home plate as the catcher misses his tag; it's happened before, but in this Toledo-Alabama State game, it will spark a fight and ejections.

The umpire initially withholds the call—signaling neither safe nor out—and waits for a tag or touch. Yet it soon becomes apparent that neither player is budging: a stalemate and standoff ensues with the catcher not wanting to cede his position, wary of trailing runners attempting to advance, while the runner who passed home plate without touching it doesn't want to run into an out.

Eagle eye sidebar: Notice the on-deck batter's location relative to the leading runner after he passes home plate, but before he is declared safe or out.

What's the Call? Is this an appeal play? In this situation, both the preceding and trailing runners are ultimately declared out via tag when both runner slide toward home plate (the fielder then unnecessarily tags the first runner for a second time, which incites a benches-clearing brawl), but should the preceding runner have been declared out prior to the odd sequence at home plate?
Remember, while this is a college play subject to the NCAA rulebook, we are looking for a response that falls under the professional level's Official Baseball Rules code, as well as the college ruling. This video comes to us from @FoulPoleSports.

Rules Library
OBR 5.09(b)(1): "Any runner is out when—He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his 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 he is attempting to reach safely."
OBR 5.09(b)(12): "In running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to the base, when a fielder holds the ball in his hand, while touching home base, and appeals to the umpire for the decision."
OBR 5.09(b)(12) Comment: "This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged."
MLB Umpire Manual Interpretation [Runner Misses Home Plate]: "In such cases, base path rules still apply to the runner."
NCAA 8-6-4: "A runner shall be called out on specific appeals that occur as a result of a base runner error when—The runner does not touch home plate and does not make an attempt to touch it. The fielder may touch either the runner or home plate."

Video as follows:

Case Play 2019-7 - Chicken Little Strike Zone [Solved]

You can't get much more Little League than this. Team Venezuela batter Deivis Ordoñez, nickname Chicken Little, deployed a unique batting stance, crouching down so low that his knee-hollow and upper midpoint are just inches apart vertically.

So what is an umpire to do when such tomfoolery takes place at home plate?

Question: This Case Play has two parts. The first posits that the batter stands this way only for the first pitch of his at-bat and then reverts to a more traditional batting stance for the remainder of the game. How should an umpire officiate the first pitch of the plate appearance?

The second scenario is a bit more tricky. If the batter assumes this batting stance throughout the game, consistently entering a crouch this low for every pitch and remaining in this stance through swings and takes alike, how should an umpire call this batsman's strike zone? What would a computer K-Zone even look like here?

Answer: For part one, this is not the batter's usual stance for the batter is not prepared to swing at a pitched ball. As a result, the plate umpire shall best estimate where the batter's vertical strike zone would be if the batter were standing in a more natural manner. A more liberal interpretation of the zone may be appropriate.

For the second case, if the batter truly swings and hits from this severe crouching position, then this is indeed the batter's strike zone; perhaps a rules loophole, a batter may legally assume such a severe stance and have a strike zone adjudged based on this stance as long as it is in consistent use for every pitch and the batter legitimately swings and hits from this position. Don't punish an individual batter because that one person doesn't conform to the league average stance, but by the same token, that hitting stance best be consistent.

Gil's Call: I've never seen a batter successfully hit from this position (much less use that stance), but if someone comes along who can do it on a consistent basis, more power to that player. That said, if a plate umpire has ever seen this hypothetical batter swing or hit before, that'll make it quite simple to know whether the batter is attempting to manipulate the strike zone. Other opportunities to observe the batter's "true" strike zone include: batting practice, the on-deck circle, practice swings as the batter prepares to enter the box.

In Little League, if an umpire says in jest to a batter during a dead ball, "show me your home run swing," more than likely, the batter will revert to their "actual" hitting stance, at which point it will be evident whether the severe crouch is legitimate or not.

Official Baseball Rules Library
Definition of Terms: "The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

Video as follows:

Case Play 2019-6 - Selling a Fake Tag [Solved]

When Cubs SS Javy Baez saw a baseball sail into center field during Brewers baserunner R1 Ben Gamel's steal of second base in Milwaukee, Baez dissuaded Gamel from taking off for third by applying a phantom tag. Obstruction or legal fake is the question in Case Play 2019-6, "Selling a Fake Tag."

The Play: With two out and one on (R1), Brewers baserunner R1 Gamel attempted to steal second base. The throw to second base, on a bounce, hopped over infielder Baez's glove and into center field as Gamel overslid second base. As Gamel stood to correct his overslide, Baez faked as though he had the ball in his glove, causing Gamel to juke and dive around Baez, who in turn pulled away from Gamel so as not to physically tag him (while still pretending as though he were trying to do so). The play concluded with Gamel safely at second base.

Case Play Question: As 2B Umpire Ryan Additon no-called the sequence, Brewers Manager Craig Counsell exited the dugout to inquire as to Baez's actions. Place yourself in ump Additon's shoes and answer Counsell's questions: Was this obstruction? Why or why not? If this was obstruction, is it Type 1 or 2 (A or B) and what is the penalty? For extra credit, figure out this call for all rulesets: OBR, NCAA, and NFHS.

Hint: In 2017, we wrote an article concerning phantom tags in Major League Baseball. This Case Play's question investigates the gray line between a simple fake tag (legal in OBR/illegal in NFHS) and an action that blocks the runner's view. That's the key.
Related Post: Phantom Tags - Not Obstruction in Pro Ball, OBS in HS (4/16/17).

Case Play Answer: Fake tags are legal in OBR and NCAA, and illegal under the NFHS code. But let's assume that Baez's fake tag was said to have impeded Gamel from attempting to progress around the bases; let's assume obstruction has taken place. Because baserunner Gamel makes no attempt to advance to third base, pursuant to Obstruction Type 2 (Type B, because no play is being made on the runner at the time of obstruction....the ball is loose in center field, by rule, no play is made on the runner stealing a base while the overthrown ball is loose in the outfield), it would most likely be improper to award him third base to "nullify the act" of obstruction as the Type 2 penalty specifies.

As we wrote in 2017, baseball's Obstruction 2 does not guarantee a free base. The remedy for Type 2 is "impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction" under OBR 6.01(h)(2). In this case, there are no penalties the umpire needs to impose to nullify the act. The runner was safe at second whether or not obstruction took place so even if we assume there was obstruction, the proper call is nothing at all. See the following video for an explanation.
Related Post: Obstruction Type 2 Does Not Guarantee Free Base (4/29/17).

Official Baseball Rules Library
Definition of Terms: "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."
MLB Umpire Manual: Obstruction occurs when: "The fielder's actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner's view."

Video as follows:

Case Play 2019-5 - Batter Causes HBP [Solved]

A batter cannot cause a pitcher to balk, but can he induce a HBP? Giants player Kevin Pillar's errant "Time" request during Padres hurler Luis Perdomo's delivery seemed to cause a hit batsman as HP Umpire Jeff Nelson properly declined Pillar's late request for "Time," resulting in a slowly thrown pitch that bounced into Pillar's left foot on its way to the backstop. Was Nelson's subsequent hit-by-pitch ruling the correct call or should Nelson have reset the play "from scratch"?

The Play: With one out and none on in the top of the 6th inning of July 4's Giants-Padres game, San Francisco batter Pillar requested "Time" from HP Umpire Nelson as San Diego pitcher Perdomo began his delivery; replays indicate Perdomo was into his leg kick as Pillar signaled his timeout request.

Is this disrupted delivery a true HBP?

Nelson properly invoked Official Baseball Rule 5.04(b)(2) Comment and ignored Pillar's untimely request as Perdomo, perhaps thinking "Time" had been called, slowed his delivery and half-heartedly threw a slow pitch that bounced into Pillar's foot.

Case Play Question: As the ball bounced into and away from Pillar, Nelson ruled the pitch a hit batsman and awarded Pillar first base. Was this the correct call and if not, what should the call have been? No pitch? Ball? .... Strike?
Article of Note: Even if Time Not Granted, Batter Cannot Cause a Balk (7/14/18).
Article of Note: Starting From Scratch - Batter Disrupts Pitcher's Delivery (6/29/16).

Case Play Answer: Rule 5.04(b)(2) protects the pitcher from balking as a result of a batter's action, including a batter's late request for "Time" that is denied by the umpire; if the pitcher stops his motion or otherwise balks (with a runner aboard, obviously) as a result of the batter's act, the balk is disregarded and play starts from scratch, one of baseball's only true "do-over" remedies.

However, Rule 5.04(b)(2) does not protect a pitcher from throwing a ball. To better illustrate, consider this timeline of protection: If the batter inadvertently causes the pitcher to disrupt delivery, the pitcher is protected from an infraction of the rules from an illegal delivery (e.g., any balk is nullified). However, if the delivery is not illegal, then the result of the pitcher's delivery shall stand because once the pitch becomes a ball or strike, the umpire shall call it a ball or a strike (or HBP in this case). Protection extends to the conclusion of the balk/illegal pitch rule and does not include the pitch itself, which shall be called 'Ball' or 'Strike,' as the case may be.

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 5.04(b)(2) Comment: "Umpires will not call 'Time' at the request of the batter or any member of his team once the pitcher has started his windup or has come to a set position even though the batter claims 'dust in his eyes,' 'steamed glasses,' 'didn’t get the sign' or for any other cause."
OBR 5.04(b)(2) Comment [Cont'd]: "If after the pitcher starts his windup or comes to a 'set position' with a runner on, he does not go through with his pitch because the batter has inadvertently caused the pitcher to interrupt his delivery, it shall not be called a balk. 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.'"
OBR 5.04(b)(2): "The batter shall not leave his position in the batter’s box after the pitcher comes to Set Position, or starts his windup. PENALTY: If the pitcher pitches, the umpire shall call 'Ball' or 'Strike,' as the case may be."
OBR 5.05(b)(2): "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out when—He is touched by a pitched ball which he is 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."

Video as follows:

Case Play 2019-4 - Turner's Slide Tackle [Solved]

When MLB adopted its bona fide slide/interference rule, baseball didn't envision a mid-base sliding tackle like that of Dodgers 3B Justin Turner against Diamondbacks SS Nick Ahmed, in the baseline between first and second base, when Ahmed attempted to tag Turner during a ground ball on the infield. This Case Play examines the relevant sliding rules for such a play—does Official Baseball Rule 6.01(j)—Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts—apply to slides effected more than 10 feet in front of a base?

The Play: With none out and one on (R1) in the top of the 4th inning of 6/25/19's Dodgers-Diamondbacks game, Dodgers batter Justin Verdugo hit a first-pitch slider from Diamondbacks pitcher Robbie Ray on the ground to shortstop Ahmed (playing on the right side of second base as part of a defensive shift). Ahmed fielded the ball and attempted to tag Turner while looking toward Verdugo for a potential double play at first base. Instead, Turner went into a slide, which caused Ahmed to trip and fall, and allowed Verdugo to reach first base safely.

SIDEBAR: 1B Umpire Alan Porter was patiently positioned at first base waiting for a potential play. It stands to reason that if not for Turner's early slide that tripped up fielder Ahmed, this would have likely resulted in two outs. In other words, this was a double play attempt in the making.

Turner undercuts Ahmed between the bases.

The Call: Initially ruled safe by 2B Umpire Jim Reynolds—he had deemed that Ahmed failed to tag Turner—Crew Chief Mark Wegner signaled that Replay Review had overturned the call to an out on R1 Turner as the result of Diamondbacks Manager Torey Lovullo's challenge.

Case Play Question: Was this the correct ruling, or should a double play have been awarded? If so, is this a reviewable call or would a potential interference call have to come from the umpires on the field? If video hadn't indicated that Ahmed's glove tagged Turner on the shoulder, would the proper call have been to declare all runners safe (as Reynolds ruled), Turner out, or both Turner and Verdugo out?

Answer: There are two rules-correct outcomes here. Either R1 Turner is out or both R1 Turner and BR Verdugo are out. The difference between the first and second outcome is entirely "umpire judgment."

UEFL Case Play 2019-4 Video Answer.

First and foremost, the slide interference/bona fide slide Rule 6.01(j) does not apply here because this is not a play at a base. The purpose of 6.01(j) is to protect the fielder from an illegal slide wherein the fielder attempts to tag a base with his foot to complete a force out (in the furtherance of a potential double play). That rule goes hand-in-hand with the elimination of the "neighborhood play" exemption at second base for double plays.

Here, because there is no attempted tag of a base with a foot—just of a runner with a glove—there is no 6.01(j) protection for the fielder. That makes the play not subject to review for interference (the tag/no tag issue is still reviewable), which means the only way to get a double play here is "old school" Rule 6.01(a)(6), which outlines what willful and deliberate interference is regarding a runner attempting to break up a double play.

This is a purely judgment call, and the intent of the runner shall govern. If you rule that Turner intended to interfere in order to deprive the double play, then you'd get a double play due to willful and deliberate interference. If you rule that Turner did not intend to do this, then only Turner is out.

In this sense, the rule penalizes the nefarious player while ignoring what could be deemed a reckless play by an ignorant runner. Naturally, if your league has a malicious contact clause (which MLB does not), you may deem it appropriate to consider whether the nasty slide has risen to that level.

Official Baseball Rules (OBR) Library
OBR 5.09(a)(13): "A batter is out when—A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play. The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play."
OBR 6.01(a)(6): "It is interference by a batter or a runner when—If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate."
OBR 6.01(j) [Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts]: "If a runner does not engage in a bona fide slide, and initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play, he should be called for interference under this Rule 6.01. A 'bona fide slide' for the purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs when the runner:"
OBR 6.01(j)(1): "begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base;"
OBR 6.01(j)(2): "is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot;"
OBR 6.01(j)(3): "is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide; and"
OBR 6.01(j)(4): "slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder."
OBR 6.01(j): "A slide shall not be a “bona fide slide” if a runner engages in a “roll block,” or intentionally initiates (or attempts to initiate) contact with the fielder by elevating and kicking his leg above the fielder’s knee or throwing his arm or his upper body."
MLBUM 49: "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball or attempting to throw a ball with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare the runner out for interference and shall also declare the batter-runner out for the interference of his teammate."

Video as follows:

Case Play 2019-3 - Infield Fly Interference [Solved]

This week's Ask the UEFL Case Play concerns an infield fly rule play complicated by an intervening case of interference between the batter-runner and first baseman attempting to catch a batted ball. Though this video example comes from softball—and features an off-field umpire, UIC, or supervisor walking onto the field to join in on the on-field crew's conference—we'll analyze this peculiar play in accordance with baseball rules.

The Play: With one out and the bases loaded, the score a 6-6 tie, in the bottom of the final inning of regulation during a Spanish Fork-Bear River state tournament semifinal game, a Bear River batter hits a fly ball in the infield along the foul line between home plate and first base. Due to the batted ball's trajectory, the umpires easily declare an infield fly (if fair). As the batter-runner approaches first base, an interaction occurs with the Spanish Fork first baseman, resulting in the fielder dropping the fair ball as Bear River baserunner R3 attempts to score from third base. The ensuing throw home is late and the offensive team celebrates the apparent winning run.

BR and F3 interact up line near first base.

The Call: Having deemed the interaction between batter-runner and fielder attempting to catch a batted ball illegal, the first base umpire declares "interference" and calls "Time" to kill the play. After consultation, the umpires declare an inning-ending double play and nullify the run.

Question: When is a batter out during an infield fly play? Is it when the umpire first declares the infield fly, and if so, what happens if the already-out batter goes on to interfere with a fielder attempting to make a play on the ball, and does this cause the ball to become dead? Assuming Official Baseball Rules, was the inning-ending double play call correct?

Umpires get both coaches together.

Answer: In short, under OBR, the batter is out and the runner is returned to third base. The ball becomes dead upon the moment it is ruled a fair ball, meaning the play at home plate never happened.

Under NFHS Softball Rule 8-6-16, the runner closest to home is out if, in the umpire's judgment, interference by a retired runner prevents a double play. All other runners must return to bases last touched at the time of interference.

For OBR's ruleset, we have a slightly similar—yet different—rule in 6.01(a)(5), which states a runner on whom the fielder is playing shall be declared out if a recently-retired batter or runner interferes.

The answer to this Case Play lies in OBR's definition of Infield Fly Rule, which states in part, "If interference is called during an infield fly, the ball remains alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul." As soon as fair/foul is determined, the ball becomes dead. There is no interference with a play on R3, as the ball was already dead before a potential play on R3 occurred.

VIDEO Answer: IFR & INT Case Play.

The interference is with the fielder's attempt to catch a fly ball, not with the fielder's subsequent attempt to make a play on another runner as the interference occurred prior to this attempt, meaning, the ball was already dead before the play on the other runner (R3) occurred.

As for, "If fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the batter are out," the runner who interfered is the batter, which means the rule's transitive translation is, "if fair, both [the batter] and the batter are out."

As we discussed in April this season, no runner can be declared out twice during the same play (unless otherwise allowed by rule, e.g., intentional or deliberate interference to break up a double play); the batter is thus out (once) and all runners returned to their bases. Continue the inning with two outs and the bases loaded.
Related Post: R2 Out Twice in False Triple Play - Crazy College Caper (4/11/19).

Finally, OBR 5.09(a)(2)(5) states the batter is out when an Infield Fly is declared. It's important to note the difference between declaring an Infield Fly and enforcing one, as well as the timeline concerning when a ball becomes dead during such play and how this relates to an Infield Fly. The batter is out on "Infield Fly, if Fair" assuming that the ball is fair. A foul ball, obviously, would cancel the infield fly rule, but the batter would still be out for interference with a fielder attempting to catch a batted ball.

Given the timeline of events with a batter interfering on an infield fly to the first baseman, it would be pretty difficult for the batter to interfere with a subsequent play on a teammate—largely because the ball becomes dead so quickly, and also because the ball is still in flight at the time of interference when the fielder is pursuing the batted ball, not looking at retiring another runner. Either way, the proper result under OBR is to declare the batter out and return all runners.

For what it's worth, visiting team Spanish Fork ultimately defeated Bear River, 8-6.

Official Baseball Rules Library:
OBR Definition [Infield Fly Rule]: "If interference is called during an infield fly, the ball remains alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the batter are out. If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the batter returns to bat."
Related Post: MLB Modifies Interference Rules, Including Infield Fly Case (2/19/13).
OBR 5.09(a)(2)(5): "A batter is out when—An Infield Fly is declared." The umpire is to declare the infield fly when "it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly."
OBR 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:

Case Play 2019-2 - Fly Ball off Player & Wall [Solved]

In the midst of Boston's Memorial Day win over Cleveland, Red Sox batter JD Martinez's fly ball to deep right field wound up in the fair territory bullpen beyond the outfield wall, ruled a home run by 1B Umpire Gabe Morales. With replays indicating the ball caromed off the wall, then deflecting off Indians right fielder Oscar Mercado's glove, and finally landing out of play, was HR the correct call?

Was this a home run or a different base award?

The Play: With two out and none on in the bottom of the 6th inning of Monday's Indians-Red Sox game, batter Martinez hit a fly ball to deep right field that struck the top of the outfield wall, bouncing back toward Indians outfielder Mercado. As Mercado approached the wall, the ball then deflected off the outfielder's glove and fell out of play, into the bullpen beyond fair territory.

Case Play Question: Was the crew's ruling of home run the proper call, given that the batted ball in flight first struck the top of the outfield wall before appearing to bounce over the warning track where it made contact with the fielder on the playing field, finally falling out of play beyond the fence?
Related Post: Replay Review, Ground Rules, and Levi's Landing (9/1/17).
Related Post: 2B Bounding Ball Over Ground Rules-Less Kauffman (7/22/15).

Case Play Answer: By rule, a fair ball passing over a fence at a distance of 250 feet or more is a home run, but a bounding fly ball entitles the batter and runners to two bases. The MLB Umpire Manual further clarifies that a fair fly ball that strikes the top of the wall and bounces over the wall shall be ruled a home run, while a fair fly ball that strikes the top of the wall and bounds back into play shall be live and treated the same as a fly ball that hits off the wall and rebounds back onto the playing field.

Jose Canseco's HR assist is a different play.

Thus, the fly ball is treated as rebounding back onto the playing field, whereupon it is deflected by a fielder and then goes out of play. The resulting award shall be two bases. Had this play gone to Replay Review, the proper decision would be to overturn the on-field ruling and apply the two-base award from the time of the pitch, for the ball was not in flight when it was deflected by the fielder out of play.

Had the fly ball first hit the player, then deflected over the wall, in flight, it would have been a home run. The determining factor is what the ball first struck and, secondarily, what happened to the ball after it hit the outfield wall (e.g., bounded back into play vs. bounced over the wall and out of play).

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 5.05(a)(5): "The batter becomes a runner when—A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally."
OBR 5.05(a)(8): "The batter becomes a runner when—Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases."
OBR 5.05(a)(9): "The batter becomes a runner when—Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run."
OBR 5.06(4)(A): "Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel."
MLBUM 9: "Unless provided otherwise by local ground rule, a fair fly ball striking the top of the outfield wall and bounding back onto the playing field shall be treated the same as a fair fly ball that strikes the outfield wall and rebounds back onto the playing field."
MLBUM 9: "Unless provided otherwise by local ground rule, a fair fly ball striking the top of the outfield wall and bounding over the wall shall be ruled a home run."
MLBUM 20: "If a fair fly ball is deflected in flight by a fielder and then goes out of the playing field in flight over fair territory, it is a home run."
MLBUM 20: "If a fair ball not in flight is deflected by a fielder and then goes out of play, the award is two bases from the time of the pitch."
Fenway Park Ground Rule: "Batted ball in flight striking left of line in right center field and bounding into bullpen: Home Run."

Video as follows:

Case Play 2019-1 - Modified Catch & Carry [Solved]

After HP Umpire Will Little called "Time" when Nationals catcher Yan Gomes stepped into the dugout while keeping his mitt and the ball on the playing field, Joe West's crew awarded Padres baserunner R1 Eric Hosmer second base and R2 Manuel Margot home plate, prompting a nearly 10-minute Replay Review when Nationals Manager Dave Martinez challenged the crew's decision to score baserunner R2 Margot.

The Play (Saturday): With one out and the bases loaded Saturday night in DC, Padres batter Hunter Renfroe hit a 1-2 slider from Nationals pitcher Matt Grace on a fly ball to center fielder Victor Robles for a sacrifice fly, Padres baserunner R3 Manny Machado scoring. Robles' subsequent throw to catcher Yan Gomes bounced off Gomes' mitt and toward the Padres' third base dugout, enabling baserunner R2 Manuel Margot to advance to third base and baserunner R1 Eric Hosmer to advance toward second base. Gomes, in an effort to keep the ball on the playing field and out of the dugout, caught the ball in his mitt, and kept his mitt on the playing surface, while running into the dugout with both feet to keep his balance, before exiting the dugout with ball in hand.

Catcher Hedges also played a wild throw.

The Play (Sunday): With one out and none on Sunday, Nationals batter Howie Kendrick hit a ground ball to Padres first baseman Hosmer, who threw wildly beyond first base, backed up by catcher Austin Hedges, who similarly attempted to save the loose ball from rolling into the opposing dugout. Unlike Gomes, however, Hedges placed his gloved hand in order to tap the ball, keeping the ball rolling freely along the warning track while he stepped into the dugout. Hedges then exited the dugout and, after placing a foot onto the warning track, retrieved the ball.

Gomes disagrees with decision to score R2.

The Call (Saturday): HP Umpire Will Little called "Time" and ruled that because Gomes left the field of play, the ball was dead. As a result, the umpires awarded R2 Margot home plate and R1 Hosmer second base, ruling that Hosmer hadn't yet reached second base at the time Gomes stepped out of play, while Margot had already achieved third base.

Replay Review Decision: Following Nats skipper Martinez's dispute with the crew's runner placement in awarding R2 Margot home (and R1 Hosmer second base), the Replay Official affirmed Margot's placement, but overturned Hosmer's status, instead placing Hosmer at third base, resulting in the rare Manager's Challenge that actually hurt the team requesting the review.

West and crew discusses the play.

So while this statistically is a Manager's Challenge that Martinez won by virtue of the overturned call, the result is a Pyrrhic victory: TSP increases, but the baserunner advances an extra 90 feet.

Case Play Question (Saturday): Given that Replay Review placed Hosmer at third base, was this the proper ruling (not necessarily runner placement, but was the one-base award from time of the dead ball proper?)? Is this a catch-and-carry, given that the fielder did not physically carry the ball out of play?

The Call (Sunday): HP Umpire Joe West ruled the ball live and in play as Nationals batter-runner Kendrick took second base on Hosmer's throwing error.

Case Play Question (Sunday): Was the Hedges play properly ruled a live ball? After stepping out of play, was Hedges entitled to return to the playing field and legally play the ball?

Answer: The first thing to notice about the OBR library is that 5.06(b)(3) refers to a catch of a fly ball. According to the Definition of Terms, "A FLY BALL is a batted ball that goes high in the air in flight." This is reinforced by the following: "A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it."

In other words, 5.06(b)(3) applies to batted balls, which these plays were not; the ball was thrown. By rule, this isn't a catch; it's a false catch, to play on the terminology.

Rule 5.06(b)(4)(G) states that runners, including the batter-runner, advance: "Two bases when, with no spectators on the playing field, a thrown ball goes into the stands, or into a bench..."

SIDEBAR: Another way you can tell 5.06(b)(3) applies only to a batted ball is that the batter is explicitly excluded from the base award. Why? Because the batter is out on the caught fly ball.

Because this wasn't a first play by an infielder, the runners are awarded two bases from the time of the throw (first play by an infielder would be two bases from time of pitch). On Saturday, that places R2 at home and R1 at third base. Thus, Replay Review in overturning the crew's placement of R1 at second base corrected far more than a judgment call—it fixed an incorrect application of the rules. Under no circumstances with a thrown ball going out of play would R1 be awarded one base.

As for the difference between Saturday & Sunday, the MLB Umpire Manual States, "A fielder is considered to be in the dugout—and therefore unable to make a valid catch—when the fielder has one or both feet on the surface inside the dugout."

It also states, "If a fielder, after making a legal catch on the playing surface, steps or falls into any out-of-play area at any point while in possession of the ball...the ball shall be dead."

This is where we take a surgeon's knife to the rule to piece together only what is applicable. On Saturday, catcher Gomes was considered in the dugout when he stepped into it. Because he retained possession of the ball while in the dugout, the ball was dead. On Sunday, catcher Hedges was no longer in possession of the ball when he left the playing field and stepped into the dugout. Similarly, he returned to the field by stepping out of the dugout and back onto the warning track before picking up the baseball, thus keeping play alive.

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 5.06(b)(3): "Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when—A fielder, after catching a fly ball, steps or falls into any out-of-play area."
OBR 5.06(b)(3)(C) Comment: "If a fielder, after having made a legal catch, should step or fall into any out-of-play area, the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base, without liability to be put out, from his last legally touched base at the time the fielder entered such out-of-play area."
OBR 5.09(a)(1) Comment: "A fielder may reach into, but not step into, a dugout to make a catch, and if he holds the ball, the catch shall be allowed. A fielder, in order to make a catch on a foul ball nearing a dugout or other out-of-play area (such as the stands), must have one or both feet on or over the playing surface (including the lip of the dugout) and neither foot on the ground inside the dugout or in any other out-of-play area. Ball is in play, unless the fielder, after making a legal catch, steps or falls into a dugout or other out-of-play area, in which case the ball is dead. Status of runners shall be as described in Rule 5.06(b)(3)(C) Comment."

Videos (Saturday/Gomes & Sunday/Hedges) x2 as follows:

Case Play 2018-9 - Walk-off Appeal Madness

As the 2018 Arizona Fall League All-Star Game ended on a walk-off base hit, 1B Umpire Nestor Ceja lingered for a few extra seconds as first baseman Peter Alonso tried calling for an appeal, claiming that batter-runner Meibrys Viloria failed to touch first base.

East All-Star Alonso calls out to deaf ears.

The Play: With one on (R3) and two out in the bottom of the 9th inning of a tied ballgame, West All-Stars batter Viloria hit a line drive to the gap in right-center field, easily scoring baserunner R3 Buddy Reed from third base. As Viloria approached and rounded first base, an onslaught of celebrating teammates pushed and shoved him away from the bag such that Viloria was unable to touch first base as he ran by.

Both U1 Ceja and F3 Alonso noticed Viloria's struggle and non-touch, as Ceja remained in the vicinity and Alonso tried calling for the ball to retire Viloria for the inning's third out and send the AFL's Fall Stars game into extras.

Ceja, waiting for appeal, is trapped in the mob.

The theatre turned out to be all for naught, as Viloria, after rounding first base without actually touching it, fought through a mob of celebrating teammates to return to and touch first base, all while the baseball remained in right-center field, the East All-Stars having given up on the play.

Question: Assume Alonso's teammates in the outfield were actually paying attention and threw the ball to Alonso as Viloria fought through his teammates to return to first base. What would be the proper ruling if... A) Alonso tagged Viloria while off his base (or tagged first base before Viloria returned to touch it)? B) Alonso was unable to get to Viloria (or the base) before Viloria returned due to the human traffic jam caused by the West All-Star celebration?

And, if you're really daring, C) A security guard picked up the baseball and threw it back to Alonso, who then tagged Viloria while off his base (go ahead and assume the bases were loaded, too)?

This Q resembles a 2015 play in AZ.

Yes, this is meant as a reference to the walk-off non-appeal play in Arizona from 2015, when Reds second baseman Brandon Phillips tried to appeal R2 and R3's failures to touch their respective bases on a bases loaded, one-out, walk-off single. A security officer retrieved and threw the ball to Phillips, who tagged several bases in an attempt to appeal the baserunning infractions. Crew Chief Larry Vanover said that because R3 touched home and BR touched first, the game was over, thus leaving the security guard issue unanswered.

MLB added an interpretation to Rule 5.08(b) since then [formerly known as 4.09(b)] to state that a base hit does not qualify as a 5.08(b) game-ending play since 5.08(b) now requires an event that "forces the batter and all other runners to advance without liability of being put out." The rule used to say "...which forces the runner on third to advance" only. MLB since made it clear that 5.08(b) (f/k/a 4.09(b)) only applies to bases-loaded without liability of being put out situations. This time, the batter-runner hasn't yet touched first, so we ask the question again.
Related Post: Case Play 2015-07, Merkle Revisited [Solved] (8/10/15).

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 5.09(c)(2): "Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when—With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged."
OBR 5.09(c): "Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play. If the violation occurs during a play which ends a half-inning, the appeal must be made before the defensive team leaves the field...For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has 'left the field' when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or clubhouse."
OBR 6.01(a)(4): "It is interference by a batter or a runner when—Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates."
OBR 6.01(a)(8): "It is interference by a batter or runner when—In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base."
OBR 6.01(b) [Fielder Right of Way]: "The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball...If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference."
OBR 6.01(d) [Unintentional Interference]: "In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the team at bat who are participating in the game, or a base coach, any of whom interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown ball; or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference."

Video as follows:

Plate Meeting Podcast 5 - Chris Hubler & JEAPU Play

Welcome to the fifth episode of The Plate Meeting, a LF Umpire Podcast from Close Call Sports, where we talk umpiring with umpires. In episode 5, Tmac and Gil chat with MiLB veteran and Jim Evans Academy clinician Chris Hubler about his professional baseball career, JEAPU affiliation, and modern changes to the game.

We also take a phone call from the audience, a certain "Mike Gilbert" from "Fort Collins, Colorado" (29-year American League umpire Jim Evans), who asks a convoluted JEAPU-caliber quiz question about a play featuring a balk, base hit, and batting-out-of-order appeal. For extra credit, we open the Podcast up to a UEFL Case Play by adding catcher's interference to the equation (scroll down for more about this Podcast version of our UEFL Case Play series)

Click the below "play" button to hear Episode 5 - Chris Hubler's View and Jim Evans' Play, Too, or visit the show online at https://anchor.fm/the-plate-meeting to subscribe. The Plate Meeting is also available through the iTunes store's podcasts section (The Plate Meeting on iTunes), Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and other podcast providers listed on the Anchor.fm page.

Additional Links, Videos, and Other Media:
The following section contains relevant links, footnotes, or additional commentary relative to subjects discussed on the show. Click the following links for this episode to access the relevant videos.

The Plate Meeting is brought to you by OSIP, where Outstanding Sportsmanship Is Paramount.

Donate/Store Buttons	Support the UEFL	Shop the CCS Store.

Follow us on Twitter 🐦 (@UmpireEjections) and like on Facebook 👍 (/UmpireEjections).

Related Link: Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring's 2018 California Classic (10/22-10/27).

Related Link: United Umpires Profile of Chris Hubler || Force 3 Pro Gear.

UEFL Case Play 2018-9 - The JEAPU Balk and Catcher's Interference Puzzler

Straight from the Podcast to a Case Play! With a runner on third and less than two out, the pitcher is called for a balk during his delivery. He nonetheless completes his pitch and the batter swings and hits a line drive to right field, easily jogging to first base safely, as the plate umpire calls catcher's interference because during his swing, the batter's bat touched the catcher's glove. Baserunner R3 remains on third base for the entirety of the play. After the umpires call "Time," the defensive manager appeals to the plate umpire that the offense has batted out of turn. The UIC confirms that the offense indeed sent the improper batter to the plate. What's the call?