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:

MLB Ejections 172-3 - Brock Ballou (2-3; ATL x2)

HP Umpire Brock Ballou ejected Braves manager Brian Snitker and 1B Matt Olson (batter-runner interference call; QOCY) in the bottom of the 6th inning of the #Pirates-#Braves game. With none out and none on, Braves batter Olson hit a 3-1 changeup from Pirates pitcher Bubba Chandler on a fly ball into foul territory, whereupon catcher Henry Davis and Olson collided, resulting in an interference call by HP Umpire Ballou. Replays indicate that after hitting the fly ball, batter-runner Olson remained at home plate and failed to avoid catcher Davis as required by rule, and that the tangle-untangle exemption to the interference rule did not apply because Olson did not attempt to run toward first base, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejections, the Pirates were leading, 3-1. The Pirates ultimately won the contest, 3-1.

These are is Brock Ballou (41)'s 2nd and 3rd ejections of 2025.

*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."

OBR 6.01(a)(10) Comment on "Armbrister Tangle": "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called."

These are the 172nd and 173rd ejections of the 2025 MLB regular season.

This is the 90th manager ejection of 2025.

This is the 55th player ejection of 2025. Ejection Tally: 90 Managers, 28 Coaches, 55 Players.

This is Atlanta's 3/4th ejection of 2025, 3rd in the NL East (WAS 10; NYM 5; ATL, MIA 4; PHI 3).

This is Brian Snitker's 3rd ejection of 2025, 1st since August 27 (Mark Wegner; QOC = U [Warnings]).

This is Matt Olson's first career MLB ejection.

This is Brock Ballou's 2/3rd ejection of 2025, 1st since July 7 (Ray Montgomery; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Pittsburgh Pirates vs Atlanta Braves, 9/27/25 | 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:

MLB Ejections 153-4 - Brian Walsh (2-3; NYY x2)

HP Umpire Brian Walsh ejected Yankees pitcher Devin Williams and manager Aaron Boone (ball calls to Taylor Trammel; QOCN) in the bottom of the 8th inning of the #Yankees-#Astros game. With two out and the bases loaded, Astros batter Trammel took a 2-0 fastball and 3-1 changeup from Yankees pitcher Williams for called third and fourth balls. Replays indicate the 2-0 pitch was located over the inner half of home plate and below the midpoint (px 0.71, pz 3.44 [sz_top 3.75 / RAD 3.87 / MOE 3.79]) and the 3-1 pitch was located over the inner half of home plate an at the hollow beneath the knee (px 0.45, pz 1.57 [sz_bot 1.70 / RAD 1.58]), the call was incorrect.*

These are Brian Walsh (60)'s 2nd and 3rd ejections of 2025.

*The 2-0 pitch was located 4.20 vertical inches from being deemed correct.

Official Baseball Rules Definition: "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..In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that they have complete control of the ball and that their release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught."

These are the 153rd and 154th ejection reports of the 2025 MLB regular season.

This is the 50th player ejection of 2025.

This is the 80th manager ejection of 2025. Ejection Tally: 80 Managers, 24 Coaches, 50 Players.

This is New York's 15/16th ejection of 2025, 1st in the AL East (NYY 16; BOS, TOR 7; BAL 5; TB 4).

This is Devin Williams' first career MLB ejection.

This is Aaron Boone's 6th ejection of 2025, 1st since August 10 (Derek Thomas; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

This is Brian Walsh's 2/3rd ejection of 2025, 1st since July 8 (Mike Shildt; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: New York Yankees vs Houston Astros, 9/3/25 | Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 152 - Dan Bellino (2; Bob Melvin)

HP Umpire Dan Bellino ejected Giants manager Bob Melvin (ball three call to Tyler Freeman; QOCN) in the bottom of the 5th inning of the #Giants-#Rockies game. With two out and one on, Rockies batter Freeman took a 2-2 fastball from Giants pitcher Robbie Ray for a called second ball. Replays indicate the pitch was located over the inner edge of home plate and below the midpoint (px -0.66, pz 3.04 [sz_bot 3.38 / RAD 3.50 / MOE 3.42]), the call was incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the Rockies were leading, 5-4. The Giants ultimately won the contest, 10-8.

This is Dan Bellino (2)'s 2nd ejection of 2025.

*This pitch was located 1.08 horizontal and 4.56 vertical inches from being deemed incorrect.

We also review a home plate collision play on Rockies batter Hunter Goodman's single to Giants left fielder Heliot Ramos, who threw to catcher Patrick Bailey as Rockies baserunner R2 Freeman arrived at home plate, resulting in a collision. Because Bailey veered into foul territory—into the runner's path—in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (which itself was off the line) as the runner ran directly toward home plate, this is a legal unavoidable collision and no violation on either the catcher nor the runner. The Giants unsuccessfully challenged HP Umpire Bellino's safe call, which was confirmed.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(i)(l): "A runner attempting to score may not deviate from their direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher, or otherwise initiate an avoidable collision. If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (regardless of whether the catcher maintains possession of the ball)."

This is the 152nd ejection report of the 2025 MLB regular season.

This is the 79th manager ejection of 2025. Ejection Tally: 79 Managers, 24 Coaches, 49 Players.

This is San Francisco's 7th ejection of 2025, 4th in the NL West (SD 9; SF 7; ARI 5; COL 4; LAD 3).

This is Bob Melvin's 4th ejection of 2025, 1st since June 30 (Quinn Wolcott; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

This is Dan Bellino's 2nd ejection of 2025, 1st since May 10 (Bryan Reynolds; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: San Francisco Giants vs Colorado Rockies, 9/3/25 | 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:

MLB Ejection 135 - Roberto Ortiz (5; José Caballero)

2B Umpire Roberto Ortiz ejected Yankees RF José Caballero (Replay Review decision that upheld out call/pace of play/disengagement no-call; QOCY) in the top of the 10th inning of the #Yankees-#Rays game. With one out and none on, Yankees batter José Caballero attempted to steal second base during Aaron Judge's at bat, thrown out by Rays catcher Hunter Feduccia to second baseman Brandon Lowe and affirmed as an out (call stands) upon Replay Review as the result of a manager's challenge by Yankees manager Aaron Boone. Replays do not conclusively indicate whether Lowe tagged Caballero while he was off the base, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Yankees were leading, 6-3. The Yankees ultimately won the contest, 6-4, in 10 innings.

This is Roberto Ortiz (40)'s 5th ejection of 2025.

*Prior to the caught stealing, Caballero appeared to be awarded second base on a disengagement balk as a result of pitcher Pete Fairbanks throwing over to first base three times unsuccessfully during the same at-bat. However, replays indicate that after the second disengagement and pickoff attempt, 1B Umpire Ben May called "Time" to replace the baseball. As Fairbanks never re-engaged the pitcher's plate/rubber and thus HP Umpire Chad Fairchild never put the ball back into play, the ball never became live, the third "throw" did not legally occur, and, therefore there was no third "disengagement." Had R1 Caballero been "out" during the dead ball pickoff attempt, the out call would not have stood either.

Official Baseball Rule 5.12: "When an umpire suspends play, they shall call “Time.” At the umpire-in-chief’s call of “Play,” the suspension is lifted and play resumes. Between the call of “Time” and the call of “Play” the ball is dead."

OBR 5.12 continued: "After the ball is dead, play shall be resumed when the pitcher takes their place on the pitcher’s plate with a new ball or the same ball in their possession and the plate umpire calls 'Play.'"

This is the 135th ejection of the 2025 MLB regular season.

This is the 39th player ejection of 2025. Ejection Tally: 73 Managers, 23 Coaches, 39 Players.

This is New York's 13th ejection of 2025, 1st in the AL East (NYY 13; BOS, TOR 7; BAL 5; TB 4).

This is José Caballero's first career MLB ejection.

This is Roberto Ortiz's 5th ejection of 2025, 1st since August 12 (Don Kelly; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: New York Mets vs Washington Nationals, 8/20/25 | Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 125 - Ryan Blakney (2; Alex Cora)

HP Umpire Ryan Blakney ejected Red Sox manager Alex Cora (balk no-call on Hunter Brown; QOCY) in the top of the 7th inning of the #RedSox-#Astros game. With two out and one on, Red Sox batter Romy Gonzalez took two pitches from Astros pitcher Brown, ruled ball one and strike one. Boston contended that Brown balked because he failed to declare his switch from Windup Position during the first pitch of the at-bat to Set Position for the second pitch of the at-bat. By rule, a pitcher needn't declare use of Set Position with a runner on the base—it is not a balk—the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Astros were leading, 2-1. The Astros ultimately won the contest, 4-1.

This is Ryan Blakney (36)'s 2nd ejection of 2025.

*Official Baseball Rule 5.07(a): "There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup Position and the Set Position, and either position may be used at any time."

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

This is the 125th ejection report of the 2025 MLB regular season.

This is the 66th manager ejection of 2025. Ejection Tally: 66 Managers, 21 Coaches, 38 Players.

This is Boston's 7th ejection of 2025, 1st in the AL East (NYY 11; BOS 7; TOR 6; BAL 5; TB 3).

This is Alex Cora's 1st ejection since June 23, 2025 (Alan Porter; QOC = N [Obstruction]).

This is Ryan Blakney's 2nd ejection of 2025, 1st since June 21 (Lawrence Butler; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Box: Boston Red Sox vs Houston Astros, 8/13/25 | 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:

Runner Prevents Double Play by Fielding Ground Ball - Is That Legal?

Have you ever seen a baserunner field a ground ball? During July 1's La Crosse Loggers vs Duluth Huskies game in the Northwoods League, runner R2 Ethan Surowiec sought to prevent a double play on a bases loaded ground ball, opting to field the batted ball in front of La Crosse's waiting shortstop, resulting in a dead ball, with umpires ruling R2 Surowiec out and awarding batter-runner Reagan Reeder first base (the official scoring put this as a fielder's choice, but by rule this application would be credited as a single for the batter).

But was this the correct call?

This precise scenario is covered by Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(6): "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 their teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner."

College's rule is even stricter, not requiring "obvious intent" but simply intentional interference: "If a double play is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is attempting to field or throw the ball, both the runner and batter-runner shall be declared out" (NCAA 8-5-d).

High school returns to OBR's "obvious" standard: "The batter-runner is out when any runner or retired runner interferes (2-21-1, 2-30-3) in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play" (NFHS 8-4-1h).

In sum, this very likely should have been ruled a double play. | Video as follows: