An interesting decoy

[Richard_Siegel]

While at CDP this past week I saw several teams attempt legal plays with decoys and deceptions. Some of these teams play a hundred games a year and they work hard on these plays. Here is one I never saw before.

I am the PU. R3 & R2 no outs. BR hits a fly ball to left field that was good for a sac fly. R3 tags up and runs home. The throw comes into the pitcher who is the cut-off man standing in the middle of the infield. The pitcher makes no attmpt to get R3 at HP. He holds R2 at 2B. R3 easilly scores. I see him step right in the middle of HP, and he runs about 20 feet more beyond HP.

Suddenly 4 or 5 players in the offensive team's dugout start yelling to R3, "Touch the plate! Go back and touch the plate!" The pitcher hears this and turns around, then R3 starts to dart back to HP to touch it. I know he already touched it. But the pitcher seeing R3 coming back to HP whips the ball to F2 to tag R3. As soon as he throws the ball to F2, R2 moves over to 3B!

I knew it was a deception because as soon as F1 threw the ball to F2 he stopped trying to get back to HP because he knew he already scored. F2, nevertheless, goes over and tags R3. To which I have to awkwardly signal "safe," and I say, "He touched the plate the first time he passed it."

The defensive head coach comes over to ask me why I called him safe since he never made it back to HP. I told him that he touched the plate the first time he passed it. "Then why did he runs backl to tag it?" I answered, "I don't know, his teammates told him to." Then the light buld went off and he knew they had him!

[archipelligo]

Too bad those goody goody's are protected from what would happen if they tried that in real baseball, the next time the best player came to bat, he might get one to eat.

Thats a bush league travesty of the game, and a bush league travesty league that allows that kind of stuff without telling the head coach to knock that crap off.

[Dragon29]

Too bad those goody goody's are protected from what would happen if they tried that in real baseball, the next time the best player came to bat, he might get one to eat.

Thats a bush league travesty of the game, and a bush league travesty league that allows that kind of stuff without telling the head coach to knock that crap off.

I don't know that I feel as strongly about it as you do, but I will say that a team that has the time to work on stuff like that in practice is probably good enough to not have to resort to such tactics - so, what's the point?

It's gamesmanship on the brink of unsportsmanlike conduct. But, deception is part of the game . . .

[archipelligo]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

[Richard_Siegel]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

Let he who is without sin ....

I, for one, happen to enjoy the ingenuity of these kinds of plays. I have no problem with those who disapprove of using such deceptions. That's a personal choice you are free to make. But I can't believe an umpire would consider lying and cheating to "teach a lesson" to a team who has done something legal? What's wrong with that picture?

[SocalBlue1]

it's bush league for the little tykes (Under 10). At the CDP level F2 should have been watching and KNOWN R3 touched the plate and waved off any throw home., possibly resulting in catching R2 in a run-down.

[mazzamouth]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

So you r saying that if you see him touch home plate, and then this play h appens and the coach copmes and argues you are going to say that you say him miss it too, just cause the coach and the team is yelling " go back and touch Home"... there is now way some is talking me into this one.

[Ozzy]

Too bad those goody goody's are protected from what would happen if they tried that in real baseball, the next time the best player came to bat, he might get one to eat.

Thats a bush league travesty of the game, and a bush league travesty league that allows that kind of stuff without telling the head coach to knock that crap off.
It's not a "bush league" play, it's a play that shows just how gullible the opposition can be! Look, in this play, a cut off is used so F2 should be watching R3 make the touch. There are 8 other sets of eyes that can watch R2. This is all perfectly legal and not a travesty. You need to get your head back into umpiring and stop trying to "even up" the field!

[Dano]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

So you suggest retaliating what you claim is "Bush League" with Bull**** league umpiring?

[Richard_Siegel]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

So you suggest retaliating what you claim is "Bush League" with Bull**** league umpiring?

It's like burning down a village to save it.

[archipelligo]

Oh My god, you guys have opened up my eyes and shown me the error of my ways....never again am I going to bait a coach, player, fan, dugout, or scorekeeper. I'll keep working on getting better and see if I can work my way up to 12 year old travel ball, where the game is taught by daddy coaches, and maybe even aspire to make it all the way to the top, CDP. Course that means I'll have to stop doing the games of the team that won the Connie Mack World Series a couple weeks ago.

[bobjenkins]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

I wouldn't call the runner out on appeal, but I might have called "time" to brush off the plate -- after all, F1 had the ball in the middle of the infield, no runners were attempting to advance, play was relaxed, ...

[Dano]

Oh My god, you guys have opened up my eyes and shown me the error of my ways....never again am I going to bait a coach, player, fan, dugout, or scorekeeper. I'll keep working on getting better and see if I can work my way up to 12 year old travel ball, where the game is taught by daddy coaches, and maybe even aspire to make it all the way to the top, CDP. Course that means I'll have to stop doing the games of the team that won the Connie Mack World Series a couple weeks ago.


You do that.

:roll:

[Assign]

It's getting testy here!

My motto..bush league is bush league, I personally don't like those tactics....but when asked about it (from the coach that was 'had'), I explain my job is to enforce rules, not ethics.

[Dragon29]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

I wouldn't call the runner out on appeal, but I might have called "time" to brush off the plate -- after all, F1 had the ball in the middle of the infield, no runners were attempting to advance, play was relaxed, ...

I beg to differ - from the OP, it does not sound as if play was 'relaxed' at all. You just have to let it unfold and let the chips fall where they may. We're not there to make sure everyone's happy & everything's "fair" - we're there to adjudicate actions taken on the field - period.

[Dano]

The play is PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Bush league.. whatever you want to call it.

But arch wants to enforce his own "morality" on the game by making a bogus call.


You start pulling that nonsense.. then we go down a slippery slope.

[Assign]

Dano,
Good Point
That bogus call you noted is just like a lie, and mom always said that one lie leads to another...so before you know it, you are scripting games with bad calls rather than callin' em like ya see em

[BrianC14]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

I wouldn't call the runner out on appeal, but I might have called "time" to brush off the plate -- after all, F1 had the ball in the middle of the infield, no runners were attempting to advance, play was relaxed, ...

I beg to differ - from the OP, it does not sound as if play was 'relaxed' at all. You just have to let it unfold and let the chips fall where they may. We're not there to make sure everyone's happy & everything's "fair" - we're there to adjudicate actions taken on the field - period.

I agree w/ Dragon on this. It seems to me that R2 is likely well off 2B during this, in order to get an advantage toward 3B... there's no WAY I'd go calling 'Time' - you don't have a completed play yet, let's see where this goes - - calling 'Time' for no good reason (and with a runner off the bag) is not a good idea, IMO - this play isn't over! What would happen if F1 were to try and get R2 out, instead of throwing to F2 for the trick play? Then you'd have the DC foaming at the mouth. Calling 'Time' is interrupting the flow of what's going on. Let it happen. If the defense gets fooled, that's their problem. Maybe they'll learn from it next time - heck, maybe they'll try the same play in the next game!

[BrianC14]

I'm afraid if I knew they pulled this stuff, and I was the PU, I might agree with the dugout, and claim he missed the plate, and was out on the appeal....I can see the 3rd base coach arguing......." Well coach, your dugout saw him missit, and so did I"

So you suggest retaliating what you claim is "Bush League" with Bull**** league umpiring?

It's like burning down a village to save it.

Cup of coffee, cream 'n sugar: $1.00.
Wireless computer keyboard: $45.00
Atomized coffee cleanup: 10 minutes, or about $25.
Comment (above) from Richard: PRICELESS

:lol:

[archipelligo]

Geez, you guys are a tough crowd. Pretty soon you're going to break my spirit, and I will end up like Tim C, just posting polite and syrupy messages, instead of the hard hitting comments he used to be famous for.

[Richard_Siegel]

Some have suggested that the catcher did not see the runner touch HP. From where he was standing behind the plate, I think he did. However, if a fielder whips a ball at you you're going to catch it. And most kids will second guess themselves when they hear the other yelling "Go back and touch the plate."

Now suppose F2 did see the runner touch HP. But if you are of the inclination to cheat and ignore the touch and call R3 out when he was coming back to HP, then you will have R3 telling his coach you lied, and you will have F2 telling his coach you stink because you clearly did not see the runner touch HP. I just can't see the value of intentionally screwing up like that to impose my personal opinions on the game. Most 3B coaches come down the line a bit and can easilly see a standing runner step on HP, especially with 70' base paths. It's a big risk.

[archipelligo]

OK, I get it...it was a bad idea/post....not that I would ever do it anyway, and in fact, if I ever work another 12 YO travel game with a daddy coach, it will be towards the end of my career, when I've made it to the top.

But when a coach does something semi-unsportsmanlike, using his dugout of 12 year old sponges, it can be said that he needs to be brought down a notch. I'll think of another way besides cheating. I don't care who wins anyway, as long as it doesn't take too long.

[archipelligo]

The play is PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Bush league.. whatever you want to call it.

But arch wants to enforce his own "morality" on the game by making a bogus call.


You start pulling that nonsense.. then we go down a slippery slope.

Hey Dano, does that church softball league you run back in Kansas, know you are on the internet being 'holier than thou?'

[BrianC14]

Gosh, and all this time I thought being an umpire had something to do with integrity.

:roll:

[archipelligo]

Honesty is the best policy, as long as you don't over do it.

[Assign]

suggestion: let's cancel the pissing contest and get back to the topic

[archipelligo]

sure, but if you guys can't handle the needle in a umpires chat room, how can you handle it on the field? After all, you get paid to let people yell at you, be tough out there.

[Dano]

The play is PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Bush league.. whatever you want to call it.

But arch wants to enforce his own "morality" on the game by making a bogus call.


You start pulling that nonsense.. then we go down a slippery slope.

Hey Dano, does that church softball league you run back in Kansas, know you are on the internet being 'holier than thou?'


Hmmm.....

Don't run a church league softball league.
Never have run a church league softball league.
Played in one over 20 years ago. Worst sportsmanship displayed.

Haven't played in it or umpired in it for over 20 years.

I am curious to know how I am "holier than thou" when you stated unequivocally that you would flat out LIE and make a bogus call.

[Kato]

My first thought, when reading the original post was, "wow, that's pretty clever."

I'm not sure it's all that dirty a play. What if R3 had deliberately missed home plate, and the coach yelled the same thing - "go back and touch the plate" - to draw the throw and let R2 advance. Would that have been sneaky? any sneakier than any runner dancing off the base to draw a throw?

And what if the pitcher and catcher both were on to this trick, but pretended to be falling for it, making what looked like an appeal attempt, but instead the catcher ran up the third base line and caught the ball and immediately fired it to F5 for the tag?

It's baseball. It's a mental game and that's why I get such a kick out of this game.

[Tecolote]

The play is PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Bush league.. whatever you want to call it.

But arch wants to enforce his own "morality" on the game by making a bogus call.


You start pulling that nonsense.. then we go down a slippery slope.

This is EXACTLY the point of a post I put up a while back -- I was schooled that if "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't trying".

No one wants a cheat to win, but in baseball there are rules, and if you don't know and follow them and call your opponent when he doesn’t follow them, too bad for you.

Where is the line drawn? Should umpires bend the rules to penalize those that push the limits by rewarding those that don't know how to keep their opponents honest??

[DownUnderBlue]

sure, but if you guys can't handle the needle in a umpires chat room, how can you handle it on the field? After all, you get paid to let people yell at you, be tough out there.


Er. arch, I beg to differ. I don't get paid to let people yell at me. I get paid to cover my expenses traveling to and from the game so the players can have a fair and impartial adjudicator on the rules present.

[KenGibes]

It seems to me that the level of what an umpire will permit teams to get away with is pretty subjective.

Most everybody on this board agrees that what the team did in the OP is legal, even though bench players not actively involved in the play caused an opposing player to do react in such a way as to benefit the other team.

I don't have a problem with whether it's legal or illegal... but what about these situations:

1) F6 yelling "BACK!" and slapping his glove to get a baserunner to narrow his lead. (Some on this board have argued that this is non-verbal obstruction.)

2) A basecoach yelling at a cutoff man to try to misdirect his relay throw (i.e., yelling FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! when the play is clearly at third base.)

3) A basecoach or bench yelling "I've got it!" or "BALL! BALL! BALL!" on a pop-up near the opposing bench where two defensive players have a play on the ball.

4) F4 or F6 telling a basestealer that "It was a foul ball" in an attempt to get the baserunner to head back to his original base.

5) On a stolen base attempt, the players on the defense bench "ping" two bats together, and the catcher takes the pitch and throws a "pop up" and and infielder calls the ball... an attempt to fool the baserunner into believing that the batter popped-up. (I'm pretty sure some folks on the board said that this was some type of non-verbal obstruction.)

There are many others.... these are just a few examples of "the players should've known better." However, I've seen folks argue that some of them are obstruction or interference, and others are legal and the other team should've known better.

However, I dont' think a rewrite of the rules would fix the problem. There's an old saying, "Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool." In other words, mischievous coaches will figure out new and ingenious ways to bend the rules to their advantage no matter how they're written.

[PeteBooth]

[quote="Richard_Siegel

I am the PU. R3 & R2 no outs. BR hits a fly ball to left field that was good for a sac fly. R3 tags up and runs home. The throw comes into the pitcher who is the cut-off man standing in the middle of the infield. The pitcher makes no attmpt to get R3 at HP. He holds R2 at 2B. R3 easilly scores. I see him step right in the middle of HP, and he runs about 20 feet more beyond HP.

Richard IMO the key phrase in your OP is this

step right in the middle of HP,

The aforementioned is not a case where the player might have touched the corner of the base etc. in which there could be some doubt.

Therefore I am surprised somewhat that no one has brought up OBR 7.09(d)

I have

1. TIME
2. R2 out because of the interference by his teammate

After a player scores he has no business being on the field especially when you know as PU he touched the heart of the plate.

If a team wants to 'stretch the limits" and play this kind of baseball then as umpires we "give it back to them" and I can justify an interference call on this one and most likely save the player who did score from getting some serious chin music.

Pete Booth

[Richard_Siegel]

[quote="PeteBooth" After a player scores he has no business being on the field especially when you know as PU he touched the heart of the plate.
Pete Booth /quote]

Pete,

I'm not sure what you are reading into this situation. I wrote that I saw him "step right in the middle of HP, and he runs about 20 feet more beyond HP."

What is wrong with that?

The runner who scored stepped on HP and continued to run towards his dugout. Isn't that what all runners do after they score? He made no effort to do anything else until (about 20 feet passed HP) the players from the dugout stated to yell at him to go back a touch HP.

[PeteBooth]

[quote="PeteBooth" After a player scores he has no business being on the field especially when you know as PU he touched the heart of the plate.
Pete Booth /quote]

Pete,

I'm not sure what you are reading into this situation. I wrote that I saw him "step right in the middle of HP, and he runs about 20 feet more beyond HP."

What is wrong with that?

The runner who scored stepped on HP and continued to run towards his dugout. Isn't that what all runners do after they score? He made no effort to do anything else until (about 20 feet passed HP) the players from the dugout stated to yell at him to go back a touch HP.

Richard from your OP

then R3 starts to dart back to HP to touch it.

I interpreted this statement to mean that R3 after scoring came back to the vicinity of home plate to touch the base.

Therefore, I need clarification on what you mean by dart back to HP because as mentioned the way I did interpret this is that R3 came back to the proximity of the plate area as if he had missed the plate in the first place.

If that's the case then there is a good argument to call interference on the part of R3 because his actions are meant to confuse the defense and R2 would then be declared out.

Pete Booth

[Richard_Siegel]

I think the original post was pretty clear.

The runner touched HP and kept going towards the dugout.

Then somw players in the dugout apparent saw, or believed they saw, that he missed the plate (He didn't) and yelled to him from the dugout to go back to touch HP. The picher in the field heard this too.

The runner turned around and ran back to HP to touch it.

The pitcher threw the ball to F3 at HP to attempt a tag on the runner still coming bacl to HP. This thorw allowed a runner on 2B to go to 3B.

[PeteBooth]

I think the original post was pretty clear.

The runner touched HP and kept going towards the dugout.

Then somw players in the dugout apparent saw, or believed they saw, that he missed the plate (He didn't) and yelled to him from the dugout to go back to touch HP. The picher in the field heard this too.

The runner turned around and ran back to HP to touch it.

The pitcher threw the ball to F3 at HP to attempt a tag on the runner still coming bacl to HP. This thorw allowed a runner on 2B to go to 3B.


Thanks then I stand by my ruling with the exception I used the incorrect letter. It is OBR 7.09(e) - 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 interference by his teammate.

After R3 scores ESPECIALLY when he touched the heart of the plate has no business coming back out to touch the plate again. His actions are a DELIBERATE attempt to confuse the defense.

I could understand if R3 just "nipped" the back part of the plate and was unsure but NOT when he was "smack dab in the middle of it"

IMO, this is a legitimate ruling and should stop the shenanigans.

The other "avenue" open to umpires is what Bob Jenkins suggested. - Call Time - That way R2 goes back to second base.

Pete Booth

[BrianC14]

Pete,

Where do you get hindering or impeding on R3? (per 7.09(e)

You're going to call R2 out at 3B? And you're going to determine that the calls from the offensive dugout were deliberate? How do you decide that? Maybe they were simply mistaken, maybe not. But the play as described is not against the rules, and most certainly not against 7.09(e).

Your (and Bob J's) alternative is to call 'Time'? For what purpose? You're going to call 'Time' when R2 is not on his base? Would you call time if he were 1/4 way to 3B? 1/2 of the way? 3/4 of the way?

If you do that, and I'm the defensive coach, I'm going to want to know why you're protecting THEIR runners!

Bottom line is, you may not LIKE what they did (for the good of the game, or some other self-subjective criteria) but:

a) the play is not illegal.
b) calling time DURING a play while a runner is off his base is going to cause more trouble. There's absolutely no rhyme or reason to be calling 'Time' in this situation.

Where does any baseball rulebook state that "shenanigans" aren't allowed? Ever seen the hidden ball trick? Would you call 'Time' on that one, too? Would you allow a runner to stay on his base even if the defense legally tagged him out on a hidden ball play? 8O

shenanigans! get your brooms!

[PeteBooth]

[quote="BrianC14"]Pete,

Where do you get hindering or impeding on R3? (per 7.09(e)

You're going to call R2 out at 3B? And you're going to determine that the calls from the offensive dugout were deliberate? How do you decide that? Maybe they were simply mistaken, maybe not. But the play as described is not against the rules, and most certainly not against 7.09(e).



Brian as umpires we judge intent of players every time we step onto the field - it's part of the job.

Some actions by their very nature are deemed intentional ala a player tackling another player or grabbing another player.

Here we have R3 who touches the plate right in the heart of it. In other words there is NO DOUBT he touched the plate. We have the defense cutting the ball off and most likely have a REAL good chance of getting R2 trying for third.

Now we have R3 who already scored coming back in the vicinity of the plate area to PURPOSELY make the defense play on him so that his teammate will be safe at third base.

IMO, this play is NOT legal and an umpire has every right to invoke the interference penalty and call R2 out at third base.

If the OM requests time and asks me about it I will simply say

"Skip your runner touched the heart of the plate and IMJ the only reason he came back out again is to confuse the defense to play on him which is against the rules".

Pete Booth

[BrianC14]

Well Pete, all I can say is, "Good luck with that smelly end of the stick."

[BrianC14]

[quote="squeaky"]shenanigans! get your brooms!


:lol:

"Rabble rabble rabble rabble....."

[mr umpire]

Like it or not. This is a case where the umpire can use rules 9.01(c) and 7.09(d) in conjuction. He can extend the rule to cover scoring b/c R2's teammates did hinder the defense from making the play being that of holding R2 to second. Since, this type of play is not covered specifically, then the umpire can do that.

As soon as I realized this is a planned play, I would call "Time" or make this ruling. This is no different than when the batter attempts to step in the box and immediately call "Time" just to disrupt the pitcher. Those who would allow the OP play, would you allow the hitter to step in and call "Time" immediately? Or, would you tell the pitcher to throw the ball and not grant "Time"? These are bush league tactics. If you are going to allow one, then you have to allow the other.

Let me know how it goes when you start calling "Time" after every pitch when a batter gets an 0-2 count. There is no rule for that except the umpire doesn't have to grant "Time". However, when will you decide not to, only on those who do it when you think it is planned or for everyone?

[mr umpire]

It's not a "bush league" play, it's a play that shows just how gullible the opposition can be! Look, in this play, a cut off is used so F2 should be watching R3 make the touch. There are 8 other sets of eyes that can watch R2. This is all perfectly legal and not a travesty. You need to get your head back into umpiring and stop trying to "even up" the field!

If a runner is put out but remains on the field and runs the bases to draw a throw, then why apply 7.09(d) at all. Why even have it b/c 8 other sets of eyes saw him get put out. This rule was put in to prevent just that. The offense from drawing a throw and hindering the following play. So, this rule was put in to stop a travesty of the game. Why would a runner scoring and trying to return to the plate to draw a throw not be considered a travesty of the game? IMO, Interference should be called based on the spirit of 7.09(d) (To prevent the offense from hindering the defense on a following play).

At the very least, this isn't within the "Spirit of the Rules". So, I would stop the play and warn both teams not to do this again or the offender (being the runner who scored) is subject to ejection. This is similar to the situation given by the MLBUM about a first baseman jockeying back and forth to hinder R1's view intentionally under Interference and Obstruction. Although, no rule specifies this to be illegal, it is considered to not be within the "Spirit of the Rules". Same would apply here. Allowing the offense to do this, even though it is not specified to be illegal, is not within the "Spirit of the Rules" and should be stopped.

[Richard_Siegel]

Mr Umpire or Mr. Sheriff?

[mr umpire]

Mr Umpire or Mr. Sheriff?

The "Spirit" of rule 7.09(d) is to keep the offense from confusing the defense and drawing an unnecessary throw. This decoy is drawing an unnecessary throw from the defense. This is very similar to the example I gave above. Although, there isn't a specific rule to cover jockeying back and forth in front of the runner to blind him while in fair territory, he is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" which comes from the MLBUM.

So, this decoy is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" by drawing a throw from the defense after he is already out of the play. Once he scored and actually touched the plate, he is no longer part of the play unless he is retouching home to go back to third for some reason. Which is the same logic as being put out, he is no longer part of the play. If he truly did it and did go brain dead, then he isn't intentionally doing it which is why an accompanying comment goes along with 7.09(d). But, if he does it intentionally and I KNOW it is intentional, then he is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" and should be warned as is the example of the first baseman.

[heyblue26]

Mr Umpire or Mr. Sheriff?

I Agree with Richard on this issue and his Orginal post is quiet clear. We as umpire's call the game in compliance with the rules of the game as they are written.

[Matt13]

The "Spirit" of rule 7.09(d) is to keep the offense from confusing the defense and drawing an unnecessary throw. This decoy is drawing an unnecessary throw from the defense. This is very similar to the example I gave above. Although, there isn't a specific rule to cover jockeying back and forth in front of the runner to blind him while in fair territory, he is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" which comes from the MLBUM.

So, this decoy is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" by drawing a throw from the defense after he is already out of the play. Once he scored and actually touched the plate, he is no longer part of the play unless he is retouching home to go back to third for some reason. Which is the same logic as being put out, he is no longer part of the play. If he truly did it and did go brain dead, then he isn't intentionally doing it which is why an accompanying comment goes along with 7.09(d). But, if he does it intentionally and I KNOW it is intentional, then he is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" and should be warned as is the example of the first baseman.

I'd love to see how you explain how you KNEW it was intentional in your report explaining the resulting protest and ejections. Not that it matters, since your ruling is wrong regardless of the intent of the runner, but it'd still be fun to read.

[Ozzy]

The "Spirit" of rule 7.09(d) is to keep the offense from confusing the defense and drawing an unnecessary throw. This decoy is drawing an unnecessary throw from the defense. This is very similar to the example I gave above. Although, there isn't a specific rule to cover jockeying back and forth in front of the runner to blind him while in fair territory, he is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" which comes from the MLBUM.

So, this decoy is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" by drawing a throw from the defense after he is already out of the play. Once he scored and actually touched the plate, he is no longer part of the play unless he is retouching home to go back to third for some reason. Which is the same logic as being put out, he is no longer part of the play. If he truly did it and did go brain dead, then he isn't intentionally doing it which is why an accompanying comment goes along with 7.09(d). But, if he does it intentionally and I KNOW it is intentional, then he is violating the "Spirit of the Rule" and should be warned as is the example of the first baseman.
OBR 7.09
(d) 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;
Please tell me what 7.09 (d) has to do with the OP! Also, if you want to play Sheriff on the field, I hope that you have the six-shooter and shot gun to back you up, because you don't have the rules knowledge to lean on!

[heyblue26]

OBR 7.09
(d) 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;
Please tell me what 7.09 (d) has to do with the OP! Also, if you want to play Sheriff on the field, I hope that you have the six-shooter and shot gun to back you up, because you don't have the rules knowledge to lean on!

Ozzy: You beat me to the punch on this same question that came to my mind also after i read his post. Yes it would be interesting to read the report.

[mr umpire]

OBR 7.09
(d) 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;
Please tell me what 7.09 (d) has to do with the OP! Also, if you want to play Sheriff on the field, I hope that you have the six-shooter and shot gun to back you up, because you don't have the rules knowledge to lean on!

Look at d NOT c.

Also, the "Spirit of the Rule" is used in MLBUM and is also prevelant of when the George Brett homerun issue came about. The pine tar rule and additional comments in the MLBUM were based upon the "Spirit of the Rule" which is in the explanation for why that protest was upheld. The ruling on the field violated the "Spirit of the Rule" and later the rule came in writing.

So, I do have some of the knowledge of the rules. Again, look at D NOT C. The "Spirit of the Rule" is violated b/c the idea is to not allow the offense to confuse the defense and draw an unnecessary throw from the defense. Thank you.

[Matt13]

Also, the "Spirit of the Rule" is used in MLBUM and is also prevelant of when the George Brett homerun issue came about. The pine tar rule and additional comments in the MLBUM were based upon the "Spirit of the Rule" which is in the explanation for why that protest was upheld. The ruling on the field violated the "Spirit of the Rule" and later the rule came in writing.

Proof that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You have to know why a rule was written before you can invoke the nebulous "Spirit of the Rule."

[heyblue26]

Look at d NOT c.

Also, the "Spirit of the Rule" is used in MLBUM and is also prevelant of when the George Brett homerun issue came about. The pine tar rule and additional comments in the MLBUM were based upon the "Spirit of the Rule" which is in the explanation for why that protest was upheld. The ruling on the field violated the "Spirit of the Rule" and later the rule came in writing.

So, I do have some of the knowledge of the rules. Again, look at D NOT C. The "Spirit of the Rule" is violated b/c the idea is to not allow the offense to confuse the defense and draw an unnecessary throw from the defense. Thank you.

Mr Umpire: You need to get a new set of eyes because you didn't read Ozzy's reply very well. and were does it say in the MLBUM in black and white that they use the wording "The Spirit of the rule" ?

As far as the Brett ruling at the time that it happened 1983 the ruling was correct buy the Umpires. Up until that point there was no penalty explained to what happens to the batter for using a bat in violation of this rule even though there was no penalty at the time. President MacPhail upheld the protest (Quoted from WRMM). Since that time it has been reworded and is in the rule book as it is written today.

Back in 1975 the rule read this: The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material to improve the grip.(Quoted from OBR 1975 edition) When Billy Martin questioned the use of the bat by Brett and the umpires found that it was in violation of the rules at that time, the plate is only 17" wide.

[mr umpire]

I must have been looking at some old copy which came up online when searched for mlb rules 7.00.

You're right. It isn't D. It is rule E. The online version that came mislead me.

It stated "Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;". So, it must have been some old copy.

The rule I am referring to but is now with the wording as said, "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;". This is E and it clearly states "Any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes". By drawing a throw like that, he is impeding or hindering the defense from holding the runner to second base. Hence, the "Spirit of the Rule" I was referring to but now I don't have to because it is in writing. IMJ, his actions impeded the defense. Therefore, Interference and the runner at 2B is out. Sorry to be looking at out-dated online material.

Next time, I will get the paper back to refer to and not be so confusing.

[heyblue26]

Mr. Umpire: Please purchase a current Rule book and read it and understand it. And then attend a clinic there is lots of sites that has great information and this is one of them check out the book store. You still have that stick in you hands nasty smell.

[mr umpire]

Mr Umpire: You need to get a new set of eyes because you didn't read Ozzy's reply very well. and were does it say in the MLBUM in black and white that they use the wording "The Spirit of the rule" ?

As far as the Brett ruling at the time that it happened 1983 the ruling was correct buy the Umpires. Up until that point there was no penalty explained to what happens to the batter for using a bat in violation of this rule even though there was no penalty at the time. President MacPhail upheld the protest (Quoted from WRMM). Since that time it has been reworded and is in the rule book as it is written today.

Back in 1975 the rule read this: The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material to improve the grip.(Quoted from OBR 1975 edition) When Billy Martin questioned the use of the bat by Brett and the umpires found that it was in violation of the rules at that time, the plate is only 17" wide.

I understand what you are saying. My example was just to explain the spirit of the rule. The rule you referred to was written to cover things which help the hitter. That is the "Spirit of why the rule was in there". I am not disagreeing with what you have said. The protest was upheld with an explanation of what the umpires ruled on was not within the "Spirit of the rule" for altered/tampered bats. They were correct to rule the way they did at the time until the protest was upheld. I know and understand that situation. And, I know it was away from the situation at hand.

Now, as for the term of "Spirit of the rule" in the MLBUM, it is 6.23(12). But, that one does not have anything to do with this. It is just to show the phrase.

I have updated copies of written material. I was using the online for reference and got mislead. That sucked but the rule is there in writing. He impeded the defense by keeping them from holding the runner at 2B. But, as I stated, I would have to KNOW it is intentional. If I have any doubt and think the runner may think he missed it, then no call. But, I would have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Ozzy]

Look at d NOT c.

Also, the "Spirit of the Rule" is used in MLBUM and is also prevelant of when the George Brett homerun issue came about. The pine tar rule and additional comments in the MLBUM were based upon the "Spirit of the Rule" which is in the explanation for why that protest was upheld. The ruling on the field violated the "Spirit of the Rule" and later the rule came in writing.

So, I do have some of the knowledge of the rules. Again, look at D NOT C. The "Spirit of the Rule" is violated b/c the idea is to not allow the offense to confuse the defense and draw an unnecessary throw from the defense. Thank you.
Oh, you are a real cutie! Here, my friend. let me cut and pase OBR rule 7.09 so that you can figure out what the hell you are talking about.
7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—
(a) After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball;
(b) He intentionally deflects the course of a foul ball in any manner;
(c) Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;

Rule 7.09 (e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

(f) 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. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.
(g) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-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 batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.
(h) 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.
(i) With a runner on third base, the base coach leaves his box and acts in any manner to draw a throw by a fielder;
(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes 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;

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: 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. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

(k) A fair ball touches him 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. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.
You will see that I DID look at 7.09 (d) which is exactly what you referred to in your post. Maybe what you need to do is read 7.09 (e) Comment! Then what you need to do is understand what you are reading before you come here like a MLB Pro!

[mr umpire]

Maybe what you need to do is read 7.09 (e) Comment! Then what you need to do is understand what you are reading before you come here like a MLB Pro!

What the hell is your problem!?! I stated I did a search and got a bad copy when it came up. I read the comment. It refers to being put out only. In the description above, he didn't just score and go to the dugout. He deliberately drew a throw to hinder the defense from holding the runner at 2B. So, based on the OP, the lead runner violated 7.09(e) because he hindered the defense from making a play. So, it is interference.

But, like I said, I would have to know this was the intent and not just the fact that the runner really did think he missed the plate.

So, it is not being sheriff. It is applying the rules as they are written.

[BrianC14]

Yeah, it's the computer's fault, not yours.

Oy.

[kcbearcat]

Yeah, it's the computer's fault, not yours.

Oy.

Must be a rat... nothing's ever their fault, always ours... *sighs*

[Ozzy]

Must be a rat... nothing's ever their fault, always ours... *sighs*
Yeah, I kind of thought that this was a rat. That is why I provoked him. Now that he has tipped his hand, we know what to do.

[mr umpire]

Yeah, I kind of thought that this was a rat. That is why I provoked him. Now that he has tipped his hand, we know what to do.

Are you kidding? You are that ignorant and arrogant that if someone messes up slightly, you cannot understand? I gave you the correct rule just the wrong letter but you cannot get passed the fact it was the wrong letter. OMG, you must be a piece of work on the field.

Do a search of mlb rules 7.00 and click the first link. It was a misleading link (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp) and look at 7.09(d). Geez. I looked at something online which was out-of-date. I should have gotten the paperback but didn't have it in hand. I will know next time for this message board. Geez.

[Dragon29]

mr_umpire,

I don't believe anyone is questioning your (mis)quoted rule reference anymore - we all make mistakes; I've done so myself.

The outstanding question appears to be (guys - correct me if I'm wrong) how you can interpret the scoring runner's reaction to his teammates telling him to re-touch Home (a common thing to hear from the offensive dugout) as intentional interference and subsequently rule him or R2 out? Better yet, how you're going to explain that to the OM when he comes out to talk with you about it?

You can't call 'Time' during the play; it's not relaxed action.

You can't protect R2 or the offensive team in general from their own stupidity and/or lack of awareness (F2 should have seen the runner touch home and therefore know not to play on him even if F1 throws him the ball; in fact, this would be a great way to get R2 to break for 3B and catch him there!)

The scoring runner has not 'made a travesty of the game' and there's no way any manager could ever accept a rule interpretation in which you use the phrase "he violated the spirit of the rule."

The people here are flaming you not because you were wrong; it's because you've been shown to be incorrect a number of times in various ways, yet you refuse to admit it.

[kcbearcat]

The people here are flaming you not because you were wrong; it's because you've been shown to be incorrect a number of times in various ways, yet you refuse to admit it.

*ding*ding*ding* I think we have a winner... 8-)

[BT_Blue]

I was just thinking about this... but can you actually call the runner that scored out? He did after all SCORE. The out, if you chose, would be on R2. You could not call the scoring runner out once they score.

Am I right in this assessment?

[kcbearcat]

I was just thinking about this... but can you actually call the runner that scored out? He did after all SCORE. The out, if you chose, would be on R2. You could not call the scoring runner out once they score.

Am I right in this assessment?

After the runner scores, no, you can't call him out...

I may be wrong (and I'll admit it if I am), but calling R2 out because of the interference would be akin to calling the BR out when enforcing the force play slide rule in HS ball when R1 takes out the pivot man...

I may not even know what I'm talking about... ;)

[Richard_Siegel]

To clarify. A "retired" runner by definition, is a runnner who is either already out or has scored.

When there is interference by a retired runner called, the retired runner can not be called out. So another runner must be called out.

[Dragon29]

BT - Based on the OP, I think the general concensus is that you can't call anyone out. No-one did anything illegal.

[kcbearcat]

To clarify. A "retired" runner by definition, is a runnner who is either already out or has scored.

When there is interference by a retired runner called, the retired runner can not be called out. So another runner must be called out.

Yay... I haven't forgotten everything... :lol:

[bobjenkins]

The people here are flaming you not because you were wrong; it's because you've been shown to be incorrect a number of times in various ways, yet you refuse to admit it.

and also because he opened up old threads seemingly just to post incorrect answers.

[Dragon29]

. . . there's that, too.

I honestly don't think he's a rat as many others here do; but he's hard-headed - so was I when I first started posting here.

I don't want him to stop posting; I just think he should take advantage of the assistance offered on this site.

[mr umpire]

If I insinuated I would call the runner out for this, I apologize. After rereading my initial post, I realized that. After reading other threads, Ozzy should be able to relate to that as others can accidentally post the opposite of what they say or think. As for my attitude to follow, well, after some of the useless comments I received, I became a little on the defensive to say the least. I know it is not an umpire's job to police or take responsibility away from the players to do their job.

A rat? I am labeled a rat because I question your answers and provoke more of an explanation other than Mr Umpire or Mr Sheriff or some of the more detailing answers of It just isn't.

No one has been able to tell why the actions of the lead runner turning around and starts to dart towards the plate is not confusing or hindering and does not violate 7.09(e). You know the wording so there is no need to repeat it. Can anyone give an intelligent, thought out answer or am I to endure more insults without given an answer?

If you cannot give a legitimate answer, please do not respond. I never said it was a 'travesty of the game'. I never said the runner who scored can now be called out nor did I say I would cheat and not acknowledge his touch of the plate. I said an umpire can make a case for this to violate 7.09(e) which is a point brought up earlier but no one really gave an answer to debunk or refute that thought process. I am asking for a legitimate answer. I will give my take on why after I see some true answers. If I don't get any true answers, then I guess I, who am not a rookie by no means, and any truly new to umpiring can expect.

[SocalBlue1]

If I insinuated I would call the runner out for this, I apologize. After rereading my initial post, I realized that. After reading other threads, Ozzy should be able to relate to that as others can accidentally post the opposite of what they say or think. As for my attitude to follow, well, after some of the useless comments I received, I became a little on the defensive to say the least. I know it is not an umpire's job to police or take responsibility away from the players to do their job.

A rat? I am labeled a rat because I question your answers and provoke more of an explanation other than Mr Umpire or Mr Sheriff or some of the more detailing answers of It just isn't.

No one has been able to tell why the actions of the lead runner turning around and starts to dart towards the plate is not confusing or hindering and does not violate 7.09(e). You know the wording so there is no need to repeat it. Can anyone give an intelligent, thought out answer or am I to endure more insults without given an answer?

If you cannot give a legitimate answer, please do not respond. I never said it was a 'travesty of the game'. I never said the runner who scored can now be called out nor did I say I would cheat and not acknowledge his touch of the plate. I said an umpire can make a case for this to violate 7.09(e) which is a point brought up earlier but no one really gave an answer to debunk or refute that thought process. I am asking for a legitimate answer. I will give my take on why after I see some true answers. If I don't get any true answers, then I guess I, who am not a rookie by no means, and any truly new to umpiring can expect.

It's a big stretch to apply 7.09(e) here. F2 (Or whoever is covering the plate) has the responsibility to check that the runner touched the plate, so the throw to HP should be waved off and the play made on R2.

Under Fed rules this may be in fact viewed as verbal interference. As I no longer do HS I can't comment with any accuracy on that.

[mr umpire]

It's a big stretch to apply 7.09(e) here. F2 (Or whoever is covering the plate) has the responsibility to check that the runner touched the plate, so the throw to HP should be waved off and the play made on R2.

Under Fed rules this may be in fact viewed as verbal interference. As I no longer do HS I can't comment with any accuracy on that.

I don't know or truly care what the HS rule is for this situation. Simply because their rules take too much of the game out of the game. They are designed to speed up the game and take responsibility from the players.

Now for the explanation. I can accept that answer but I have been doing it longer than some first or second year umpire. Also, I don't think that answer will satisfy those, as I was accused of, being the baseball sheriff. I think there is a better answer than that to convince someone of this mentality or that is new. Because, I think that simple of an answer leaves too many questions of when does one apply that rule and when not to apply that rule or any others similar in wording.

I feel it comes from the definition of hinder or impede in baseball terms. I have never seen an explicit definition of hinder or impede in baseball terms. Please correct me if I am wrong and have overlooked it somewhere.

But, by inference of the provided examples in the UM's, hinder or impede is defined as physical contact (i.e. be it with a player or a batted ball) or being in the vicinity of a player (defensive or offensive) which causes that player to alter from his own normal actions on such play. This, at least to me, better describes why 7.09(e) or any other interference rules do not apply.

Now, I know I have just set myself up for some more insults and probably more comments of that reasoning doesn't apply or I have no clue. Fair enough and to each his own. I just think there is always a better way to explain the rules rather than the simple "It just isn't" or we will all gang up and none of us will give an exact reason. And, honestly, please let me know. I have dealt with much worse than this on the ball field so whatever.

[mstaylor]

I don't know or truly care what the HS rule is for this situation. Simply because their rules take too much of the game out of the game. They are designed to speed up the game and take responsibility from the players.

Now for the explanation. I can accept that answer but I have been doing it longer than some first or second year umpire. Also, I don't think that answer will satisfy those, as I was accused of, being the baseball sheriff. I think there is a better answer than that to convince someone of this mentality or that is new. Because, I think that simple of an answer leaves too many questions of when does one apply that rule and when not to apply that rule or any others similar in wording.

I feel it comes from the definition of hinder or impede in baseball terms. I have never seen an explicit definition of hinder or impede in baseball terms. Please correct me if I am wrong and have overlooked it somewhere.

But, by inference of the provided examples in the UM's, hinder or impede is defined as physical contact (i.e. be it with a player or a batted ball) or being in the vicinity of a player (defensive or offensive) which causes that player to alter from his own normal actions on such play. This, at least to me, better describes why 7.09(e) or any other interference rules do not apply.

Now, I know I have just set myself up for some more insults and probably more comments of that reasoning doesn't apply or I have no clue. Fair enough and to each his own. I just think there is always a better way to explain the rules rather than the simple "It just isn't" or we will all gang up and none of us will give an exact reason. And, honestly, please let me know. I have dealt with much worse than this on the ball field so whatever.
Many of us here work HS so it does matter what they say, or at least to some. If you don't work HS then it doesn't matter.
As far as Fed talking baseball out of baseball, I think that's a little unfair. You have to remember they have a different thought process for HS baseball because they consider it an extention of the classroom. While I will agree they have a few nutty rules, many make sense taken in context.

[BT_Blue]

Many of us here work HS so it does matter what they say, or at least to some. If you don't work HS then it doesn't matter.
As far as Fed talking baseball out of baseball, I think that's a little unfair. You have to remember they have a different thought process for HS baseball because they consider it an extention of the classroom. While I will agree they have a few nutty rules, many make sense taken in context.

look at it this way... at least they got rid of the no turning of the shoulders at ANY time by the pitcher. I cant remember, do they still have the No setting of the hands above the chin?

[heyblue26]

I agree with Taylor HS has some nutty rules but I also think there in place for safety reasons and that is very inportant, I would like them to use MLB rules (IMO) But at that level of play it is a stepping stone for them to learn sportsmanship and play the game as safely as possible. Its a great game and I do NFHS and enjoy it but here it is too short of a season and I mean short. Only play about 6-8 games all play between Seoul, Osan and Taegu.


John

[dash_riprock]

I cant remember, do they still have the No setting of the hands above the chin?
Yes they do.

[mr umpire]

Many of us here work HS so it does matter what they say, or at least to some. If you don't work HS then it doesn't matter.
As far as Fed talking baseball out of baseball, I think that's a little unfair. You have to remember they have a different thought process for HS baseball because they consider it an extention of the classroom. While I will agree they have a few nutty rules, many make sense taken in context.

I can understand and agree with that for rules like the avoid contact rule. But, no turning the shoulders (when it was in place) and the not coming set with hands above the chin rules. What is the reasoning for those (esp. the above the chin rule)?

You know what. Don't worry about answering that. That is another thread. Does anyone have any opinions about my explanation of why 7.09(e) or any other Interference rules do not apply to the OP's runner who scored? Good, bad, completely off base?

Aside for HS rules Verbal Interference, I, as an umpire, do NOT care what the players did in the dugout. As it has been stated before, the umpire doesn't worry about things outside the fence line unless it causes problems on the field. What they did would be no different than if spectators did it.

[heyblue26]

I can understand and agree with that for rules like the avoid contact rule. But, no turning the shoulders (when it was in place) and the not coming set with hands above the chin rules. What is the reasoning for those (esp. the above the chin rule)?

You know what. Don't worry about answering that. That is another thread. Does anyone have any opinions about my explanation of why 7.09(e) or any other Interference rules do not apply to the OP's runner who scored? Good, bad, completely off base?

Aside for HS rules Verbal Interference, I, as an umpire, do NOT care what the players did in the dugout. As it has been stated before, the umpire doesn't worry about things outside the fence line unless it causes problems on the field. What they did would be no different than if spectators did it.

Mr Umpire: Check your PM. I Now retire from this thread period.

[Dragon29]

mr umpire,

Yes, I have an explanation why 7.09(e) would not apply.

Because you don't know that the runner doesn't know he hit the plate legally. He may be returning to re-touch because, based on his teammate's encourgagement/instruction, he legitimately believes he missed it. Additionally, he never actually returned to home - the OP says F2 had to go over to the runner to tag him.

To me, this is clearly not Interference

&, BTW: On this site (I don't know about others) the term 'rat' refers to a manager or coach; it's not 'namecalling'; it's identification.