unsportsmanlike ?

[_Bruno_]

hi,
R1, 0 outs.
somebody from the dugout yelled "balk", and the pitcher slowed his motion to the plate down but still pitched. R1 was stealing on the pitch and made it easily in to 2nd. the catcher did not even try to throw down to 2nd. the umpire went to the dugout and said that this is unsportsmanlike but left R1 on 2nd. was that the proper ruling or could he send R1 back to his TOP base ?

[ManInBlue]

I got pounded for part what I am about to say when it was in regards to an MLB game. However, I think it may be true for you sitch.

If the ump took the time to declare the act unsportsmanlike, the offense should have a penalty enforced. This looks like a warning. It appears that the ump thought that it had an effect on the outcome of the play. You can't let that play stand, if the act effected the outcome. At the very least, send the runner back. It also has a ring of verbal INT by a member of the offensive team. If that were the case, you are within your rights (within the rules) to delcare R1 out.

I'm not sure that the out for INT would have been the proper ruling, however. I do think that R1 should have been sent back to 1B, because you can't have a runner advance on INT.

[jicecone]

4.06
(a) No manager, player, substitute, coach, trainer or batboy shall at any time, whether from the bench, the coach’s box or on the playing field, or elsewhere --
(1) Incite, or try to incite, by word or sign a demonstration by spectators;
(2) Use language which will in any manner refer to or reflect upon opposing players, an umpire, or any spectator;
(3) Call “Time,” or employ any other word or phrase or commit any act while the ball is alive and in play for the obvious purpose of trying to make the pitcher commit a balk.(4) Make intentional contact with the umpire in any manner.
(b) No fielder shall take a position in the batter’s line of vision, and with deliberate unsportsmanlike intent, act in a manner to distract the batter.
PENALTY: The offender shall be removed from the game and shall leave the playing field, and, if a balk is made, it shall be nullified.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

I got pounded for part what I am about to say when it was in regards to an MLB game. However, I think it may be true for you sitch.

If the ump took the time to declare the act unsportsmanlike, the offense should have a penalty enforced. This looks like a warning. It appears that the ump thought that it had an effect on the outcome of the play. You can't let that play stand, if the act effected the outcome. At the very least, send the runner back. It also has a ring of verbal INT by a member of the offensive team. If that were the case, you are within your rights (within the rules) to delcare R1 out.

I'm not sure that the out for INT would have been the proper ruling, however. I do think that R1 should have been sent back to 1B, because you can't have a runner advance on INT.

Verbal interference is not applicable to OBR. Interference may not be a verbal act by itself.

J/R: "It is not interference if the intent to interfere is soley verbal."

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Verbal interference is not applicable to OBR. Interference may not be a verbal act by itself.

J/R: "It is not interference if the intent to interfere is soley verbal."

This is what I got thrown under the bus for. I wasn't sure what rule set was being used, so I stated the verbal INT on the assumption that it may have been a modified OBR or some another rule set. By no means did I mean to imply that under OBR should the verbal INT be called. That's also why I stated that I didn't think it would have been the correct call.

[fitump56]

Ejection of the verbal interferer and R1 out.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Ejection of the verbal interferer and R1 out.

By what rule do we call R1 out?


Tim.

[JRutledge]

I am just making an observation. I did not read where the rule set was clarified. Verbal Interference is illegal at the NF level. It is possible that OBR was not being used. Just throwing this out there.

Peace

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am just making an observation. I did not read where the rule set was clarified. Verbal Interference is illegal at the NF level. It is possible that OBR was not being used. Just throwing this out there.

Peace

Unless otherwise stated, I normally default to OBR, since after the HS season, it is the most commonly used rules base. The fact that jicecone quoted Rule 4.06 in his reply led me further in that direction.

Bruno, which rules set was being used?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Unless otherwise stated, I normally default to OBR, since after the HS season, it is the most commonly used rules base. The fact that jicecone quoted Rule 4.06 in his reply led me further in that direction.

Bruno, which rules set was being used?

Even if the game had been played under FED rules it's quite a stretch to call verbal interference because someone from the dugout yells "balk."


Tim.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Unless otherwise stated, I normally default to OBR, since after the HS season, it is the most commonly used rules base. The fact that jicecone quoted Rule 4.06 in his reply led me further in that direction.

Bruno, which rules set was being used?

I understand that. The reality is there are places that use NF rules for games with kids at HS age and younger. I know if people in my state are working any Junior High ball, it is not out of the question they would be using only NF rules.

Peace