Fair-Foul Question and other questions
 

Had another one of those strange double headers today. I'm the PU on most. HS JV with NFHS rules.

First play to discuss: R1 on 2nd, B2 hits a towering fly ball down the left field line. The ball clearly lands on the foul side of the pole, but was slicing in flight. What do other umpires do on a ball hit like this. I called it foul based on where it landed AND the projected path I had as it passed the foul pole. I am still not sure if I got it right though.

Second play: 1 out in the third innings. At the start of the half inning the OC comes out and tells me she has a substitution. #8 is going in for #21 in the 7 spot in the order. I write the substitution on my L.U. Card. and notify the home team of the change, then we begin the half inning. As the inning progresses, the #7 spot in the order comes up and #4 comes up to bat. I don't look for numbers unless something strange happens. After the first pitch, the home team coach yells out to the catcher, what number is she. "#4". That should be #8. OC coach now comes up and says she meant to say #4 in for #21, not #8. What is the proper procedure for this. I considered this an improper substitution, and make the change on my card and issue a warning to the OC.

Third play: B1 up, hits a ground ball to F4 who throws to F3 for the out. On the release of the bat, B1 lets the bat go in such a manner that it comes back striking me on the left wrist. I let play continue, then after the play go down to talk to the runner with the 1B coach standing nearby and explain she needs to control the bat after the swing and issue a warning to the team for "throwing the bat." Was this proper procedure? The coach did not see it as he was watching the bat. He assured me it wasn't intentional. I think my response was I know, had it been intentional she would not be in the lineup still.

Fourth play: Bases loaded, 1 out. The pitcher has the ball in her glove and goes to her mouth with the pitching hand, she then wipes the hand on her shirt, goes to her mouth again and immediately reaches her hand into her glove to pull the ball out before stepping on the plate. I call an immediate dead ball illegal pitch and award a ball to the batter and each runner advances 1 base. Is this correct?

Fifth play: I am the BU on this. R1 at first 2-2 count, 0 or 1 out, B2 swings and misses on a ball in the dirt. D3K situation. The PU clearly says strike three batters out. R1 takes off to 2b seeing B2 running to first. As F1 throws to 1b, PU yells dead ball and says the batter is out and puts R1 back on first base. I know this has been discussed before but what is the proper ruling under NFHS rules. I don't think this ruling is correct. We either should have nothing but an out on the batter for a D3K with 1st base occupied and a legal advance to 2b or interference by a retired batter/runner and as a result the runner closest to home is out. What is the proper ruling in HS for this play?

This was just one of those games with all sorts of strange things. WE had strange running decisions such as a runner from 3rd coming home on a walk to the batter with no one on 1st. Defense tried getting the out at the plate but overthrew the catcher from the pitchers plate. The first run of the game was bunt "home run". Bunt to F1 who overthrew F3 allowing the batter/runner to go to second. The throw to second ended up being airmailed and split the outfielders, allowing the batter-runner to come all the way around to score. We had other befuddling plays but also some great diving catches as well.

One other complaint. I wish there was a rule you had to have similar sized athletes. One team seemed to alternate their lineup between 5-10 plus and 5-1 or less batters. That changes the strike zone a lot between batters and lead to a lot of complaints. What is a strike on miss 6 foot is at the eyes of miss 4-8.

1, if you judged the ball was not on the fair side or over the top of the foul pole as the ball cleared the fence then it is a foul ball.

2, the coach gave you a substitution, it was accepted, reported and the ball was put back into play. It is an official substitution and the coach has to live with it.

3, the first thrown bat as long as it didnt interfere with the play is a team warning, second offense for anyone on the team is a restriction to the bench.

4, yes illegal pitch, ball on batter and advance base runners.

5, the defense is responsible for knowing the situation and making the appropriate play. The advance of the base runner should have stood. Nothing in the rule book calls for a dead ball and returning the runner to the prior base. Based on your description of the play there should have been no call, but if the plate umpire was going to rule interference and a dead ball, the batter is already out, the runner closest to home would be called out. But again, this is not interference.

Response in red and teal

Take the numbers and then repeat it to the coach using the names.

That will avoid this happening.

Rita

You just have to get down the line as far as you can and follow the trajectory of the ball to judge where it passed over the fence.

As to the substitution, your scorecard would be 21/8/4. #4 is an unreported sub once a pitch was thrown, enter her into the game and issue a warning to the coach. As stated, make sure you repeat the numbers back to the coach, some people even include the name and position in the batting order. But, I have had a couple of occasions where even doing that the coach still tried to claim they meant a different number. Again, the coach gave you a sub, it was accepted, reported and the ball put back into play and became official. One additional item, NFHS requires the ball to be put back into play for the sub to become official, most other rule sets once the sub is accepted and reported it is official.

I did and she still had it screwed up.

The ball had definitely been returned to play after it was reported. She was the third batter of the inning at least. Basically the coach was completely lost on what was going on. She couldn't even get the names right on her lineup and before it was given to me had names crossed off and rewritten.

I favor this practice as well. This past Friday, coach comes up to me with three subs. 9 for 15. I repeat it back to her with the names. 10 for 14. I repeat it back to her with the names. "I don't guy by their names, just their numbers." "You don't know their names, coach?" Silence. And 8 for 16. Me " K, 8 for 16."

You would think so. However, this happened to me just this season.

I'm just curious, but if "This was just one of those games with all sorts of strange things", how is it you were on the plate for most of them, but also on the bases?

Referencing the second play:

Whatever happened to NOT taking an offensive sub unless it is for the current batter or an existing base runner?

Please don't take offense to this ... but like several of your blogs on this site, most of these "strange" situations are not strange at all. They shouldn't strike you as strange, or unusual.

1 - move as much as you have to to make the best call you can.
2 - 21/8/4 ... but another example of why some will not take projected subs.
3 - nothing odd here, and you called it right.
4 - nothing odd here, and you called it right.
5 - shame on your "partner".

PS ... why are you changing positions during a game?

Amen.

This wasn't NCAA.

Neither ASA nor NFHS has officially defined what they mean by projected sub - and you will find opinions divided from the newby level up to the state-level guy teaching clinics. I don't know if it's 50-50 ... but I do know that MOST people in my area (Houston, TX) take the prohibition against accepting projected subs to mean that an offensive coach telling you the 2nd or 3rd batter in the inning is going to be subbed for is not a change we should accept... at least until that batter comes up.

I will admit it's certainly not unanimous though. I understand both sides. I just fall on the side of not taking this sub until the batter actually comes up.

I understand, but the phraseology of "what ever happened to..." implies to me that this is the "right" way. Not true, except in NCAA.

Personally, I will allow any substitute to be entered at any time for any player currently in the game. The change is official at that time. So, if the OC informs me of a change to what would be his fourth batter due up that inning, and only 3 batters bat before there are 3 outs, and then he wants to change his mind about #4, then its "coach, you want to re-enter your starter, correct?"

This has game flow and efficiency advantages and no disadvantages. If the coach does not know the numbers and names of the players on his team, not allowing the changes "at this time" won't fix that.

A projected change means there is an "if" or a "when" that delays the official change in the lineup in there somewhere. In my example, above, if the coach says "If we get to batter #4, I want to...", sorry, coach, no projected changes.

I will add something to this. I took the change when the offensive team came up. I do not ask if this is the first, second or third batter in the inning. When the coach tells me that X is going to bat for Y I accept that change. I don't keep track of which batter is the first one up that inning and I highly doubt that anyone else does either, unless there is an unusual circumstance such as #12 getting called out for leaving early while #6 is in the batters box. In that case now I do make a note that #6 should be the first batter and tell both home and visitors scorekeepers that #6 will be the first scheduled batter.

I do agree with Dakota, that if the coach says "If we get to" then I am not accepting the change until we get to the actual IF referenced.

The rule in question covering "projected substitutions is (was as of 2013 book):3-3-3. The rulebook does not define a projected substitution. To me a projected substitution is the "If" statement.

A defensive substitution can not occur until the actual change is made, because all of the players are actively on the field (unless using the DP/Flex) at the time, therefore a substitution must actually occur at that point.

When the team is on offense, only 1 player is actively at bat at the time, so you can substitute players into the lineup when the ball is dead.

There is nothing in the rule that says an offensive substitution can only be made when the actual batter comes up.

My take on a projected substitution is that the coach is going to make a future change when his team is on defense. For example, the OC says #12 is batting for #24. #24 will re-enter when we go on defense. That is projecting a future substitution.

Should have been double header, not game. Sorry for those who couldn't figure that out.

See the red comment, and the comment above.

Need a definition, here you go:

Projected substitution/re-entry - A reported change to take effect at a future point in time (i.e., not immediately).

Unfortunately, even that doesn't nail it down. "take effect" means one thing to chap and Dakota, and something else to me and whoever else will only take the next batter (or current runners) changes. And both sides are reasonable interpretations.

I see Chap's and Dakota's argument on this. I don't agree with it, but I also don't insist the way I see it is the only possible way to see it (or vice versa of course).

"take effect" can only mean one thing, whatever it is, is now, not later. IMO, arguing that point is going beyond the argument for argument's sake, and that is something with which I am familiar :)

2015 casebook, situation 3.3.2 Situation B

Coach of Team A tells the plate umpire that L. Jones will bat for B. Smith and that J. Johnson will replace D. Lee in left field the next time on defense.

Ruling: The umpire shall accept the substitution of L. Jones for B. Smith. However, No substitution shall be made until which time as the substitution is actually made. Therefore, the umpire will tell the coach of Team A to wait until his/her team is on defense before reporting any defensive substitution.

What this case play does not cover is where in the order the substitution of L. Jones for B. Smith is. We only know this is when the team is on offense. It can be inferred by the wording the team is on offense when the two substitution requests are made.


Also, where in the rulebook is your definition of Projected substitution, as I have yet to find that anywhere in the rulebook.

The substitution does take effect immediately when it is announced. The substitute player is now the player legally in the lineup at the time, thus the substitution has taken effect. If a player other than that player comes to bat, we have an issue.

One other thing to consider. Does it say anywhere in the rules, except in the portion of the rules pertaining to pitchers and catcher for the purposes of a courtesy runner, that a player must actually participate in the game after substituting into the game?

Let's look at one scenario.

R1 on first, two outs. 0-0 count on S4, who has been announced as the substitute for B4. R1 is called out for leaving early. Now S4's coach comes out and wants to put B4 back into the game. Has S4 ever entered the game? Did she actually participate? Even though S4 never actually participate in any play (the out, and no pitch mean she was never actually participating any an aspect of the game), she did use an entry into the game.

(I actually had something similar to this happen last season, and the coach tried arguing that she never entered the game).

Chapmaja:
Where do you ump? I really have to go watch some of these games.
I've been doing fast pitch for 15 years and you see more odd occurances every weekend that I have experienced in my career......

Exactly.

I have no issue with umpires using the NCAA interpretation in non-NCAA games. It is not wrong. I just don't view the rule as requiring that, and it wastes time.

I think it's a little funny that Chap is arguing with Mike, while Mike is supporting Chap's side of the discussion...

For as much as we know from the OP, maybe Lee just completed her turn at bat and the coach mistakenly included the bold portion which may actually been irrelevant to the change being made.

Because a coach can (and they do) change their mind, I would inform the coach to submit that change when s/he desires it to occur and not be specific about it needing to be the next half of the inning.



It is in the Micro Management rule book.

Fair enough about the micromanagement rulebook.

Also, I have NEVER seen a coach change their mind :rolleyes:

Given the number of incredibly bizarre things that seem to happen in your games... this stuns me.

I have definitely seen coaches both TRY to change their mind ... and succeed in changing their minds.

The most dramatic "try" to change their mind I can recall. About 15 years ago. Home Coach, who is leading, tells one of my umpires #10 for #4 as they are switching sides for them to bat. This was a semi-final of a tourney. Coach only has 10 players, and this is likely the final inning (apparently) due to time limit. #4 was due up 4th.

#1 out. #2 out. #3 hits a triple... tries to stretch it into a run - gets caught in a run-down and twists her ankle getting out. She can't continue, but all this happened so quickly that the game did not, in fact, end.

Coach tries to "unsubstitute" 4 back in for 10 so 10 can replace the injured #3. Sorry coach. You don't have 9? You forfeit. He got ejected before his assistant protested, to no avail. Other team to the final.

(And yes... after the tourney around the post-tourney umpire meal he gets told by almost everyone he should not have accepted that sub at that time.)

I've seen NUMEROUS instances of coaches succeeding in undoing a "projected" sub (not always injury ... most often a projected sub for a 4th or later batter in the inning where they didn't get to batter 4, so umpire undid the sub since they never really got there), and yes, I had a little chat with the umpire afterward.

A little off topic, but couldn't they have kept going with 8 under the shorthanded rule?

IMO, "almost everyone" at the table was wrong. It was a legitimate change that was initiated by the coach. Let me say that again, INITIATED BY THE COACH. No one did anything wrong, not even the coach. The only questionable act was that the coach didn't have the foresight to hedge his bets to protect his team. Not smart, maybe, but certainly not illegal or inappropriate.

And it is not the umpires position to protect the coach from him/herself. You want to exercise some preventive umpiring and recognize the potential issue? Fine, remind the coach that he is exhausting his/her bench and if s/he gives you the change, take it, record it, announce it and move on with the game.

You obviously missed the sarcasm face at the end of my post didn't you. Either that or you are being just as sarcastic.

Not so much off topic. The shorthanded rule hasn't existed for 165 years; the prior rule (maybe 12-15 years ago is my guess without actual reasearch) made anything less than what you started with (except the legal 10 to 9 in merging DP and DEFO, now FLEX) a forfeit.

That is still the case in NCAA.

Not then.

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the info!

165 years? Is this some sort of a meme that I'm missing out on? :D :confused:

(I even checked Wikipedia to see what year softball was invented...[1887].)

I see it now. My bad. Fixed.

15 years ago.

MD Longhorn edited his post, but #30 in this thread said it happened 165 years ago. I was simply following him with an attempt at humor. ;)

Anything that old probably had me and IrishMafia on the field.

Let me guess: You had the broomstick, and Irish threw the boxing glove? :D