Ask The Ump?

jmog

Well-known member
Can someone explain the new/additional DH rule for HS that OHSAA just announced was passed through after the NFHS passed it in June?

Having umpired for many years from around 1995 until 2010, I read the rule and just don't see what the difference is vs the existing rule.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Ruling on:

Batted ball hits the bat a second time (bunt came up and hit the bat).

RULING:
1. Batter was still in the batters box and the bat was in his hands.
2. Batter was still in the BB and the bat was NOT in his hands.
3. Batter was out of the BB and the bat was not in his hands.
4. Batter was out of the BB and the bat was IN his hands.


In all these insatnces the batter did NOT intentionally have any actions to hit the bat the second time. I presume if he did it would change the ruling?
 

AllSports12

Moderator
Can someone explain the new/additional DH rule for HS that OHSAA just announced was passed through after the NFHS passed it in June?

Having umpired for many years from around 1995 until 2010, I read the rule and just don't see what the difference is vs the existing rule.
The existing rule has 9 defensive starters, but 10 starters overall as the DH is a starter. (for re-entry purposes). This existing DH requires the DH to be someone other than the 9 starters.

The new provision allows for any one of the 9 starters to also be the DH. For example. Abel is listed as the P/DH. Baker comes into pitch in the 6th for Abel, however is not the accomplished hitter that Abel is. Since Abel is also listed as the DH, Baker now pitches and Abel reverts to the DH. This keeps Abel in the game. Should Baker some to the plate later in the game, the DH will be terminated. (players may still re-enter if they have that available to them as a starter)

The head coach will declare which, if any, DH option is going to be at the plate conference prior to the game. Once his option is accepted along with the line-up card, he is bound by that decision for the remainder of the game.

The rule and case book plays, while already written will not be released until it is time for the rule books to go to publication, just like any prior rule change.
 

AllSports12

Moderator
Ruling on:

Batted ball hits the bat a second time (bunt came up and hit the bat).

RULING:
1. Batter was still in the batters box and the bat was in his hands.
2. Batter was still in the BB and the bat was NOT in his hands.
3. Batter was out of the BB and the bat was not in his hands.
4. Batter was out of the BB and the bat was IN his hands.


In all these insatnces the batter did NOT intentionally have any actions to hit the bat the second time. I presume if he did it would change the ruling?
Based on no intent to contact the ball a second time....

1) Foul Ball
2) Depends on where the ball was in relation to the foul line when the ball hit the bat a second time. If fair, the contact is ignored and the ball is live. If foul, the ball is dead immediately.
3) Same as #2
4) If the ball was in fair territory and the ball came in contact with the bat, the batter-runner is out for interference. If the ball was in foul territory when the ball came in contact with the bat, it is a foul ball.

Based on the intentional act of the batter-runner contacting the ball a second time with the bat, the following ruling is the same for all four instances...

If the ball is fair, the batter-runner is declared out for interference If the ball is foul and has a chance to become fair, the batter-runner is declared out for interference. If the ball is foul and has no chance to become fair, you have a foul ball.

In all the instances where intent is involved, the ball is dead immediately and any runners return to the base they occupied at the time of the pitch.
 

bucksman

Moderator
AllSports12,

Would one be correct to say that the DH rule change allows both use of the DH as it presently is used, or for utilization of the DH like in "college" with some of the position-playing pitchers that you see as starters on the mound?
 

AllSports12

Moderator
AllSports12,

Would one be correct to say that the DH rule change allows both use of the DH as it presently is used, or for utilization of the DH like in "college" with some of the position-playing pitchers that you see as starters on the mound?
That's exactly why the rule was changed. It gives managers more options with their better players. (many times they are the best pitcher as well)

All without the complexity of the college DH rule.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Based on no intent to contact the ball a second time....

1) Foul Ball
2) Depends on where the ball was in relation to the foul line when the ball hit the bat a second time. If fair, the contact is ignored and the ball is live. If foul, the ball is dead immediately.
3) Same as #2
4) If the ball was in fair territory and the ball came in contact with the bat, the batter-runner is out for interference. If the ball was in foul territory when the ball came in contact with the bat, it is a foul ball.

Based on the intentional act of the batter-runner contacting the ball a second time with the bat, the following ruling is the same for all four instances...

If the ball is fair, the batter-runner is declared out for interference If the ball is foul and has a chance to become fair, the batter-runner is declared out for interference. If the ball is foul and has no chance to become fair, you have a foul ball.

In all the instances where intent is involved, the ball is dead immediately and any runners return to the base they occupied at the time of the pitch.
Thank you.

Instance over the weekend as the HP umpire ruled the batter out saying he was out of the box (I don't believe he was).

Team A asked the HP if he would appeal and ask for help. He obliged and the base umpire said he as in the box and ruled in foul.

Team B didn't like that answer and talked to the umpires, in term they then changed it back to the original OUT call.


Now I don't know what they were discussing out there but I have never seen a double reversal before!

By your explanation it should have been a live ball as the HP umpire first stated it hit the bat and he wasn't in the batters box anymore.
 
Piggybacking off the above questions. Does a batter being ruled out for interference result in an immediate dead ball or a delayed dead ball?

Example: Runner on first. Batter bunts, and drops the bat in fair territory where it contacts the ball pushing it further fair. Pitcher fields and air mails it to first. Runner from first scores. After ball returns to pitcher, HP rules batter interference and returns runner to 1st.

Should play have been stopped for the interference or is it correct to let it play out even though everything after the interference is erased?
 

jmog

Well-known member
The existing rule has 9 defensive starters, but 10 starters overall as the DH is a starter. (for re-entry purposes). This existing DH requires the DH to be someone other than the 9 starters.

The new provision allows for any one of the 9 starters to also be the DH. For example. Abel is listed as the P/DH. Baker comes into pitch in the 6th for Abel, however is not the accomplished hitter that Abel is. Since Abel is also listed as the DH, Baker now pitches and Abel reverts to the DH. This keeps Abel in the game. Should Baker some to the plate later in the game, the DH will be terminated. (players may still re-enter if they have that available to them as a starter)

The head coach will declare which, if any, DH option is going to be at the plate conference prior to the game. Once his option is accepted along with the line-up card, he is bound by that decision for the remainder of the game.

The rule and case book plays, while already written will not be released until it is time for the rule books to go to publication, just like any prior rule change.
So now a coach can start a game with 9 and no actual DH but label one of
his starts as also the DH. At any point the coach can pull said player out defensively and his replacement only plays defense while the original player is now the “normal” DH?
 

AllSports12

Moderator
So now a coach can start a game with 9 and no actual DH but label one of
his starts as also the DH. At any point the coach can pull said player out defensively and his replacement only plays defense while the original player is now the “normal” DH?
Correct

The details will become more clear when the books are published and the official PowerPoints from the NFHS are released later on this year,
 

jmog

Well-known member
Correct

The details will become more clear when the books are published and the official PowerPoints from the NFHS are released later on this year,
I guess I don't hate it, but maybe being more of a traditionalist I like the "original" rule which is just like the MLB American League.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
I guess I don't hate it, but maybe being more of a traditionalist I like the "original" rule which is just like the MLB American League.
Was the NFHS rule every exactly like the MLB rule where the DH had to hit for the pitcher?

If so, when did it change to the current version?

I admit I didn't know in MLB it HAD to be the pitcher until I looked up if Ohtani could hit and use the DH to a weaker offensive player when he pitched.
 

jmog

Well-known member
Was the NFHS rule every exactly like the MLB rule where the DH had to hit for the pitcher?

If so, when did it change to the current version?

I admit I didn't know in MLB it HAD to be the pitcher until I looked up if Ohtani could hit and use the DH to a weaker offensive player when he pitched.
My mistake, I always thought the American League rule was that the DH could be used for any position player just like in the old HS rule. I didn't know it was ONLY for pitcher until just now.

Back in HS we always used a DH for our catcher. Great defensive catcher, couldn't hit a lick. Our pitchers all came from the field except one and we didn't DH for any of them, just our catcher.
 

AllSports12

Moderator
Piggybacking off the above questions. Does a batter being ruled out for interference result in an immediate dead ball or a delayed dead ball?

Example: Runner on first. Batter bunts, and drops the bat in fair territory where it contacts the ball pushing it further fair. Pitcher fields and air mails it to first. Runner from first scores. After ball returns to pitcher, HP rules batter interference and returns runner to 1st.

Should play have been stopped for the interference or is it correct to let it play out even though everything after the interference is erased?
Based on your example, this is not interference as the batter-runner did not intentionally (drops the bat in fair territory) contact the ball with the bat.

Now, had this been the case, the ball is dead immediately on the interference and all runners return to the base they occupied at the time of the pitch. ( Rule 8-4-1d 1, 2)
 
This was my thought too. I thought it was odd to let the whole thing play out just to call interference for something that happened within a few seconds of the play starting.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
This was my thought too. I thought it was odd to let the whole thing play out just to call interference for something that happened within a few seconds of the play starting.
Mr. Allsports,

In a delayed dead ball instance does the team gaining the call have the opportunity to accept the penalty or the result of the play?

EXAMPLE: Rundown and there is intereference on the fielder. An instant dead ball results in the extra base, but with the delayed DB would the offense be able to possibly take the result of the play. For instance, rundown between 2-3, but the defense messes up so badly and throws it away and the runner ends up scoring and the batter makes it all the way to 2nd (or 3rd or home)

To caveat off of that.
Rundown between 2-3rd, defense interferes, delayed DB, runner ends up scoring on the play but the batter/runner then gets thrown out at second.

Does the offense have to accept either the run scoring and the out at second, or giving the first runner 3rd base due to the interference and the hitter/runner stays at first (presuming he was going to and got thrown out at second when a play was being made at the plate>
 

bucksman

Moderator
thevoice,

In "delayed dead ball", there are clearly defined situations for when it becomes a dead ball, and for when there is no longer a dead ball.

In your specific example of a rundown, please note that the proper term is OBSTRUCTION for an infraction committed by the defense (offense interferes, defense obstructs). Obstruction is always a delayed dead ball (rule 5-1-2).

In the follow-up question, the delayed dead ball for obstruction is no longer in force once the offensive player that was obstructed achieves the base(s) that they otherwise would have achieved. The batter-runner is not involved in the obstruction scenario, so his out will remain on the books.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
UMPIRES:
Is this more commonplace or the outlier...
Heard a group of umpires, 6, who have almost 150 plus years experience, talking in between games this weekend. They were discussing two violations that they said they weren't going to be proactive to call, but if the opposing team said anything then they were going to.
1. Some tape on the wrist of the pitching hand
2. Glove with white/gray on the pitcher. They even informed the pitcher if the other team brought it up then they would make him take it off.

What say you? Neither seem egregious and I imagine extremely few people even noticed it, but just wondering if some of these things they let fly until the opposing coach brings it up.
 

AllSports12

Moderator
UMPIRES:
Is this more commonplace or the outlier...
Heard a group of umpires, 6, who have almost 150 plus years experience, talking in between games this weekend. They were discussing two violations that they said they weren't going to be proactive to call, but if the opposing team said anything then they were going to.
1. Some tape on the wrist of the pitching hand
2. Glove with white/gray on the pitcher. They even informed the pitcher if the other team brought it up then they would make him take it off.

What say you? Neither seem egregious and I imagine extremely few people even noticed it, but just wondering if some of these things they let fly until the opposing coach brings it up.
Neither carry a penalty that exceeds the required removal of the item(s) by the next pitch. Some guys just have them remove the items once they see it as a game management tool and some ignore it till the matter is brought up...... At times it depends on what's happened/happening in the game. (or if there is a history between the teams)

That said, tape on the wrist (of either hand) is not in and of itself illegal. It is only illegal if it "may be distracting to the batter". If determined by the umpire that it is distracting, the item(s) must be removed by the next pitch.
 
@thavoice....I need to attend baseball games with you. I have umpired something like 50 travel tournament games this Summer and not had more than 3 - 5 "weird" situations occur, and by "weird", I mean unusual in terms of how often they occur, not even weird in the "what the heck do we do with this situation"....you seem to have oddities occur at every game you attend!!

This is not a crack at you, we have had some friendly convos, I just am astounded at how many weird situations you see occur with games and umpires!
 

thavoice

Well-known member
@thavoice....I need to attend baseball games with you. I have umpired something like 50 travel tournament games this Summer and not had more than 3 - 5 "weird" situations occur, and by "weird", I mean unusual in terms of how often they occur, not even weird in the "what the heck do we do with this situation"....you seem to have oddities occur at every game you attend!!

This is not a crack at you, we have had some friendly convos, I just am astounded at how many weird situations you see occur with games and umpires!
Good stuff!
I think it comes down to a few things:
1. Attention to detail. I really pay attention at the games and I alwways want ti know for sure the correct call because there are so many instances where people are just wrong because of the baseball myths!
2. Sitting through 80+ games this spring with most being 13u ish with questionable umpires and you see a lot of stuff!
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Something that the Redns announcer, the Creeper, said on Monday that I am not sure I agree with.

Infield Fly Rule. 1st and 2nd, less than two out. Pop up right to where the second baseman is/would be playing.

Welsch said he would like to see the second baseman to immediately run into the pitcher mound area/away from where the ball. Let the ball drop and by the time that happens the OFer would be close enough, or someone else would be, to get the ball and do a DP since the INF fly rule would not be called because no fielder was close enough.

Is it a requirement that a fielder be near the fly pop for the INF rule to be in effect?
 

AllSports12

Moderator
Something that the Redns announcer, the Creeper, said on Monday that I am not sure I agree with.

Infield Fly Rule. 1st and 2nd, less than two out. Pop up right to where the second baseman is/would be playing.

Welsch said he would like to see the second baseman to immediately run into the pitcher mound area/away from where the ball. Let the ball drop and by the time that happens the OFer would be close enough, or someone else would be, to get the ball and do a DP since the INF fly rule would not be called because no fielder was close enough.

Is it a requirement that a fielder be near the fly pop for the INF rule to be in effect?
Goodness.... Chris is usually pretty good about rules. (he worked his TV segments with Ted Barrett, who is one of the nest in the business) If that's what he said, he's dead wrong.

Remember, the Infield Fly Rule was created to prevent the defense from getting two cheap outs. Ruling this way (under any rule code) is contrary to the purpose of the rule.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Goodness.... Chris is usually pretty good about rules. (he worked his TV segments with Ted Barrett, who is one of the nest in the business) If that's what he said, he's dead wrong.

Remember, the Infield Fly Rule was created to prevent the defense from getting two cheap outs. Ruling this way (under any rule code) is contrary to the purpose of the rule.
Yeah, that is what he had said and I was pretty certain he was wrong but I am man enough to realize I dont know it all and always willing to learn more.
 
Mechanics Question...

I was working a summer tournament game, I was PU. Runners on 1st and 2nd, BU in C position.

Wild pitch resulted in ball only going a few feet from catcher; R2 heading to third, catchers throw beats him by a mile (think Major League movie where runners slide is short of bag and fielder is waiting saying “come on, come on”)

R2 basically gave himself up but also kind of ran around the 3B who tagged him (I’m 90-95 ft away but was pretty obvious)

BU had a delayed call, then calls him safe. Coach is livid; asks him to get help from me, BU refuses. I said nothing.

(This is besides the point but BU told me after game he had a senior moment there and it was bothering him the entirety of the game)

I say this bc, and I know I say nothing unless asked for help by BU, but is there any scenario where I go and offer help without being asked? I guess I struggle with the ethics of knowing I am allowing a call to be incorrect...at the end of the day, if I mess up a call I WANT my partner to get it; I want calls to be right (obv mistakes happen, things get missed)

But was I right to not say anything and if so, is there a time when ethics trumps procedure?
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Mechanics Question...

I was working a summer tournament game, I was PU. Runners on 1st and 2nd, BU in C position.

Wild pitch resulted in ball only going a few feet from catcher; R2 heading to third, catchers throw beats him by a mile (think Major League movie where runners slide is short of bag and fielder is waiting saying “come on, come on”)

R2 basically gave himself up but also kind of ran around the 3B who tagged him (I’m 90-95 ft away but was pretty obvious)

BU had a delayed call, then calls him safe. Coach is livid; asks him to get help from me, BU refuses. I said nothing.

(This is besides the point but BU told me after game he had a senior moment there and it was bothering him the entirety of the game)

I say this bc, and I know I say nothing unless asked for help by BU, but is there any scenario where I go and offer help without being asked? I guess I struggle with the ethics of knowing I am allowing a call to be incorrect...at the end of the day, if I mess up a call I WANT my partner to get it; I want calls to be right (obv mistakes happen, things get missed)

But was I right to not say anything and if so, is there a time when ethics trumps procedure?
Non umpire here but as a coach's perspective.
This does get into a touchy subject. Ultimately everyone wants the calls to be right but everyone does need to stay in their lane.
As a safe median, I would say that if the other umpire makes the wrong INTERPRETATION of a rule, then I would have a talk to him and as a coach be OK with that. I.E. what I posted earlier about an umpire incorrectly ruling on a batting out of order situation. If he just plain makes a bad call, and wont ask for assistance then well..........UNLESS, and this is a huge exception, if you truly believe that umpire has it in for that team and has been hosing them left and right and feel his ethics had been compromised. Personally, I have never seen that but a possibly scenario.
 

AllSports12

Moderator
The ONLY time another umpire should get involved (unsolicited) in a decision by his partner is when his partner misapplies a rule. The NFHS recently added a mechanic (signal) that can alert a partner that he/she has information that may be able to assist that partner, but the assistance must come from the umpire making the call and calling umpire makes the final determination on whether or the call remains or changes based on that information.

For those fans/coaches/players wanting to use the "get the call right" argument. That argument will only be valid when your coach asks an umpire to get help on a call that went your way and he wants it changed to an adverse outcome for his team.

For those umpires that want to go help their partner on a call you think they missed...... Put yourself in your partner's shoes and tell me how you'd feel if that happened to you........ particularly if you are right and they are wrong.

It's a game played by humans and officiated by humans...... Mistakes are made.

It's part of life..... and it's just a game.
 

tcgobucks

Well-known member
The ONLY time another umpire should get involved (unsolicited) in a decision by his partner is when his partner misapplies a rule. The NFHS recently added a mechanic (signal) that can alert a partner that he/she has information that may be able to assist that partner, but the assistance must come from the umpire making the call and calling umpire makes the final determination on whether or the call remains or changes based on that information.

For those fans/coaches/players wanting to use the "get the call right" argument. That argument will only be valid when your coach asks an umpire to get help on a call that went your way and he wants it changed to an adverse outcome for his team.

For those umpires that want to go help their partner on a call you think they missed...... Put yourself in your partner's shoes and tell me how you'd feel if that happened to you........ particularly if you are right and they are wrong.

It's a game played by humans and officiated by humans...... Mistakes are made.

It's part of life..... and it's just a game.
This is where I have a problem. If it's a glaring mistake, regardless of whether or not the calling umpire asked, or is willing to ask for help, I think you need to do whatever you can to get the call right. Let's say, for example....a blown call happens in the last inning of a regional final game....that if correct would have changed the outcome and sent the other team to the Final Four at Huntington Park (or wherever it is that season). The kids deserve to have the right call made. If the umpire that made the wrong call has a problem with it, so be it....but the end result was correct. After all, the kids are playing the game right? They've put in the work all season to not have a game (or season) decided by a blown call that could easily have been corrected.

I do agree that the umpire that made the call should be the one to change it, if he doesn't, it's on him, but at least the other umpire(s) tried to get the call correct. If you as an umpire can't handle having people know you made a mistake and won't allow it to be fixed because your ego won't allow it, then maybe you need to find another job. Sorry, but as the parent who has seen 1000's of games at all levels from Little League thru D1, I just feel like if the call can be corrected....then correct it.
 

AllSports12

Moderator
This is where I have a problem. If it's a glaring mistake, regardless of whether or not the calling umpire asked, or is willing to ask for help, I think you need to do whatever you can to get the call right. Let's say, for example....a blown call happens in the last inning of a regional final game....that if correct would have changed the outcome and sent the other team to the Final Four at Huntington Park (or wherever it is that season). The kids deserve to have the right call made. If the umpire that made the wrong call has a problem with it, so be it....but the end result was correct. After all, the kids are playing the game right? They've put in the work all season to not have a game (or season) decided by a blown call that could easily have been corrected.
I saw this very situation years ago during a State Semi-Final. (in another state) Everyone in the park saw that the 3rd Base Umpire kicked a call and the Plate Umpire went to him to tell him just that. A long discussion was held and the 3rd Base Umpire changed his call....... television replay the next day indicated without a doubt that the only person to get the call right was the 3rd Base Umpire.

When we take a game that is played by people who make mistakes and is officiated by people who make mistakes and only try to "correct' the mistakes of only a segment of that game..... we create unintended consequences.

Life's not fair.........

I do agree that the umpire that made the call should be the one to change it, if he doesn't, it's on him, but at least the other umpire(s) tried to get the call correct. If you as an umpire can't handle having people know you made a mistake and won't allow it to be fixed because your ego won't allow it, then maybe you need to find another job. Sorry, but as the parent who has seen 1000's of games at all levels from Little League thru D1, I just feel like if the call can be corrected....then correct it.
Again... when you demand as a coach, player, or fan that a call be changed that went in your favor. Then and only then can you truly bring forth the argument that it's about getting the call right.

No official likes it when the kick a call..... believe me, I've lost many a week's worth of sleep over the years. However it is part of the game. It's never going to be perfect. (the silly attempt by the Atlantic League with their computer strike zone proves that even with technology, mistakes are made)

Let's quit trying to make it so.
 
Last edited:
.
Top