Patrick, have you considered combining old test and doing a monthly or quarterly review? Pre test are nice, then the videos explain it but a way to make sure I’m retaining the information would be great. Love the videos thank you for doing all this.
You're saying touching the ball with detached equipment is always a 2 base award. Even if it's a batted ball that will clearly go over the fence for a hr and f9 throws his glove to knock it down into the field of play?
You should check out last week’s video. This week is in reference to detached equipmentent touching a thrown or pitched ball. What you are referencing is a batted-ball, which is three bases. Except for the scenario you give would be a 4 base award. I will say, I have no idea if the batter gets credit for a home run.
see the baserunning awards table before rule 8-3 (page 53 in the 2024 NFHS Rulebook): TWO BASES - 4. Live thrown ball or pitched ball touched by detached player equipment... THREE BASES - 1. Fair batted ball contacted with detached player equipment... FOUR BASES - 4. Fair batted ball prevented from going over the fence because of contact with detached player equipment...
Patrick, Our youth Baseball and Softball program is looking to require our umpires to pass a test showing they have the basic skills to umpire for us. On your website, I see you have a class that offers a certificate of completion following the class. Is there a way to provide this test to multiple people or is it going to be $35 per applicant? Thank you.
Great job covering topics, however you lost me on Case #3 "intentional kick by catcher on a rolling ball" from a pitched ball. #92ALCS "it was going to go out of play anyway" NOT FEASIBLE as will be in direct conflict Case#4 to ump call on ball going (still rolling) out of play with F2 assistance. To claim discretion needed by ump on determining live ball going into dugout or dead ball area not possible.
I really don’t like the interpretation of case play #3 (I’m not saying it’s incorrect, I’m just saying it’s a bad precedent). Based on case play #2… it would appear that it’s 1 base if intentional and 2 base if unintentional. So you’re asking the Ump to judge intent (did he mean to kick it out of play?) and tell the future (it would have gone out of play). If it’s kicked, it should always be 2 bases. Just make it clean and easy. As a coach, I would never argue it if it was ruled that way. I WOULD argue if the the ump ruled 1 base.
the distinction is not intent, though I can see where one would infer that from the caseplays, but instead whether the ball was going to go out of play regardless of the catcher's kick. Let us review the NFHS caseplay, paying particular attention to case (c): *8.3.3 SITUATION K:* F1 throws a pitch that strikes F2 on a shinguard and rolls away. The ball (a) has stopped moving and F2, attempting to pick it up, kicks it into dead-ball territory, or (b) is rolling and deflects off F2's glove into dead-ball territory, or (c) F2 intentionally kicks the ball into dead-ball territory. *RULING:* In (a), F2 applied the force that caused the ball to go into dead-ball territory, so the kick (throw) results in all runners being awarded two bases from the base occupied at the time of the kick (throw). The pitch is considered to be over. In (b), the force on the pitch caused the ball to go into dead-ball territory, so the award to all runners is one base from the base occupied at the time of the pitch. In (c), if the umpire judges the pitch would have gone into dead-ball territory without the kick, one base is awarded from the time of the pitch. _If the kick is judged to have caused the ball to go into dead-ball territory, two bases are awarded from the time of the throw/kick._ [emphasis added]
@@davej3781 If a pitch deflects off the catcher's shin guard and the catcher then kicks it into the dugout while chasing it, I will award 2 bases from the time of the kick -- I want NOTHING to do with judging whether the ball would have gone out of bounds on its own. He kicked it out of bounds and that's what I'm going with.
are you sure about the interpretation of 8-3-3f you present starting at 3:55? in my view a player in an active rundown who has not committed to sliding/diving into a base, IS trying to advance regardless of which direction he's running at any given moment; the fact that he's running away from a defender in front of him with the ball doesn't mean he's no longer trying to advance, he's just trying to not be out. returning a runner to the previously occupied base because the defense screwed up and threw the ball into his shirt seems like a punishment (and a gift to the defense), and not how I read 8-3-3f. this is distinct from the much more likely case of a runner diving back to a base on a pick-off, or a runner who was in a rundown but has now committed to a slide or dive back into the original base - THAT runner is not attempting to advance.
@@davej3781a baserunner in a rundown moving toward a previously attained base is literally retreating. He would like to advance and score but when the ball goes out of play he’s not advancing; he’s retreating. The rule takes into account what is happening at the moment the ball enters the player’s uniform. For me it was a thrown ball into a retreating runner’s helmet. I hadn’t seen this informative video. I awarded R-2 home plate. It’s the worst rules interpretation I have ever made.
Dave, I gotta say, I think its clean and easy to just rule it that they get safe to the base they were going back to. I like this rule. Especially for such an edge case. That said, this rule would seem to invite conversation on if players should be allowed to wear hoodies with pouches, or jackets with pockets. Do uniform rules explicitly allow those? I’ve coached in cold weather games where players, especially pitchers, might have a random sweatshirt on to keep warm. That would invite additional opportunity for this to occur.
@@UmpireClassroom we we're both right: you were right, casebook play 8.3.3b says EXACTLY what you presented, that the base award is determined solely by the direction in which the runner is moving when the ball became lodged in his clothing/equipment. I was right, I definitely disagree with the casebook interpretation of the rule. Seems to me if 8-3-3f meant it that literally, it would be written that literally. Instead, "if in the umpire's judgment the runner was attempting to advance" asks for the umpire to judge what the runner was trying to do; a runner in a rundown is attempting to advance, else he wouldn't be in a rundown in the first place! I also don't like this because "the base the runner was moving towards" is a softball judgment. We play Baseball here, and Baseball doesn't have rules like this. (but it wouldn't be the first time that NFHS has put 'softbally' stuff into baseball rules) For the record, I agree that we are bound by the casebook interpretation, and would lose any protest resulting from an in-game ruling to the contrary.
