Master Index of Archived Threads


Ask Hal, the Referee

Benjamin Grimm Oct 20 2008 08:35 AM

Hal Lebovitz, a Hall-of-Fame sportswriter, was the author of the Ask Hal, the Referee column, which ran in The Sporting News as well as The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Lebovitz died in 2005 at the age of 89. I thought it might be a fun off-season diversion to dig up some of the old questions and answers from Hal's columns. What I'll do is post a question from a reader and we can all try to come up with the right answer. Approximately 24 hours later I'll post Hal's answer. (I'm not guaranteeing it's the correct answer. Hal could have been wrong, or the rules may have changed in the 30 or so years since the column appeared.) I'll keep this thread going, with another question following each answer, as long as we seem to be interested in it. Let's get started, with a question from 1976: ="Thomas E. Prell, Lombard, Ill."]Major league baseball, runner on first and third, one out, tie game, late innings, obvious double-play situation. In an effort to break up the double play, does the runner on first have the right not to run toward second, staying in the base path near first and either obscuring the first baseman from seeing the relay throw or even getting hit by the ball? Therefore, the runner would be safe at first and the runner at third perhaps scoring the winning run. Smart baseball? Interference? Or What?

AG/DC Oct 20 2008 08:41 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 20 2008 08:43 AM

My understanding was that, when Reggie Jackson allowed the relay throw to hit him in the World Series, he was not within his rights, but the umps blew the call. As far as obscuring the firstbaseman, i guess he can stand there and let it whiz past his ear, as long as he isn't flailing about. The general principle as I understand it is that the fielder has to yield to the runner, but the runner has to yield to the ball.

metirish Oct 20 2008 08:42 AM

If the hitter gets the hit doesn't the guy on first have to try and advance?

Benjamin Grimm Oct 20 2008 08:44 AM

He's not allowed to stay at first base, but the question is, does he have to run to second?

soupcan Oct 20 2008 09:00 AM

I would say that as long as he stays in the baseline and does not go out of his way to interefere with the ball then he can do whatever he wants.

metirish Oct 20 2008 09:04 AM

I think the runner on first must make an attempt to run(Go) to second , I do not think the runner has the right to not run towards second.

Fman99 Oct 20 2008 09:20 AM

="soupcan pbzovdft]I would say that as long as he stays in the baseline and does not go out of his way to interefere with the ball then he can do whatever he wants.

pbzovdft]

This is my vote.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 20 2008 09:22 AM

Love this. We used to get together and play the "Ask Hal" game with the guys in my dorm. I'm gonna say interference for messing with the throw. It's his right to hold up between the bases but not to interfere with the ball.

HahnSolo Oct 20 2008 10:29 AM

="metirish>3l38nl2o]I think the runner on first must make an attempt to run(Go) to second , I do not think the runner has the right to not run towards second. 3l38nl2o] I think Irish is right. I seem to remember a play this year involving the Astros where the runner did not move off first on a ground ball, and discussion got around to the rulebook. IIRC, once the ball is in play on the ground, the runner at first must make an advancement to second.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 21 2008 07:08 AM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

Here's Hal's answer to our first question: ="Thomas E. Prell, Lombard, Ill."]Major league baseball, runner on first and third, one out, tie game, late innings, obvious double-play situation. In an effort to break up the double play, does the runner on first have the right not to run toward second, staying in the base path near first and either obscuring the first baseman from seeing the relay throw or even getting hit by the ball? Therefore, the runner would be safe at first and the runner at third perhaps scoring the winning run. Smart baseball? Interference? Or What? ="Hal the Referee"] The runner has the right to the base line on a thrown ball. As long as the runner who wsa on first doesn't wave his arms or commit any other obvious act of interference, it is perfectly legal for him to stand there. It's up to the fielder to throw around him, which is really no problem, for it's done all the time -- as on attempted pickoffs. Remember, a good first baseman knows how to stretch for the ball. Smart baseball? It isn't dumb. Next: ="Tom Sekelsky, Wilcox, Pa."]I have only witnessed the following situation once and I happened to be a player in the game. Runners on second and third and one out. Fly ball to left field and both runners tag. After both runners moved up a base, an appeal was made at second base and the runner was ruled out for leaving before the catch was made. The umpires ruled that the runner from third scored. My manager said the run should not count. The league protest committee ruled in my manager's favor, saying the run did not count. The game was replayed from that point on. Who was right, the game umpires or the protest committee? I also find it amazing that of the hundreds of games I have seen or played, this situation has happened but once.

Frayed Knot Oct 21 2008 07:15 AM

The out is not a force play but rather an after-the-fact play so the run should count.

soupcan Oct 21 2008 07:45 AM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

="Hal the Referee"] The runner has the right to the base line on a thrown ball. As long as the runner who wsa on first doesn't wave his arms or commit any other obvious act of interference, it is perfectly legal for him to stand there. It's up to the fielder to throw around him, which is really no problem, for it's done all the time -- as on attempted pickoffs. Remember, a good first baseman knows how to stretch for the ball. Smart baseball? It isn't dumb. If irish the Irishman had been right and I was wrong I would have seriously considered moving to Canada.

soupcan Oct 21 2008 07:47 AM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

="Tom Sekelsky, Wilcox, Pa. 29ios96u]I have only witnessed the following situation once and I happened to be a player in the game. Runners on second and third and one out. Fly ball to left field and both runners tag. After both runners moved up a base, an appeal was made at second base and the runner was ruled out for leaving before the catch was made. The umpires ruled that the runner from third scored. My manager said the run should not count. The league protest committee ruled in my manager's favor, saying the run did not count. The game was replayed from that point on. Who was right, the game umpires or the protest committee? I also find it amazing that of the hundreds of games I have seen or played, this situation has happened but once.

29ios96u]

I see no reason why that run should not count.

What's the basis of the protest? There was only 1 out and the runner at third left on time.

Run counts!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 21 2008 07:50 AM

Yeah, I think the stuffed shirts at the Rules Committee blew this one.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 21 2008 09:34 AM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

Okay, that one was too easy. Let's try a tricky one. First, Hal's answer to Tom Sekelsky: ="Hal the Referee"]The umpires were right and the protest committee was completely off base in its ruling. The run counts because it was scored when there were only two outs. The only time a run doesn't count is when it scored on a play in which the third out is on a force or ont he batter before he reaches first base. Tom, this play happens often, even though it was new to you. But this is the first time, to my knowledge, a protest committee blew this basic play. I hope it's the last. I hope, too, the umpires gave the committee a rules book for Christmas. Now: ="James P. Halloran, Omaha, Neb."]Several years ago, a friend was telling how a team could receive credit for an unassisted triple play without touching the ball. I know it involves a pop-up, but I can't remember the rest. Have you heard this one and can you tell me how it can happen? Hal does come up with a scenario in which this can happen.

metirish Oct 21 2008 09:37 AM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

="soupcan"] ="Hal the Referee"] The runner has the right to the base line on a thrown ball. As long as the runner who wsa on first doesn't wave his arms or commit any other obvious act of interference, it is perfectly legal for him to stand there. It's up to the fielder to throw around him, which is really no problem, for it's done all the time -- as on attempted pickoffs. Remember, a good first baseman knows how to stretch for the ball. Smart baseball? It isn't dumb. If irish the Irishman had been right and I was wrong I would have seriously considered moving to Canada. You know people get in trouble for saying such things during election time , eh?

metirish Oct 21 2008 09:39 AM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

Benjamin Grimm: Now: James P. Halloran, Omaha, Neb.: Several years ago, a friend was telling how a team could receive credit for an unassisted triple play without touching the ball. I know it involves a pop-up, but I can't remember the rest. Have you heard this one and can you tell me how it can happen? Hal does come up with a scenario in which this can happen. The pop-up is dropped a few times before the play is made ?....sorry if I sound clueless.

AG/DC Oct 21 2008 09:40 AM

Infield fly with the bases loaded. The umpire calls the batter out. The oblivious runners on first and second both are advancing at their own risk and pass the runner on third who is scratching hiis head. The fielder closest to the ball when it lands gets credit for the three putouts, I reckon.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 21 2008 09:40 AM

No fielder touches the ball, metirish.

Centerfield Oct 21 2008 09:45 AM

Just a guess here, but runners on first and second (or bases loaded). Line drive hit to a fielder, the baserunner fails to yield to the fielder and gets called for interference. The batter would be out by way of interference, then the runners called out as they would, in the umpire's judgment, not been able to get back to their original bases.

Gwreck Oct 21 2008 09:46 AM

AG/DC: Infield fly with the bases loaded. The umpire calls the batter out. The oblivious runners on first and second both are advancing at their own risk and pass the runner on third who is scratching his head. The fielder closest to the ball when it lands gets credit for the three putouts, I reckon. I think the fielder closest to the passed runner also has to be the fielder closest to where the pop up lands, so it would be a popup near the third baseman. But otherwise yes, I think that's right.

soupcan Oct 21 2008 09:55 AM

I'm clueless on this one. Irish - I was just pissing on you.

metirish Oct 21 2008 09:58 AM

soupcan: I'm clueless on this one. Irish - I was just pissing on you. I knew that man......dying over here.

Frayed Knot Oct 21 2008 10:13 AM

Buck Showalter claimed on a BB2N show earlier this year that he was managing in the minors when this sort of play actually happened! If I recall his details correctly it was an infield fly so the batter was out, then one runner passed the other, then as the ball landed untouched it bounced and hit one of the other runners in fair territory. On edit: [url=http://cranepoolforum.qwknetllc.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=9108&highlight=showalter]Recounted here[/url] As Buck said on the show; 'try calling THAT one into team headquarters the next day'

Benjamin Grimm Oct 22 2008 08:43 AM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

Hal's answer to James P. Halloran: ="Hal the Referee"]I haven't heard it, but theoretically it could occur this way: let's say the bases are loaded and the batter lifts a high fly between home and third. The runner from first, losing sight of the ball, is off and running. He passes the runner who is on second. One out. The runner on third moves off his base a few feet and stands there. The fly hits him on the head. He's out -- and how. The batter is out because it's an infield fly. There you have it. Three outs with the ball untouched by human hands. Now: ="Ted Whitcomb, El Centro, Calif."]Professional baseball: A runner is on third base with one out and is the potential winning run. A short fly is hit to the outfield and runner attempts to score. He wants a jogging lead, so as the ball is in the air, he takes a few steps away from third and toward second. The runner times it so that the catch is made as he streaks by third. In doing so, he touches the bag simultaneously with the catch. Was this a legal play? Was the runner allowed those few steps so he could get a faster start from third? Have you seen this play attempted?

soupcan Oct 22 2008 09:04 AM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

Ted Whitcomb, El Centro, Calif.: Professional baseball: A runner is on third base with one out and is the potential winning run. A short fly is hit to the outfield and runner attempts to score. He wants a jogging lead, so as the ball is in the air, he takes a few steps away from third and toward second. The runner times it so that the catch is made as he streaks by third. In doing so, he touches the bag simultaneously with the catch. Was this a legal play? Was the runner allowed those few steps so he could get a faster start from third? Have you seen this play attempted? I would say that I don't see anything wrong with it but its risky as it would most definitely be appealed and left to the ump's judgement whether or not the runner hit the base after the catch. That being said, I'll guess that its not a legal play. The running start thing smells fishy. Hal the Referee:I haven't heard it, but theoretically it could occur this way: let's say the bases are loaded and the batter lifts a high fly between home and third. The runner from first, losing sight of the ball, is off and running. He passes the runner who is on second. One out. The runner on third moves off his base a few feet and stands there. The fly hits him on the head. He's out -- and how. The batter is out because it's an infield fly. There you have it. Three outs with the ball untouched by human hands. Hmmmmm. Very suspicious that Hal came up with a scenario that years later Showalter said happened in exactly the same way. I call 'bullshit' on Buck.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 23 2008 01:34 PM

Looks like we've already grown tired of playing "Ask Hal" I'll post the answer to this question tomorrow. I have a few more questions and answers ready to go. Maybe I'll wait until we're deeper into the offseason.

AG/DC Oct 23 2008 01:38 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 23 2008 02:09 PM

There was a player who backed up down the third-base line to get a running start. I believe (based on Kiner's stories) that a rule was imput to disallow the use of this strategy. Whether that involves backing up toward second is another story. It seems like it should be legal, but I'm going to guess no, because rulemakers tamp down on innovation.

metirish Oct 23 2008 01:53 PM

I would think it's not legal , guys should be on the base , in front of the base or to the side of it but they can't be behind it. At least I don't think they should be.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 23 2008 01:54 PM

I am stumped on this, but my instinct is to say it's probably illegal.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 27 2008 11:43 AM

Hal's answer to Ted Whitcomb: ="Hal the Referee"] The runner must tag up and START FROM CONTACT WITH THE BASE AFTER THE BALL IS CAUGHT. Thus, what you described is illegal retouching and if the defense appeals, the runner should be called out. I never saw this attempted, but I understand Eddie Stanky did it in the majors. He would get behind third to obtain a running start. As a result of his clever footwork, the rule was changed, making it illegal. Here's a case where you must rev your motors while your brakes are still on. As I said earlier, I'll stop here, for now. When we get into November (if I remember!) I'll kick this off again.

AG/DC Oct 27 2008 12:04 PM

I'm sorry. Hal can use all the caps he wants, but that first sentence is crap. A runner who has advanced partly down the line can retreat to the base after the catch, tag, and score.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 27 2008 12:17 PM

Yeah, that doesn't ring true to me either. If there's a rule on the books, then there's a rule. But I don't see why it matters if you're on the second base side of the bag or the home plate side before you tag. The only thing that should matter is that you have to have contact with third base at some point after the ball is caught. I'm curious, though, about what he means by "illegal retouching." I remember reading that there's a rule that says a runner can't steal first. (Once you reach second base safely you're not allowed to return to first.) Does that mean that you're not legally allowed to retreat to the other side of the bag, even by a few feet? The real problem with this Stanky maneuver is, I think, that it's probably close to impossible to time it so that you're touching third base on the run right as the ball is being caught. You'd have to leave a little leeway to make sure you don't touch too early, and that would likely eat up whatever advantage you gained from your running start.

Centerfield Oct 27 2008 02:01 PM

I always wondered why sacrifice flies were not treated the same way in the Majors as it is in Little League. In the majors, I see players retreat to the base, put one foot on third, and face the outfielder. Once the ball is caught, they turn to home and take off. When I was growing up, we were taught to get on third, face home, and get into position to take off. We focused on the third base coach, and waited for his signal. As soon as we got the signal, we took off and didn't look anywhere else but the on-deck guy, who told us to walk it in or slide.

HahnSolo Oct 27 2008 02:06 PM

Well, speaking for the Mets, their 3B coaches have been Sandy Alomar and Luis Aguayo. If you're a baserunner, you really trusting them?

metsmarathon Oct 27 2008 02:56 PM

i would think that the problem with the stanky maneuver is that he's outside the basepath.

Frayed Knot Oct 27 2008 02:58 PM

Centerfield: I always wondered why sacrifice flies were not treated the same way in the Majors as it is in Little League. In the majors, I see players retreat to the base, put one foot on third, and face the outfielder. Once the ball is caught, they turn to home and take off. When I was growing up, we were taught to get on third, face home, and get into position to take off. We focused on the third base coach, and waited for his signal. As soon as we got the signal, we took off and didn't look anywhere else but the on-deck guy, who told us to walk it in or slide. My guess is that you get a better jump by anticipating when the catch is going to be made and use that to 'burst out of the blocks' as in a sprint. You're still in contact with the bag as your lead leg moves into its initial stride as well as ahead of the game by the time ball hits glove. MLers (theoretically at least) have better judgement to do that than 10 year olds and therefore don't need the coach to yell "NOW!!" at them. The runner would lose split-seconds due to the gap between hearing the coach and reacting plus the first part of the stride he gains from anticipating.

Frayed Knot Oct 27 2008 03:06 PM

metsmarathon: i would think that the problem with the stanky maneuver is that he's outside the basepath. Nah, you can run anywhere you want as long as you're not doing so just to avoid a tag. Sounds to me like it was simply a rule made up specifically to counter one guy who found a sneaky way of gaining an edge. The baserunner intenionally foiling a grounder rule was made up the same way. The way I heard the story was that during a tie game, bottom 9, bases-loaded, 1-out situation, a a probable GiDP bouncer was hit to SS. The runner from 2nd (Joe Adcock sticks in my mind) grabbed the ball on the way by and heaved it into the OF. He was out but he prevented the DP and the winning run scored. That's when they put in the rule that the umps could rule a DP if the ball-hit-runner play was deemed intentional. IOW, in both cases the sneaky ploy worked ... but it was the least time.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 18 2008 12:32 PM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

Okay, a few weeks have passed. Let's play another round of "Ask Hal." Here we go... Harold Cooper, Champaign, Ill.This is a bizarre situation which may never happen, but I'm interested in knowing what the major league umpire's ruling would be? Let's assume there are men on third and first, one out. The runner on third takes off for home. The pitcher is on the mound, close to the rubber, but not on it. He throws the ball home (no stretch or windup). The batter swings and hits it. Is it a balk, batter interference or is the batted ball in play?

Gwreck Nov 18 2008 12:36 PM

It's a balk and the ball is dead. Whatever the batter did with it does not count.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 18 2008 12:56 PM

Balk I say

Benjamin Grimm Nov 18 2008 12:57 PM Re: Ask Hal, the Referee

Bringing this forward to the current page. So far, both Johnny and Gwreck say "balk." Harold Cooper, Champaign, Ill.: This is a bizarre situation which may never happen, but I'm interested in knowing what the major league umpire's ruling would be? Let's assume there are men on third and first, one out. The runner on third takes off for home. The pitcher is on the mound, close to the rubber, but not on it. He throws the ball home (no stretch or windup). The batter swings and hits it. Is it a balk, batter interference or is the batted ball in play?

Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 01:06 PM

Bawk.

soupcan Nov 18 2008 01:32 PM

I don't know about the balk. The key is that the pitcher never touched and was not on the rubber. I think the ruling should be batter's interference but that gives the advantage to the pitcher who, I think, threw an illegal pitch. I'm also thinking 'no pitch' and the runners have to go back. Rationally that would penalize the runner on third for leaving too soon and screwing up the play. I'll go with interference though.

Frayed Knot Nov 18 2008 01:58 PM

I don't think it's a balk, nor do I think it's a pitch. I don't think the batter is allowed to hit it (although how is he to know that?) so I'm thinking interference, dead ball, runners return.

Gwreck Nov 18 2008 03:23 PM

The key is that the ball cannot be put in play except by a pitch. And the pitch made by the pitcher was clearly illegal (ie. foot not on the rubber), hence the call of balk.

soupcan Nov 18 2008 07:06 PM

Gwreck: The key is that the ball cannot be put in play except by a pitch. And the pitch made by the pitcher was clearly illegal (ie. foot not on the rubber), hence the call of balk. But the runner took off - there was no time out - and the pitcher threw home to try to get him. Not a pitch because he wasn't on the rubber, but a throw to the base. The pitcher's not allowed to throw to the home base to get a runner? I think he is.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 19 2008 02:57 PM

Hal's answer to Harold Cooper, which includes the rarely used word "inasmuch" Hal the Referee: Inasmuch as the pitcher is not on the rubber, he is considered an infielder on this play and not the pitcher. Therefore, it is no pitch. The batter is interfering with a play at the plate. The ball is dead and the runner from third is called out because of the batter's interference. It's not so bizarre. It's happened. Almost everything possible has. Stay tuned... another "Ask Hal" question will be coming next week.

soupcan Nov 19 2008 03:01 PM

=soupcan: I'll go with interference though. I kick ass in this game.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 02 2008 12:53 PM

Dan Heisman, Horsham, Pa.: What is the rule in major league baseball if an outfielder, chasing after a fair fly ball, jumps over the fence with both feet and, being over the fence with his whole body, but not yet touching the ground, catches the ball and then lands over the fence? Where exactly is the distinction drawn between where the outfielder must be -- with regards to feet and fence -- in order to tell the difference between an out and a home run?

soupcan Dec 02 2008 01:00 PM

If the ruling is that a player must have a part of his body in fair territory when the catch is made and this guy's entire body is over the 'plane' of the outfield fence, then HOMERUN I say. If the ruling is that a player is considered to be in fair territory until and unless he touches the ground outside of fair territory than OUT is my call. If an infielder can throw his whole body into the stands to make a catch that is then recorded as an out I would say that an outfielder can jump over a wall to catch a flyball. OUT!

metsmarathon Dec 02 2008 01:14 PM

i think it's like basketball, where you're in bounds until you land, making the batter out, and the fielder incredibly athletic.

Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 01:23 PM

Dan Heisman was thinking of Shinjo.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 02 2008 01:25 PM

I would guess ground rules cover this from park to park. But, I think Hal's gonna say that if a fielder leaves his feet to catch a would-be home run, he has to land on the field of play (or at least on the fence itself) to be considered an out.

seawolf17 Dec 02 2008 01:25 PM

soupcan: If an infielder can throw his whole body into the stands to make a catch that is then recorded as an out I would say that an outfielder can jump over a wall to catch a flyball. OUT! I say this as well.

metirish Dec 02 2008 01:39 PM

So in theory Endy could have jumped the fence and cleared it and still made the out in his catch against St. Louis? I think that's a home run.

Gwreck Dec 02 2008 02:24 PM

You have to land in the field of play. If the player landed on the other side of the wall, it's a home run.

Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 02:32 PM

* unless that player is Derek Jeter.

HahnSolo Dec 02 2008 06:36 PM

I say he's out. i feel like I remember somebody diving over the low fence in Dodger Stadium and taking away a HR.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 03 2008 01:00 PM

Hal's answer to Dan Heisman: ="Hal the Referee"] If the fielder has not yet landed on the other side of the fence before he catches the ball and he holds the ball after landing, the batter is out. The play you describe is an out. Therefore, the fielder can be on the other side of the fence, catch the ball while in the air and rob the batter of a homer. And robbery it would be.