View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 15, 2003, 03:01pm
Bainer Bainer is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 71
Send a message via MSN to Bainer Send a message via Yahoo to Bainer
Post

Here is the play that occurred, my immediate ruling, a few suggestions for alternate rulings, and the verdict handed down FROM ABOVE.

PLAY- Runner on 2nd, no outs. BR hits basehit to RF. R2 heads for home. BR holds up at 1st. Throw home pulls catcher behind plate- 5ft. down 3rd base line extended and AIRBORNE. Catcher jumps for ball and catches it. As catcher is airborne and prone, R2 touches plate and TO AVOID KNOCKING THE CATCHER OVER, catches him. When R2 sets catcher down, catcher falls. At THIS point, BR breaks for 2nd, goes in standing up- no throw.

IMMEDIATE RULING-
-Ball is dead, BR back to first, R2 scores.

ALTERNATE RULINGS OFFERRED BY OTHER UMPIRES-
-Interference, R2 scores, BR out.
-No Call, R2 scores, BR stays at second.
-Intentional interference, R2 is out (no run), BR is out.
-Intentional interference, R2 is out and ejected (no run), BR is out.

RULING FROM ABOVE-
-This is the email sent to me from the rules committee

If the runner who just scored interfered with the catcher intentionally to assist his teammate in reaching second, I would call the B/R out for the interference of his teammate. This would be the same logic as 7.09(f) when a runner who has just been put out interferes with a play being made on another runner. In your case, the runner guilty of the interference hasn't been put out, but has scored. You can't declare HIM out for the interference because he has already legally scored before the interference ... that's why I'd apply the 7.09(f) rationale.
However, if the interference was unintentional and incidental (if he caught the catcher more to protect himself and/or the catcher) then I think you could get away with interpreting it as "weak interference". This is a term not used in the rule book, but is much the same as in 6.06 where a batter interferes unintentionally with the catcher on his backswing. He has interfered, and the ball is dead, but there's no out on the play and runners can not advance. This is basically what you did by killing the play (I assume) and returning the B/R to first.


What do you guys think???



Bainer.
__________________
"I am a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class...Especially since I rule!"
Reply With Quote