(Now unnerved by Papa's hint, I search madly for my FED rule and case book)

Rule 7, Section 3, Article 5 (c) A batter shall not...

"Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on the runner."

Penalty: For infraction 5:

"When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains alive and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccesfull, the batter is out and all runners are returned to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a thid strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play, two may be ruled out."

Casebook play 7.3.5c

"With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw our R1. RULING: B3 is out for interference. If in the umpires judgement F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base."
(gulp)

Holy gee whillikers, Sam. I screwed up and remembered the part of the rule didn't apply instead of the part that did. Sorry for misleading you. Time for ME to bone up. At least it proves I didn't cheat and look up the play in advance.

Another at least...Bob Jenkins went down with me. (grin)

<LAUGHS>
Well since I didn't know the difference, it's still time I studies the FED rules again.

Actually now I'm not sure that you weren't right for the wrong reason.

In the original case, PU judged that the batter did hinder the catcher, but also judged that R1 would have made it safely to 2nd anyway. This seems to be consistent with the last statement of the casebook play so the correct answer WOULD BE A. ... or is it B? :)

Damn....Now I'm confused. I forgot the batter struck out... let me read that thing again. (pause)

Okay....first of all let me admit to an insecurity. No matter how sure I am of an answer I write or article I researcn, a mere hint from Carl that I "could" be wrong zaps every ounce of confidence I have in my position.

However, upon re-re-reading the play and my first answer, I think I was right the first time. No more back pedaling until Carl does more than hint.

GarthB

Re: Or for the right reason
 

Well all I know is somebody's right for some reason. :P

From Garth's quote of the casebook play, I'm inclined to believe that he's right where the FED is concerned.

Now if this was OBR I claim there's always 2 outs, BR on the strikeout and R1 on BR's interference. Yes/No???

Yes, Sam. OBR 7.09(f) Trust me this time. No back pedaling

Garth

Fed Rule on Interference
 

I still say the answer is B. Garth, I read your reasoning, but I disagree. You say that the runner beat the throw so the interference on the batter causes you to return the runner to 1b. What if there was no interference and the catcher throws the batter out? You do not know that the runner would have been safe. What do you do to stop a smart player who strikes out; He/she sees that R1 will be thrown out so he/she interferes with the catcher? Do you return that runner to 1b?

Phil:

Are you forgetting the judgement part of the ruling?

"With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw our R1. RULING: B3 is out for interference. <b>If in the umpires judgement F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base."</b>


If you judge that the runner was going to be nailed, you call him out. In the play under discussion Carl specifically said that runner would have been safe. FED calls for him to be returned to first.

Garth

May I quote the enciting post?

"No fair looking it up in the book."

Fie, shame. Shame! Fie!

Sorry Wick, I don't buy your argument.

This is not a "lookin' for Boogers!" type thing.

A hitter cannot even lean over the throwing area. We know by Evans that there does not even need to be contact to call the batter's interference. It can be determined a visual interference.

Sorry I can't buy into your answer.

Somehow my post went to another thread
 

Wick, can't buy your answer.

Interference can even be viual (no contact necessery) therefore this is not a "lookin' for boogers" type thing.

Carl:

My first gut reaction response was done sans book. Then, when you put the mustard seed of doubt in my little brain, yes, I admit it, I went for the book. Three books actually, FED Rules, FED Casebook and the famous and soon to be released in its 2000 edition, available only at Eumpire, BRD.

As you will see, I was right the first time. Thank God I handle coaches better than I handle you.

GarthB

(Here's hoping my commercial will get my penalty reduced by at least one "Fie.")

Uh, Garth, it's soon to be released in its <B>2001</B> edition.

A pox on thee.

Sheeeeeesh. Now I've got two shames, two Fies and one Pox.

I guess I'll have to order a BRD for each of my rookies this year to get out of this literary doghouse.

GB

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B]Hmmmmmmmmm. Everybody seems to have disappeared. Perhaps it's all those dimpled ballots.

Take a one-question FED test.

R1 is stealing. B1 strikes out swinging and falls forward into the catcher's throwing lane, though he does not step out of the box. F2's throw is not in time to nab R1. The umpire judges the batter <b>did</b> hinder the catcher somewhat, but he believes R1 would have made the base even without the interference. The umpire should:

a. return R1 to first.
b. call out R1.
c. leave R1 at second only if he thinks the hindrance was accidental.
d. leave R1 at second because he had the base stolen, regardless.

No fair looking it up in the book.

I'm taking a shot from the hip here. Not even looking at the other posts. The interference MUST be intentional to call the runner out.

Vern