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.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 5th, 2000 at 02:18 AM]

A.

b.

Is TAHT your final Answer!!!!
 

b

a

I believe correct answer is "A" although I would like answer to be "B". I will add, R1 better have had 2nd base WITHOUT A DOUBT. If there is ANY DOUBT that catcher may have been able to put out R1 had hindrance not occurred, I call R1 out due to interference by retired runner. I will not provide benefit of any doubt to offending team. A team should not benefit in any way by putting the official in the position of "must" make the call position.

I'll poll the audience - Answer (B)

I go with answer B as well. Reason: The batter is responsible for controlling his swing and any hindrance of the catcher's throw whether intentional or not would be interference.

D. The batter remained in the box, and did nothing that affected the play. Why look for an interference that didn't happen?

In FED any movement, intentional or otherwise, in or out of the batters box, that hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner is interference.

In this case, on a strike three and runner beating the throw, return the runner.

Answer: A

But Carl's original post stated that the batter DID hinder the catcher.

If you have interference on the batter who is already out, why wouldn't the answer be B - call the runner out. I've always heard that if you have interference somebody's gonna be called out. Since it can't be the batter, then it must be the runner.

Sam:

According to FED rules you would call the batter out, if he had not struck out, and returned the runner. Here, the batter is already out and FED makes no provision for gaining a second out, unless the interference prevented a "double play." In this case, according to Carl's set-up, the runner would have been safe despite the interference, so, in accordance with the FED rules, we simply return him to first.

GarthB

Thanks Garth. I guess it's time to start boning up on the FED rules again.

Sam: But what if Garth (shudder!) is wrong?

(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

Answer - a. Only in Fed... another rule difference for us to deal with -

I assure you that would do it. And I can promise you a discount. Some colleges use the book as a text in the PE department classes in officiating.

Do you know that (sign) coaches MUST take classes in the rules of the sport they will coach? Do you know that some universities even require the coaches to officiating the sport for a season? Do you believe the coaching candidates pay some student to do that work for them?