Take a one-question test

[Carl Childress]

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 did 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]

[Huskerblue]

A.

[Charlie B]

b.

[Tim C]

b

[bob jenkins]

a

[Bfair]

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.

[PeteBooth]

I'll poll the audience - Answer (B)

[SamNVa]

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.

[DJWickham]

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

[GarthB]

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

[SamNVa]

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

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by GarthB
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

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.

[GarthB]

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

[SamNVa]

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

[Carl Childress]

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

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