Blue could possibly determine outcome

[PeteBooth]

OBR rule 6.06c

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when

(c) He interferes with F2's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders F2's play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference.

If the batter interferes with F2, the PU shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

If, however, F2 makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired.

Sitch: R1/R3 R1 is stealing and B1 interferes with F2 who fires to second to get R1.

This is where Blues call could possibly determine the game and IMO should not.

According to the above rule if R1 is put out the interference is ignored and whatever happens happens, meaning R3 scores for the potential go ahead or possible winning run. Even if Blue "kicked" the call by calling out, the run still counts

Now if Blue call R1 safe, then we Enforce the interference meaning R3 the potential winning or go ahead run returned to third base.

IMO, if the defense interfered, they interfered. IMO the rule should state if the runner is retired the out stands but Other runners should be returned to their TOI bases.

Is this one of the instances where the rules favor the offense? Based on this rule a coach should then instruct his F2 not to even throw down to second when he hears the PU signal and call CI because if he does and gets the out, interference is ignored and r3 could then score.

Seems to me the rule-makers made a mistake on this type of ruling.

What say you

Pete Booth

[mcrowder]

I think the logic here is that if B interfered with the catcher's throw to 2B, but they got the out anyway at 2B, it is just as if B had not made the interference. The result of the play is the same as it would have been had there been no interference. There is no need for further penalty since the inteference was not enough to stop catcher from doing what he was trying to do - i.e. get the runner out at 2B.

[brumey1107]

Question.

Our Umpire's association here in the great Pacific Northwest (NBUA) instructs us to call CI on this play "only if" the catcher makes a throw.

As it reads in OBR 6.06 c ...He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box....

The reasoning is how can you have a batter interfere on a throw if one is never made.

Pete - Do believe the rule as written for OBR needs changing or do you call CI even when there is no throw?

Thanks.

[jicecone]

Peter,

Im not sure if you are stating that rules have more faith in the umpires than you or that the rule has ambiguity built
into it.

How do you train a batter to create "JUST ENOUGH" interference to cause interference, but "NOT ENOUGH" to prevent an out, so that they can gain an easy run. Is that possible?

Given all things equal though, the rules state that if the offense, which is what I think you meant, interfers, and a out is recorded. Then they indeed DID NOT interfer. And if they did not interfer, how are they gaining an advantage?

Now if the umpire blows the call. Well is that any different than blowing the call at first and having that same runner score the go ahead or game winning run?

Unforunately, until human beings no longer play or officiate this game, we are always going to have errors.

This say me.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Peter,
the rule seems to be written specifically for the plays at home - squeeze play. If R3 gets tagged out, then no interference. If R3 does not get tagged out and the umpire feels it is due to the batter, then the batter is called out and R3 is returned to 3rd.

Now you are applying the rule to a double steal attempt of 2nd and home. First of all, I've seen very few catchers confident enough that they could throw to 2nd tag an out and still hold the runner at 3rd - completely independent of batter interference. Most I have seen just accept that the runner is going to advance to 2nd and hold the ball to prevent R3 from coming home.

I think the catcher is also accepting that to make a throw to 2nd also means R3 is going to score... to make that throw is likey the wrong thing to do, period - again, completely independent of batter interference.

Now you have posed a throw to second with slight batter interference and not enough interference to prevent the put-out at 2nd. Therefore out at 2nd stands and R3 advances home for score. I think just having the catcher make that throw to second and expecting that the defense will also be able to hold R3 is probably unreasonable on the catcher's part. The pitcher may be capable of holding R1 & R3 but I don't think the catcher can as readily hold both.

I don't think the rule needs changed - catcher just shouldn't make that throw.

JMO

[w_sohl]

Defense got the out at 2nd so there was no interference. Why would you then penalize the offense and send the runner back to third when they did nothing wrong?

What you are miising is the rule pretty much states that if an out is recorded then interference couldn't have occured. That is they way I interpret the rule.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by w_sohl

Defense got the out at 2nd so there was no interference. Why would you then penalize the offense and send the runner back to third when they did nothing wrong?


I think you are missing the point. The throw can still be decent but R1 beats the throw and is safe but because interference is called we NOW rule the batter out and send runners back to their TOI bases.

Example; B1 swings hard and the momentum carries him / her right in front of plate where F2 has to rearrange his throwing pattern. AT THIS POINT we as PU signal and say "That's Interference". Let's stop - All we know at this point is that B1 interfered,. F2 however, makes a great play and fires a strike to F4/F6 anyway where they either get R1 or not.

I think the interference should kill the ball right then and there irregardless if the defense makes a play or not. All we know when we signal interference is that B1 did something against the rules. Also, as long as the catch is a clean one, Batter interference does not require INTENT. If B1 interfered, he/she interfered.

IMO, the rule-makers goofed on this rule. The ball should be immediately dead as with most interference calls.

Example; R2 1 out. Ground ball to F6. R2 runs into F6, but F6 recovers in time to STILL make the play (I think we all have seen this, I know I have so it's not third world). Do we wave off the interference because F6 still made the play? Answer NO. As soon as we signal interference - the ball is immediately dead and we penalize. IMO this should be the same rule governing B1 and F2.

We have seen players make some great plays especially at the Varsity / Collegiate level, so it's not uncommon to see players even though they are interfered with make the play anyway. However, with the exception of CI (CO for FED) and batter's interference the ball is delayed dead as opposed to immediately dead. I can understand this concept with regards to CI but not batter's interference.

Just because F2 made the play anyway doesn't mean he wasn't interfered with.

Pete Booth

[mcrowder]

Pete, that's absolutely crazy. If the batter interfered, and we kill the play automatically, we could be giving the offense the benefit of that interference. Consider numerous other cases.

1) R3 is too far off third base, batter gets in the way of the throw, but the throw beats the runner back to third and she's out. In your philosophy, you'd rather call the play dead and leave that runner on third. Awful.

2) R1 stealing second, batter gets in the way, but the throw beats the runner and she's out. Again - you want to put the runner back on first. Also awful.

The rule, as written, protects the defense from losing anything from the interference, while still allowing them to get whatever out(s) they might have gotten anyway. There is NO damage to the defense caused by the rule as it's written today.

Your case of a double steal - look at it two ways - once without the interference, once with it. Without interference, F2 throws down, they get the out at 2nd, and the runner probably scores. With the interference, F2 throws down... if they still get the out at 2nd, the run probably scores (Exactly the same scenario as if the interference never occured)... if they DON'T get the out at 2nd, the batter is out and the runners go back to 1st and 3rd (Better than the sitch they had without interference). There is NO penalty or damage to the defense from this rule.

[w_sohl]

It is a delayed call anyway isn't it? So it isn't interference till you say it is and you don't say it is till the playing action is over.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[mcrowder]

W-Sohl, I think his point was that all other interference is immediate dead ball, so why not this one.

That is the only valid point he made, but in the opposite direction in my opinion. I think ALL interference should be delayed dead ball. Imagine R1 and R2, R2 interferes with shortstop on a grounder, unintentionally. Could have been a DP, but not obviously enough that we call it as such.

Why not let them play it out and give defense the option of taking the play, or calling R2 out and putting B on 1st, R1 on 2nd?

But, as written, the only interference that is not dead ball is batter interfering with catcher. (This is about the time Mike R will add his sage wisdom including some other interference that never happens that is also a live ball - I am sure I forgot something! )

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I'm going to have to think about that one.

Delayed allows the defense to continue making plays and outs. As an umpire calling delayed dead on a runner and then the defense recovers enough to create, say, an out at 1st. Now, which outs do we have? Defense gets their choice? R2 or R1. Maybe R2 continued and got thrown out at 3rd... now both are out?

Still thinking...

[DG]

The OBR rules are written for professionals, and few professional runners on 3B would go home when they see the catcher throw towards 2B on a steal. I don't remember the last time I saw that happen in a pro game. Why? Because it could likely turn into a double play as the 2B tags the runner and then immediately throws home to get the runner from 3B. Or, realizing that the runner has broken for home the 2B breaks off his attempt to tag the runner, catches the ball in front of the bag and throws the runner from 3B out at the plate. The younger the players get, the more likely this does not work out for the offense. However, an 11-12 year old team can be taught to defend the "automatic" steal of 2B with runners at 1B and 3B. If the other team knows you have several plays you will run in this situation the runner at 3B will be camped there. If you have a batter's inteference call you may as well run your play because if you don't throw the ball you don't get any benefit of the call.

[mcrowder]

DG - teams run the double steal of 2nd/home in the Major Leagues. To say you can't remember the last time you have seen it, you must not watch much MLB.

That said, the rest of your point is valid, as the further below MLB you get, the more likely that runner will be safe at home most or all of the time.

DTTB - I would lean toward the defense getting their choice of the interference out (and the rest of the current penalty) or the result of the play. R2 continuing and getting thrown out at third is a perfect example of the offense actually getting benefit of the interference in the current rule.

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by w_sohl

Defense got the out at 2nd so there was no interference. Why would you then penalize the offense and send the runner back to third when they did nothing wrong?


I think you are missing the point. The throw can still be decent but R1 beats the throw and is safe but because interference is called we NOW rule the batter out and send runners back to their TOI bases.

Example; B1 swings hard and the momentum carries him / her right in front of plate where F2 has to rearrange his throwing pattern. AT THIS POINT we as PU signal and say "That's Interference". Let's stop - All we know at this point is that B1 interfered,. F2 however, makes a great play and fires a strike to F4/F6 anyway where they either get R1 or not.

I think the interference should kill the ball right then and there irregardless if the defense makes a play or not. All we know when we signal interference is that B1 did something against the rules. Also, as long as the catch is a clean one, Batter interference does not require INTENT. If B1 interfered, he/she interfered.

IMO, the rule-makers goofed on this rule. The ball should be immediately dead as with most interference calls.

Example; R2 1 out. Ground ball to F6. R2 runs into F6, but F6 recovers in time to STILL make the play (I think we all have seen this, I know I have so it's not third world). Do we wave off the interference because F6 still made the play? Answer NO. As soon as we signal interference - the ball is immediately dead and we penalize. IMO this should be the same rule governing B1 and F2.

We have seen players make some great plays especially at the Varsity / Collegiate level, so it's not uncommon to see players even though they are interfered with make the play anyway. However, with the exception of CI (CO for FED) and batter's interference the ball is delayed dead as opposed to immediately dead. I can understand this concept with regards to CI but not batter's interference.

Just because F2 made the play anyway doesn't mean he wasn't interfered with.

Pete Booth

JMO here.

By killing it immediately you may be taking away 2 maybe even 3 outs for the defense. One example being: R2 and R3, no outs, 3-2 on the batter. B1 swings at the ball in the dirt but interferes with the catcher on his backswing while making a throw down to third where he nails him. The BR is now running to 1st on the missed 3rd strike, F5 now throws to 1st and gets him on the force, Now, R2 is now going to third on the throw from F5 to F3. I know, a little crazy, but, I have seen other things happen.

Another example would be same count with the squeeze play on.

If you kill the play immediately, you penalize the offended team!

I feel that if the catcher was able to get off a good enough throw with the batters interference to retire the runner, continue action from there.

[DG]

Originally posted by mcrowder
DG - teams run the double steal of 2nd/home in the Major Leagues. To say you can't remember the last time you have seen it, you must not watch much MLB.

That said, the rest of your point is valid, as the further below MLB you get, the more likely that runner will be safe at home most or all of the time.

DTTB - I would lean toward the defense getting their choice of the interference out (and the rest of the current penalty) or the result of the play. R2 continuing and getting thrown out at third is a perfect example of the offense actually getting benefit of the interference in the current rule.

I watch a lot of major league baseball, and as I said, I don't remember the last time I saw a team run a double steal, as you call it, on a 1st and 3rd situation, with catcher throwing through to 2B and runner going home. That is not a double steal, but a suicide situation for the runner at 3B in major league baseball. I also don't see this in college ball and not very often in HS ball. A good catcher and a good 2B or SS can exchange throws must faster than a runner at 3B can go home, especially if the runner must wait until the ball passes over the pitcher's mound before he commits to going home. And he is going to see the ball pass the pitcher's mound before committing to home or he will be easy dead meat, probably in a rundown.