Game ending controversy...

[rynodawg]

First time poster, I'm a rookie ump and have been doing baseball and softball since February.

A situation happened today, and I would appreciate the correct ruling. I'm not sure which rule book this particular rec league uses, so i would also like to know if it could be interpreted differently based on that.

11/12 boys rec league;
visitors batting down 6-5; bases loaded 1 out; I am at the plate with one field partner.

wild pitch to the backstop, R3 takes off; F2 gets to the ball and throws towards F1 covering home. I could tell that the throw was probably going to be too late, BUT it hits the batter who had backed out of the box and was standing still between the catcher and pitcher. Like I said, they likely wouldn't have gotten him out, but they were attempting to make a play and it hit the batter before the runner reached home.

My ruling: I didn't signal safe or out, I immediately called dead ball and said that the runner was out due to interference. I then discussed it with my partner, and we both decided that the batter was out and sent the runners back. I explained to the irate coach that although he did leave the batters box, the batter needed to be aware of the situation and make more of an effort to not disrupt the play. When he got hit basically standing still, I felt forced to make the interference call. That team then went on to lose.

Upon reading the NFHS rules that I own, I am 99% sure on the interference call, but think that I called the wrong person out. NFHS seems to say that the runner is out on a play at home, and that the batter would be out if the play was at any other base. Is this correct?

Thanks for any help.

[JEL]

Yep, you got the wrong one. Runner should have been out, batter could be called out also if action was deemed intentional.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by JEL
Yep, you got the wrong one. Runner should have been out, batter could be called out also if action was deemed intentional.

Half right. With less than 2 out, R3 is out for the batter's interference; w/2 out, Batter is out & run doesn't score anyway. Since all INT w/ a THROWN ball has to be, on some level at least, intentional, no way do you get 2 outs on this one.

And, BTW, what was coach irate about? He kept his R3 in scoring position, at the cost of an out he was gonna take no matter what. Plus, it's not "even though" he got out of the BB, its' mainly because the batter DID get out of the BB [and in the process got in the way] that we have INT.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Sep 18th, 2004 at 09:35 PM]

[umpduck11]

If you're a rookie,I'll give you props for making
the call, regardless of the mistake on whom to call
out. I've worked with plenty of "seasoned" partners
who would never have called it at all.........

[JEL]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Half right. With less than 2 out, R3 is out for the batter's interference; w/2 out, Batter is out & run doesn't score anyway. Since all INT w/ a THROWN ball has to be, on some level at least, intentional, no way do you get 2 outs on this one.

And, BTW, what was coach irate about? He kept his R3 in scoring position, at the cost of an out he was gonna take no matter what. Plus, it's not "even though" he got out of the BB, its' mainly because the batter DID get out of the BB [and in the process got in the way] that we have INT.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Sep 18th, 2004 at 09:35 PM]

Half Right? Which half was wrong?

Post stated 1 out, there was a violation of NFHS 7.3.5.b. Penalty for Art. 5 states batter is out, and states further; "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpires judgement interefernce prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out."

"batter could also be ruled out if action was deemed intentional"

This batter could (even standing still) intentionally interfere, thus creating a second out.

[David B]

Originally posted by JEL

Half Right? Which half was wrong?

Post stated 1 out, there was a violation of NFHS 7.3.5.b. Penalty for Art. 5 states batter is out, and states further; "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpires judgement interefernce prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out."

"batter could also be ruled out if action was deemed intentional"

This batter could (even standing still) intentionally interfere, thus creating a second out.

Welcome "rookie". Continue reading your penalty.

First when stating NFHS (FED) rules you don't use (.) The rule would be 7-3-5b. With it written 7.3.5 it refers to the case book.

When reading the penalty you need to look for the part that applies to YOUR play. The penalty in bold letter states for infraction of Art. 5:

What follows would be the part of the penalty that applies to your situation.

I won't bother quoting since you have the book and can read it for your self.

Any other questions, feel free to ask, that's the only way to learn.

Thanks
David

[JEL]

Originally posted by David B

Welcome "rookie". Continue reading your penalty.

First when stating NFHS (FED) rules you don't use (.) The rule would be 7-3-5b. With it written 7.3.5 it refers to the case book.

When reading the penalty you need to look for the part that applies to YOUR play. The penalty in bold letter states for infraction of Art. 5:

What follows would be the part of the penalty that applies to your situation.

I won't bother quoting since you have the book and can read it for your self.

Any other questions, feel free to ask, that's the only way to learn.

Thanks
David

Well thanks PRO.

I was unaware that a (.) not a (-) will alter the rules, NFHS (FED) or any other. You are obviously astute enough to have realized I was quoting rules, not case book. BTW lower case bold numers are not used in the case book either. Did you also notice I mis-spelled interference at least once?

This of course was not MY play, therefore NONE of the penalty would apply. The penalty DOES give a condition for an out on the batter also if conditions are met. For that reason in my reply I stated "batter could be called out also if action was deemed intentional"

I assume you know count, intention of batter and entire game situation from post, so you can apply it to YOUR situation.

You need not bother quoting any rules for me at least until you have familiarized yourself with them.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by JEL

Half Right? Which half was wrong?

Post stated 1 out, there was a violation of NFHS 7.3.5.b. Penalty for Art. 5 states batter is out, and states further; "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpires judgement interefernce prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out."

"batter could also be ruled out if action was deemed intentional"

This batter could (even standing still) intentionally interfere, thus creating a second out.

Nope, not in this [or any similar situation].
First of all, as I pointed out previously, "action deemed intentional" is a necessary prerequisite for ANY call of INT on a thrown ball, so it cannot be the basis for an additional out. Secondly, even if the pitch was Strike 3, you don't get a "2nd out" on this INT: the "only" out you get on the INT is R3 - B is out on strikes, the dead ball prevents him from advancing on the uncaught 3d strike.
The penalty clause you are reading applies to batter INT w/ a play on any runner EXCEPT R3 coming home w/ less than 2 out: Batter is out for intentional INT w/ play, and IF an [additional] out was actually prevented by the INT - THEN you call another runner out.

Your original post was "half right": the umps rang up the wrong fellow, as you said. But the rest of your post was simply wrong. It is probably not a good idea to be snippy to others [David B] about their understanding of rules when you clearly are shaky on the topic under discussion.

[rynodawg]

So basically it should have been 1st and 2nd with 2 outs with the same batter (who wasn't very good BTW) instead of bases loaded 2 outs with a new one.

The kid definitely didn't get in the way intentionally. He was actually facing the opposite way and didn't really know what was going on.

The losing coach was arguing that all the batter had to do was exit the box, which obviously isn't correct. He wanted a "no call", which was impossible since the ball literally hit the kid and dropped straight to the ground. I didn't see how I could call anything else.

I just wanted to make sure I was reading the rule correctly. thanks, i'll remember it from now on...

[cbfoulds]

You're welcome: and let me second umpduck on kudos for making the call at all, esp. as a rookie & in the face of a PO'd coach. Further kudos for looking it up post-game and questioning if you got it right. Only way to really learn is learn from mistakes. Only way to do that is to recognise [admit?] that you might have made one.

[Kaliix]

I believe you may want to rethink the "'action deemed intentional' is a necessary prerequisite for ANY call of INT on a thrown ball" statement. While that is generally true, my reading of the OBR (6.06(c)) and FED rules (7-3-5-b) as well as the J/R manual, there is no element of intent for the BR when it comes to interfering with the catcher fielding or throwing on a play at the plate. All that is required in both the OBR and FED rules is that the batter steps out of the batters box.

Intent is definitely required of any RUNNER, but not of the batter in this case.

In terms of who is out under FED rules, the penalty part of 7-3-2 thru 6 states, "For infraction of Art. 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 unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpires judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs) two may be ruled out...."

Under OBR the batter is out in any circumstance and the ball is dead. Unless of course the runner attempting to advance is put out.

(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 the catcher, the plate umpire 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, the catcher 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. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called. If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.)

So yes, the runner should have been called out and there was no intent necessary. When he left the box and got hit with the catchers throw, he interfered. In FED, under 7-3-5-d, the batter also needs to get out of the way if he has time, with a play at the plate, otherwise he has interfered as well. I don't believe that holds for OBR, atleast I didn't see it in the rules.

With two out, under FED rules, the batter is the one who is out, not the runner.

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Nope, not in this [or any similar situation].
First of all, as I pointed out previously, "action deemed intentional" is a necessary prerequisite for ANY call of INT on a thrown ball, so it cannot be the basis for an additional out. Secondly, even if the pitch was Strike 3, you don't get a "2nd out" on this INT: the "only" out you get on the INT is R3 - B is out on strikes, the dead ball prevents him from advancing on the uncaught 3d strike.
The penalty clause you are reading applies to batter INT w/ a play on any runner EXCEPT R3 coming home w/ less than 2 out: Batter is out for intentional INT w/ play, and IF an [additional] out was actually prevented by the INT - THEN you call another runner out.

Your original post was "half right": the umps rang up the wrong fellow, as you said. But the rest of your post was simply wrong. It is probably not a good idea to be snippy to others [David B] about their understanding of rules when you clearly are shaky on the topic under discussion.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[cbfoulds]

Kallix:
I'm presuming you read my first post on this thread, so we'll conclude we agree about who's gone w/ how many out under FED.
And, yeah, when I finished the 2d post, I thought about having left an ambiguity or "Really?" moment in there about "intent" being required.

Mostly, I was trying to respond to JEL's assertion that IF there was "intent", a second out could happen UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, and to point out that, without some intentional act by Batter, there is no INT with the thrown ball - say B stands stock still in the box & F2 doinks him w/ a lousy throw: No INT. He intentionally steps out & gets hit, possibly different story. You are, of course, correct, that AT HOME [which was, after all, the sitch inquired about], obvious intent to interfere isn't the standard, as it is for (normal) baserunners. I probably should have left that stuff out, as it really was off-topic and not well-phrased.

I am a little troubled by your statement that "Under OBR the batter is out in any circumstance and the ball is dead. Unless of course the runner attempting to advance is put out."

If the batter interferes with a play on a R coming home, less than 2 out, I am fairly certain that R, not batter, is out in all codes. [There is construction going on @ my home, & my OBR is un-findable: I'm relying on my BRD [see sect. 264, 2004 ed.]]

[Atl Blue]

This has gotten all butchered up. On a passed ball or wild pitch, the person that was standing at the plate is no longer a batter. He is now treated as an offensive teammate. From J/R:

Examples of an "offensive teammate" include:

a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch, and is treated as an "offensive teammate" in a determination of whether interference has occurred).

To be interference by an "offensive teammate", the player is guilty of interference if he "blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball."

If the batter has gotten out of the box, it is the judgment of the umpire if he should have gotten out of the way of the throw. Note the interference is with fielder's try to field the thrown ball. In other words, if the pitcher is not covering the plate on this play, the OT (offensive teammate) has not interfered with anyone or anything. The interference is not with the throw, it is with the ability to catch the throw.

Also note, it makes NO DIFFERENCE if the former batter, now OT, leaves the box or stays in the box. If he "blatantly and avoidably" hinders the fielder's ability to catch the throw, we have interference. If he stays in the box when he had a reasonable chance to get out and he gets in the way, interference. If he leaves the box and gets in a spot to break up the play, interference.

If there is interference, the runner being played on is out, unless there were two outs, in which case the batter (now OT) is out (7.09d).

Example from J/R:

R3. 0-1 pitch goes wild past the catcher, and the batter stands back to signal his teammate to run home. The ball ricochets sharply off the backstop, and the catcher is able to retrieve it quickly, and tries to throw R3 out at home. The batter, seeing that his teammate may now be thrown out, returns to the vicinity of the plate and knocks down the throw just as the pitcher is about to receive it: the runner is out, unless there were two outs, in which case the batter is called out and the run does not count.

Remember, the defense is the ones that screwed up here by getting the pitch past the batter to start this mess. The benefit of the doubt goes to the offense. Unless the batter does something blatant and avoidable, this isn't the batter's problem. A batter that does a reasonable job of getting out of the way is not guilty of interference.

In your case, unless the former batter (now OT) did something to specifically put himself in the way, this is nothing, score the run. If he did deliberately put himself in the way, the runner is out unless there were two outs, in which case the batter is out. Remember, who caused the problem? The onus is on them to solve their own mess. Don't give the defense a break on their screw-up.

[David B]

Originally posted by JEL

Well thanks PRO.

I was unaware that a (.) not a (-) will alter the rules, NFHS (FED) or any other. You are obviously astute enough to have realized I was quoting rules, not case book. BTW lower case bold numers are not used in the case book either. Did you also notice I mis-spelled interference at least once?

This of course was not MY play, therefore NONE of the penalty would apply. The penalty DOES give a condition for an out on the batter also if conditions are met. For that reason in my reply I stated "batter could be called out also if action was deemed intentional"

I assume you know count, intention of batter and entire game situation from post, so you can apply it to YOUR situation.

You need not bother quoting any rules for me at least until you have familiarized yourself with them.

I'm sorry but I don't see anywhere in the penalty section of the rule anything about (let me quote you to be correct)

"batter could also be ruled out if action was deemed intentional"

I might have missed something so please give me a reference to clarify for me.

Thanks
David

[Kaliix]

"Under OBR the batter is out in any circumstance and the ball is dead. Unless of course the runner attempting to advance is put out."

In the 2004 OBR that I have, the notes after 6.06 (c) state, "If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call 'interference.' The batter is out and the ball is dead....

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed that there was no actual interence and that runner is out, not the batter...."

At least to me, that seems to clearly state that the batter is out on interference, with no mention of outs or the runner being out unless they actually make the play on him and put him out.

In terms of this "blatantly and avoidably" construct, 6.06(c) simply states that the batter is out if (c)He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catchers play at home base...."

Seems pretty clear that if steps out of the box he better get out of the way or he has interfered, intentional or not.