batter inferference

[scyguy]

question on FED test "If a batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to throw out a runner stealing second base on a third strike, the UIC SHALL automatically declare two out -- the batter for striking out and the runner for the batter's interference".

Rule 7-3-5 penalty states that if the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two MAY be ruled out.

Question says shall, rule book says may. Does this make the question false?

It seems to me that shall means you would always do it. If catcher had no chance at throwing out runner, I would think you would declare the batter out (assuming less than two outs) and return the runner to first.

Thoughts??

[Delaware Blue]

The correct answer is "false." If F2 retires the runner, that out stands so there is no need to automatically declare the runner out (the catcher got him despite the interference). If F2 does not retire the runner due to the BR interference, you would then declare the runner out for the BR's action. But the out call is not "automatic." Another FED test question that deals more with the wording than the essence of the rule.

[scyguy]

so your problem is with the word automatic. So let me ask you, if the runner would have easily made it to second, then I still call him out. BR interference with a stealing runner to second or third would result in two outs being called.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by scyguy
Thoughts??

Read 7.3.5C and see if that answers your question.

[scyguy]

perfect Bob, should of checked my case book. Thanks

[Delaware Blue]

Originally posted by scyguy
so your problem is with the word automatic. So let me ask you, if the runner would have easily made it to second, then I still call him out. BR interference with a stealing runner to second or third would result in two outs being called.

I thought I said:

If F2 does not retire the runner due to the BR interference, you would then declare the runner out for the BR's action.

I thought that ...due to the BR interference... was clear enough. If F2 fails to retire the runner for a reason other than the BR's interference, there is no out call. So the test question is false because the second out is not "automatic." I failed to state that in those cases the runner is returned to first base, so that's my mistake. I'm sorry that I didn't have my casebook handy so I couldn't quote the specific case, but I believe my response was on point if not entirely complete.

[DG]

Originally posted by Delaware Blue
Another FED test question that deals more with the wording than the essence of the rule.

No it doesn't. The essence of the ruling is that the umpire must make a judgement on whether the runner would have been thrown out. An automatic out would have removed that responsibility, like it does with the FPSR.