Cardinals - Marlins game, batter interference.

[Illini_Ref]

I am an NFHS umpire, so I am not sure of the OBR rulings. Last night in the Cards - Marlins game, Chris Carpenter was batting, one out, bases loaded. He tried to bunt on a squeeze and missed. He then got between the catcher and the plate and the runner slid in safely. The umpire called batter interference, which I understand.

Then they called the batter out, disallowed the run, and put the runners back where they were. In FED, with less that two outs and the runner advancing to home, the runner is out, not the batter.

Was this ruling correct????

[Jerry]

I believe the same rulings would be made in FED. In the Cardinals - Marlins game, no "play" was able to be made on the runner advancing to home. Had the catcher attempted to tag the runner out before he reached the plate, and then the batter interfered, your ruling would have been correct for both OBR and FED . . . with less than two out, the runner advancing to home would be called "out". In this case, the runner already slid past home before the catcher was able to make an attempt on him; due to the action of the batter.
Jerry

[Matthew F]

I believe it's one of those differences.

If the runner scores, dead ball, batter out and return runners to their base at time of interference.

If the runner is out, treat as if no interference occurred.

(Daggonit, I typed before I thought it through, trying to justify the umpires decision - Jerry, you are correct about who would be out.)


[Edited by Matthew F on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 10:14 AM]

[TBBlue]

Didn't see the play, but here is the rule as published by MLB.com

7.09
It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(d) Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out;

[Illini_Ref]

I don't understand the "if the catcher had a play" thing. If interference was called it was because the batter interfered with a PLAY. It seems to me that by the above posted OBR rule, the runner should have been out, the other runners put back on first and second, and Carpenter still bats with two out.

[Jerry]

There's a major difference between "interfering with a play" and "interfering with the opportunity to make a play".

The ruling, which is in agreement with both FED and OBR rules, calls the batter "out", regardless of outs already recorded, and places the runners back at their bases at the "Time of Interference". The scenario you reported did just that.

Had the catcher been attempting to put the tag on R3 and THEN (or at the same time) the batter did something to interfere, then you'd call R3 out.

In what you cited, and what is more probable, the catcher never had the opportunity to attempt a play. The interference occurred before that point.

Jerry

[Illini_Ref]

I see what you are saying now. That makes more sense. However, I know it's a judgement call, but Carpenter sure looked like he got in the way of the catcher making a tag. In a squeeze situation where the ball is caught cleanly I don't know how the batter could interfere and NOT interfere with the catcher trying to tag the runner. Thanks for the input.

[TBBlue]

Originally posted by Jerry
There's a major difference between "interfering with a play" and "interfering with the opportunity to make a play".

The ruling, which is in agreement with both FED and OBR rules, calls the batter "out", regardless of outs already recorded, and places the runners back at their bases at the "Time of Interference". The scenario you reported did just that.

Had the catcher been attempting to put the tag on R3 and THEN (or at the same time) the batter did something to interfere, then you'd call R3 out.

In what you cited, and what is more probable, the catcher never had the opportunity to attempt a play. The interference occurred before that point.

Jerry

Where are you getting all of these differences from the simple OBR rule posted above, which says nothing about attempting to make a play, after run scores, etc. It says interference at the plate with less than 2 outs makes runner out. Nothing more.

Mr. Hensley or someone,
If you have the time and inclination, is there a MLBUM reference to all of this.

Thanks

Edited to add.
Just saw the play. R3 coming home, F2 tried to go through batter to get to R3 (R3 was about 5 feet or more from HP) but could not get by. R3 crosses plate. PU immediately points at batter, then R3 with the out call. Clip ended here so don't know what caused R3 to get put back on 3rd.

[Edited by TBBlue on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 02:34 PM]

[UmpJM]

Originally posted by Jerry
There's a major difference between "interfering with a play" and "interfering with the opportunity to make a play".

Jerry

Jerry,

Interesting theory, but I can't find any support for it in J/R, JEA, the MLBUM, or the BRD.

Also, the distinction between "interfering with a play" and "interfering with the opportunity to make a play" strikes me as specious. Perhaps you could clarify the distinction.

For any who have not yet seen the play in question, try the link below:

mms://a1503.v108692.c10869.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/10869/v0001/mlb.download.akamai.com/10869/2005/open/topplays/archive08/080205_flosln_carpenter_interference_350.wmv?ct1=m lb

I'm probably wrong, but I believe that the umpire penalized the play incorrectly - R3 should have been called out, not the batter - per 7.08(g) & 7.09(d). ("probably wrong" because I'm just a "youth" coach and the crew of MLB umpires decided this was correct & the defensive MLB manager didn't appeal/protest).

JM

[azdist3blue]

I read that the AP has reported that MLB has indicated that the umpire invoked the wrong rule and 7.08)g) should have been applied.

[Jerry]

TBBlue:
The rule does NOT simply state that "interference at the plate with less than 2 out". In fact, it reads "He attempts to score ON A PLAY in which the batter interferes WITH THE PLAY at home base before two are out." (7.08(g))

The batter did not interfere with a play at the plate. He interfered with the catcher's attempt to make a play. "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 catcher's play at home base." (6.06(c))

I believe you're confusing the two rules.

Jerry

[Illini_Ref]

Jerry,

I can agree somewhat with you. If you have first and third, one out, and the runner from first is stealing second, and the batter interferes with the catcher and THEN the runner breaks for home. In this case though, it seems clear.

[TBBlue]

Originally posted by Jerry
TBBlue:
The rule does NOT simply state that "interference at the plate with less than 2 out". In fact, it reads "He attempts to score ON A PLAY in which the batter interferes WITH THE PLAY at home base before two are out." (7.08(g))

The batter did not interfere with a play at the plate. He interfered with the catcher's attempt to make a play. "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 catcher's play at home base." (6.06(c))

I believe you're confusing the two rules.

Jerry

Jerry,
The last time I checked, when a runner is about 5 - 10 feet from HP on a squeeze play, said runner is trying to score. When F2 has the ball, and is trying go through a moving batter to tag said runner, I have a play on a runner attempting to score. I am using 7.08g or 7.09d on this play always.

This is a case where 6.06c probably should delete or rewrite the reference to catcher making a play at the plate, because Rule 7 spells out what the penalty is if a runner is trying to score. I think 6.06c is saying the catcher trying to throw to a base or run a runner back to third is also considered a play at the plate because that is where the infraction occurs. The distinction is that there is not a runner trying to score. One of the many contradictions in OBR.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jerry
TBBlue:
The rule does NOT simply state that "interference at the plate with less than 2 out". In fact, it reads "He attempts to score ON A PLAY in which the batter interferes WITH THE PLAY at home base before two are out." (7.08(g))

The batter did not interfere with a play at the plate. He interfered with the catcher's attempt to make a play. "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 catcher's play at home base." (6.06(c))

I believe you're confusing the two rules.

Jerry

You've missed this one. Much as we might hate to say it, the coach is right. The umpires simply screwed up. Hey, it's understandable. They get to call batter interference twice in their careers. We get it twice a month.

There is no difference between interferring with a play and interferring with an attempt to make a play. Either "situation" is interference with a fielder.

With a runner coming home, it's a play at the plate.

An important point: You didn't quote all of 6.06(c). The other night I went to play poker. Afterwards, I dutifully reported the fact to my wife. The next morning she had occasion to look in my wallet, where she discovered I'd lost a couple of hundred dollars. She said: "Papa, you left out the most important point."

You wrote: [The batter is out if] "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 catcher's play at home base."

You omitted: "EXCEPTION: Batter is not out... if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference."

When would the runner be out "for batter's interference"? You get that ruling in 7.08(g).

[Tim C]

"Jerry" has been making a lot of things up lately.

Guess he has joined my "not expert" group from my column.

T