Bases loaded, no outs.

Batter hits a grounder to F6.

R2 is hit by the ball in front of F6 in an attempt to jump over the ball.

My partner, on the bases, immediately kills play, and calls R2 out. R3 returns to 3rd, R1 advances to 2nd, and BR advances to 1st.

Afterwards, I started thinking that the interference broke up an easy Double-Play.

I checked the rule book, and unlike in other sections, it does not specifically state we can award a 2nd out, where a 2nd out may have been prevented by the infraction.

Did this get handled correctly ?

Nick,

In an OBR game, the runner's action would have to be judged willful and deliberate in order to get the 2nd out (7.09(g).

FED says if it was an IFF, then both the runner and batter would be called out 8-4-2(k)NOTE.

I say you got the call right, unless you think the runner intentionally let the ball hit him.

In OBR, sometimes unintentional interference turns out to benefit the interferer. Umpires who try to make all their rulings fit into the concept of "fair" can get themselves into trouble.

(I don't believe it is possible in baseball, but in softball it's apparently possible for <i>intentional</i> interference to benefit the interferer!)

Your partner made the correct call, but no runs score here. It's a simple interference call on R2. It's not interference on an "obvious and imminent" double play, as it's sometimes called. This is different from the traditional second-to-first double play on which R1 interferes, for example.

[Edited by UMP25 on Mar 18th, 2006 at 12:07 PM]

No. Not unless the runner willfully and deliberately interfered with the fielding of the ball. If it was unintentional in the umpire's judgment, all runners who are forced advance, and the batter-runner is awarded first base, and with bases loaded, a run would score.

Had it been willfull and deliberate interference, with the bases loaded, you would call the runner out for interference, and also the batter-runner. You would return all runners to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch. In no event shall bases be run for this interference, nor any runs score. See Rule 7.09(g).

A more severe penalty is proscribed for a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interfering with the fielding of a batted ball. In this case, the runner closest to home is called out, as well as the batter-runner. See Rule 7.09(h).
__________________________________________________ ________
Edited to reflect that I have concluded that the first paragraph is wrong. No run should score, and R3 should be returned to 3rd due to the force being removed at the time R2 was hit with the ball.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Mar 19th, 2006 at 02:11 AM]

That is how you would think it should be, but...

NFHS 8-4-2k says the RUNNER is out when hit by a fair batted ball...

There are no references in sec. 8 or 7 (Batting) indicating the batter is ever out when a runner is hit by the ball.

It seems to me that in all cases, the BATTER should be out, and all runners return. Nice and simple. It just feels wierd calling the runner out, awarding the batter 1st, and advancing the runners who are forced by the batter's award of 1st.

If the umpire judges that the runner intentionally allowed the batted ball to hit him, it becomes interference, and the rules governing interference trump 8-4-2(k).

<b>It just feels weird calling the runner out, awarding the batter 1st, and advancing the runners who are forced by the batter's award of 1st.</b>

Credit the batter with a hit, too.

I hope I am following this discussion correctly...

SanDiego Steve wrote "If it was unintentional in the umpire's judgment, all runners who are forced advance, and the batter-runner is awarded first base, and with bases loaded, a run would score."

A run scores on interference on R2 with bases loaded no outs? In Fed? Really?

Original post says, "My partner, on the bases, immediately kills play, and calls R2 out. R3 returns to 3rd, R1 advances to 2nd, and BR advances to 1st."

And several replies say he got it right.

I'm a little confused now.

Run Scores ? ? ? ?
 

I'm with cmcramer here.
I thought immediate dead ball and all runners return to bases held at time of infraction - except R1 on 1st who is forced to 2nd by B/R being awarded 1st base.R2 is out and R3 stays at 3rd. Is this right OR . . . . . . . is Sandiegosteve right?

Bases loaded as in original situation, ball hit toward short when R2 stops and intentionally lets the ball hit him. Interference: he's out, but you're not going to rule a DP interference here, at least not in NCAA and OBR, for there was no DP even being attempted, nor can one assume there would have been. This isn't quite the same as the F6 to F4 to F3 DP attempt where an illegal slide takes out F4.

Re: Run Scores ? ? ? ?
 

That is correct. No runs score, everbody back to TOP base usually, except that the BR's being given first moves up R1 to second.

That's only when the BR intentionally interferes on a possible double play, not on every play per se.

Actually, it does make sense. When R2 is hit by the fair batted ball, it's interference and the ball is dead. But that leaves us to deal with the BR. He can't come back to bat since the ball was hit fair. He can't be declared out--he did nothing wrong. The logical thing to do is send him to first.* Now, since the ball is dead when it hits R2, no runners can advance; they must return to their TOP bases--R3 to third, R2's gone via the out, R1 to first, and the BR to first. But wait! We can't have two runners on the same base here; therefore, R1 is "pushed up," so to speak, to second by virtue of the BR being awarded first base.

My educated guess as to why the BR is given first is because R2's getting hit prevented the defense from a possible out. This out could have been made at first in a traditional F6 to F3 ground out, but the offense is penalized for taking away the defense's chance to get any out. Maybe they would have played on the runner who was hit. In that case, the BR would have made it to first anyway. So, in a nutshell, the runner who was hit is called out. BTW, if a runner intentionally interferes in this situation, the BR's being awarded first is scored as a fielder's choice and not a hit.

*What would you do here: Same situation--bases loaded with no outs and a 1-1 count on the batter when the batter hits a pop fly that drifts and remains foul near third. In his attempt to get back to third to not be doubled up there, R3 runs into F5, who drops the ball.

"Why advance some runners and send one back."

Well, others can certainly answer this question better than I can...but I think it has something to do with some runners are forced to advance by the BR taking first, and some are not forced.

Plus, I think that's what the rules say to do.

*What would you do here: Same situation--bases loaded with no outs and a 1-1 count on the batter when the batter hits a pop fly that drifts and remains foul near third. In his attempt to get back to third to not be doubled up there, R3 runs into F5, who drops the ball

I'll bite:

If F5 is the fielder I decided is "protected" on the play ...

"IFF if Fair!"

then...

"That's interference - R3 is out!"

Time !

"BR - you get first base... and R1 you get second and R3 you get third."

'"Two outs...Let's Play!"

Incorrect, sorry.

Sorry - mis-typed it...

I Meant...

If F5 is the fielder I decided is "protected" on the play ...

"IFF if Fair!"

then...

"That's interference - R3 is out!"

Time !

"BR - you get first base... and R1 you get second and **R2** you get third."

'"Two outs...Let's Play!"

Any closer?

Nope. :)

"IFF if fair"

Is the ball no longer fair? So its not infield fly anymore.

Batter is out, runner is out. All other runners return.

If the ball was foul, R3 out, BR out as well if the ball would have been caught easily.

The ball was and ended up foul; but you're both still incorrect.

R3 is out for the interference, runners return to TOP bases, but the batter returns to bat with a 1-2 count. Note that this would have been the same ruling if F5 had caught the ball.

[Edited by UMP25 on Mar 18th, 2006 at 09:50 PM]

Actually, the more I think about it. I think I screwed the ol' pooch on this one.

The force on R3 was removed when R2 was hit by the ball.

Therefore, since he is no longer forced, R3 should be returned to 3rd base.

R1 advances to 2nd base due to being forced by the batter becoming a runner.

So the partner did rule correctly in sending R3 back to third.

PWL, you were right the first time! My bad. No runs should score, even with the bases loaded.

The R2 did not Intentionally let the ball hit him, so there was NO Interference.

R2 is out for being hit by a fair batted ball, R3 returns, R1 advances to 2nd due to being forced by BR being awarded 1st.

All this confusion comes from how silly this rule is. It would be much simpler if it was, for all cases other than (intentional) Interference; BR out, all runners return.

SanDiego Steve - you ain't the only one who blew one here...

I gave the Batter a single on a foul ball on this sub-thread:

*What would you do here: Same situation--bases loaded with no outs and a 1-1 count on the batter when the batter hits a pop fly that drifts and remains foul near third. In his attempt to get back to third to not be doubled up there, R3 runs into F5, who drops the ball."

One cup of coffee this morning and I saw my boo-boo immediately. By the way, 6 inches of fresh snow on the ground overnight and more fallin' here just south of Lake Ontario.

Lacrosse, anyone?

Agreed, in OBR and NCAA. In FED, the bater is out and all runners return. (THat's for UMP25's play -- R3 interferes with F5 catching a doul fly. In the original play -- R2 hit by a batted ball, the rulings are generally the same -- although it's "easier" to get a second out in FED)

Bob,

I specifically didn't mention FED, whether it was the same ruling or not. Call me stupid, call me just too traditional or old-fashioned, but I absolutely cannot stand FED rules. Hate 'em. Period.

End of soapbox. :D

Yes, there WAS interference, whether R2 intentionally let the ball hit him or whether it accidentally hit him. It still is interference. You're thinking that interference has to be some sort of intentional act. While that can occur in many situations, of course, I submit to you that most interferences are unintentional; yet they're still interferences nonetheless.

Well, if you're old-fashioned, you must like the the FED balk. (immediate deadball) It's the same as the old OBR rule.

I'm not THAT old-fashioned. :p

Right, but since it was different, I thought I'd clarify.

<b>Well, if you're old-fashioned, you must like the the FED balk. (immediate deadball) <i>It's the same as the old OBR rule.</b></i>

How long ago was a balk an immediate dead ball in OBR? I was never aware of it.

Re: WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT
 

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A CATCHER'S BALK!!!

Only the pitcher balks. Period.

The year I was born, 1956, was the year OBR did away with the immediate dead ball rule, and it is still exactly the same today.

Re: Re: WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT
 

Only the pitcher is charged with balks, but the catcher can cause a balk on an intentional walk, and that balk is commonly referred to as a "catcher's balk."

I'm not sure if PWL's example is a balk, however. It looks like the catcher is setting up in his stance outside the box. This is not a balk. It is not legal either, and I would not tolerate this. I've seen it a lot, and why a coach would teach the catcher to leave the umpire unprotected is beyond me. I tell the catcher to get his butt in front of me and move his glove in and out for location, not his body. I further tell said catcher that his #1 job is to keep the ball off of me, and anything else is secondary to job #1.

This is the so-called "catcher's balk" rule:

Rule 4.03(a):

"When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory. (a)The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.
Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: PENALTY: Balk."

From Jaska/Roder:

"It is a balk by the pitcher when:

While intentionally walking a batter, begins his motion to pitch while the catcher is outside of the catcher's box."

So, I think what happened with PWL may not have qualified as a balk, but needed to have a stop put to it none the less.

NOTE: Rule 4.03(a) is very rarely enforced as it is accepted that the catcher moves out of his box early on intentional walks. Only in blatant cases is it enforced.


[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Mar 20th, 2006 at 02:32 AM]

Call me old-fashioned....I like the old OBR rule about ejecting any fan who hisses or hoots at the umpire.:D

It's not listed specifically as Interference in the FED book, 6-4-2k. But it has been quoted here that if it was intentional, consider it Interference, and call the second out if it prevented a double play. Although, you can weave your way through and end up at 8-4-2g.

Awe heck, call everybody out, throw everybody out, and let's go home !

Well...........
 

Yes and no. While it is charged to the pitcher it is the catcher who committs the balk Steve mentioned and usually this one. I say usually because another fielder could committ the infraction but it would be so rare that I doubt I will ever see it.

7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

Cross References: 5.09(c), 7.04(d) 8.05 Penalty

Tim.

<i> Originally posted by nickrego </i>

<b> I checked the rule book, and unlike in other sections, it does not specifically state we can award a 2nd out, where a 2nd out may have been prevented by the infraction. </b>

The rule DOES Specifically say when you can award a second out.

OBR Language - Willfully and Deliberately with OBVIOUS Intent

FED Language - If in the judgement of the umpire a runner included the BR interferes <b> in ANY WAY </b> and prevents a DP ANYWHERE "2 for the pirce of 1"

OBR is more stringent in their ruling and FED is more liberal, however, in the play presented under all 3 Major Rule Codes the call is

1. TIME
2. That's Interference
3. R1 is out
4. R3 back to third base R1 to second and the BR to first.

Let's not complicate matters. Unless R1 purposely stood there and allowed the ball to hit him/her we have one out on the play. Yes FED is more liberal in their interp but not on the play given unless of course you want to go home early (Grin!)

Pete Booth

Two threads for the price of one
 

1. The balk is charged to the pitcher because he's the one who balks, not the catcher. There's no violation for the catcher standing in the wrong place; there's a violation for the pitcher pitching when the catcher is in the wrong place. The term 'catcher's balk' is common but misleading, since it really is (always) the pitcher who balks.

2. Interference on a batted ball may be intentional or merely negligent. Interference on a thrown ball must be intentional. In the case where R2 is hit by a batted ball, intent is not necessary for the interference call: R2 must get out of the way (note: not merely try to get out of the way), and if he doesn't, call interference. (I'm ignoring the qualification about runner being immediately behind an infielder playing the batted ball...)

Re: Well...........
 

No, it is the pitcher who commits the balk. You can blame the catcher all you want, but the pitcher and only the pitcher is charged with a balk. Call it semantics; I'm just stating what it is.

Look, I know full well the rule surrounding this situation, and I don't need people quoting me it six ways to Sunday. It's a rarely enforced balk committed by the pitcher that can be avoided if the plate ump simply tells the catcher to stay put. In 29 years of umpiring, I have never called it, but I have more than once advised a catcher to not be so quick to leave his little area.

Sometimes I wonder if I asked someone here what time it was, I'd have a dozen responses all telling me how to build a watch.

Sorry, I guess I didn't realize you knew it all already. How could I have been so dense as to have an opinon contrary to yours. I should have known that 7.07 was written for Bugs Bunny. He is, after all, the only pitcher I've ever seen deliver the ball and then step on or in front of homeplate and take the pitch away from the batter.

I'll leave you high atop that pedastal you've so eloquently just perched yourself on.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Mar 20th, 2006 at 10:49 AM]

Oh, don't get your panties all in a tizzy now. I was just explaining something. Besides, my season's about to start; hence my getting cranky again. ;)

I can accept that. I call my first game this Friday even though the temp isn't supposed to get much over 30 degrees.
Brrr.........


Tim.