ump interference

[ggk]

R2, 2 outs. B1 hits a ball into the gap. he rounds first on his way to 2nd and runs into thhe ump, after they untangle B1 continues on to 2nd where he is thrown out on a very close play. R2 is a couple of steps from home when the out is recorded at 2nd. ruling?? thanks.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by ggk

R2, 2 outs. B1 hits a ball into the gap. he rounds first on his way to 2nd and runs into thhe ump, after they untangle B1 continues on to 2nd where he is thrown out on a very close play. R2 is a couple of steps from home when the out is recorded at 2nd. ruling?? thanks.

The fact that B1 ran into the umpire is irrelevant. Umpires interference occurs only when the umpire interferes with the catcher while he's attempting to retire a runner, or is touched by a fair batted ball on fair territory before passing a fielder. This is just a simple timing play. The third out was recorded prior to R2 touching the plate so no run is scored.


Tim.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by ggk

R2, 2 outs. B1 hits a ball into the gap. he rounds first on his way to 2nd and runs into thhe ump, after they untangle B1 continues on to 2nd where he is thrown out on a very close play. R2 is a couple of steps from home when the out is recorded at 2nd. ruling?? thanks.

I'm assuming this is another NCAA test question.

On a play like this, we've got nothing. The out stands, no run scores and BU should prepare for the ensuing sh!tstorm...

[LLPA13UmpDan]

What is the pentaly for umpire interferce anyways?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

What is the pentaly for umpire interferce anyways?

If he's hit with a batted ball over fair territory the ball is immediately dead and all runners are returned. If he interferes with the catchers attempt to retire a runner the ball is delayed dead. You wait and see if the runner is retired, and if so, you disregard the interference. If a runner isn't retired the ball is dead and runners are returned.


Tim.

[TCump84]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

If he's hit with a batted ball over fair territory the ball is immediately dead and all runners are returned. If he interferes with the catchers attempt to retire a runner the ball is delayed dead. You wait and see if the runner is retired, and if so, you disregard the interference. If a runner isn't retired the ball is dead and runners are returned.


Tim.

When he an umpire is hit by a batted ball before it passes an infielder OTHER THAN the pitcher it is dead immediately and runners return UNLESS forced to advance by batter becoming runner due to him completing his time at bat. If an umpire is hit by a batted ball AFTER it is touched by an infielder INCLUDING the pitcher, the ball is alive and in play.You are Correct on the ruling if interfering with the catchers throw.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

If he's hit with a batted ball over fair territory the ball is immediately dead and all runners are returned. If he interferes with the catchers attempt to retire a runner the ball is delayed dead. You wait and see if the runner is retired, and if so, you disregard the interference. If a runner isn't retired the ball is dead and runners are returned.

Tim.

Yes, runners return, however to complete the answer, unless forced to advance.

6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when-

(d)A fair ball touches an umpire or a runner on fair territory before touching a fielder.

[Clint Lawson]

How does he run into the umpire here? I assume it is three man. But I still can't think of how he could run into the first base umpire.

[BigUmp56]

2 outs - U3 in C goes out on a trouble ball to the gap?

U2 has head inserted, gets a late start to the infield to make the pivot and runs into BR?


Tim.

[Old Time Ump]

This will probably earn a 'Ridiculous' award from some of the young lads here, but on the two occasions when this happened, 7.06 was invoked by the PU. In both cases the League upheld that decision. The ruling was that 'Obstructed' does not exclude an Umpire or even a fan coming onto the field..the 'Fairness factor', you know.
If anyone here has actually called this play the way you call it in your statements here, could you please describe the runner's manager's reaction?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well, I've never had a runner run into me or any partner of mine. If I had, I would rule that the contact is irrelevant too.

Old Timer, please cite the league you are referring to, as well as details about the situation? Umpires cannot obstruct, and they are not in the same category as fans, either.

And just why would we be concerned with the runner's manager's reaction? If he reacted inappropriately, he would probably get tossed, just as he should. The last thing on my mind in a baseball game is what the managers, players, and coaches think about anything. They usually have to be told what to think anyway.

The 'Ridiculous' award comes from this 50 year-young lad.

[Tim C]

Some just come here to prove they're ignorant of rules.

You just answered one of them.

He'll not give details cuz that means it could be checked out.

WE ALL KNOW the rules of umpire interference -- only one here is left to be ignorant.

Regards,

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Old Time Ump

This will probably earn a 'Ridiculous' award from some of the young lads here,

And not just from the young lads, but from mature lads as well.

but on the two occasions when this happened, 7.06 was invoked by the PU. In both cases the League upheld that decision. The ruling was that 'Obstructed' does not exclude an Umpire or even a fan coming onto the field..the 'Fairness factor', you know.

Both cases? That would mean that this has happend just twice in the entire history of baseball. Obviously, then, those times must stand out in your mind. Please let me know when these two instances occurred and who was involved and which league upheld a ruling contrary to the rules.
Oh, and 7.06? You mean obstruction? You mean: OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

If anyone here has actually called this play the way you call it in your statements here, could you please describe the runner's manager's reaction?

Do you give manager's a survey asking them future reactions about each potential call you may need to make and then decide whether or not to follow the rules based on their reactions?

You need to change your moniker to "old time troll."

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Old Time Ump

This will probably earn a 'Ridiculous' award from some of the young lads here, but on the two occasions when this happened, 7.06 was invoked by the PU. In both cases the League upheld that decision. The ruling was that 'Obstructed' does not exclude an Umpire or even a fan coming onto the field..the 'Fairness factor', you know.
If anyone here has actually called this play the way you call it in your statements here, could you please describe the runner's manager's reaction?

You nailed it. Let's see if they back away or steer another direction.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SAump

You nailed it.

Does this mean you have some information to back up the OTU's story? Let's have it.

Let's see if they back away or steer another direction.

Hey, if I get answers to my emails to MLB and WUA, I'll be happy to post them, no matter the content.

As of now, a search of Frank provides everything from his eyeglasses to ejections of Weaver and Martin and includes his written recommendations that umpires should still be able to fine players and coache and even his shoe size. One would think a ground breaking use of Obstruction to include an umpire falling on a runner would be there someplace...not so far.

Anyway, keep you posted on any answer I get from the proper authorities.