![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
I was looking at the rulesofbaseball.com website where it has a test quiz question very similar to this one where there is R2 and the Batter bunts towards first. The BR is running illegally towards first and is "grazed" by a thrown ball from the catcher but F3 still catches the ball to register the out, R2 continues on and scores on the play. The website indicates that it is a grey area because most umpires would immediately call interference and call the play dead, however they indicate that most professional umpires would ignore the interference and let the run score. Their interpretation is that the rulebook states that it is up to the umpire to determine if interference really occured and in this case since the out was registered, no interference took place. |
|
|||
I can see where being grazed by a throw that is caught might not be interference if the ball isn't substantively deflected and F3 catches it anyway. But how about this one?:
No outs, Abel on 3B off on a suicide squeeze. Baker bunts 20 feet down the 1B line. Abel scores. F2 picks up the ball and fires to 1B. Baker is running in fair territory, and the ball hits him squarely in the back. But as Baker was leaning forward while running, the ball continues upward over him and is caught by F3 for the out. I think you have to call interference. Now if you do, or if the ball is not caught, do you send Abel back to 3B? It's true that if, with a runner stealing, the batter appears to interfere with F2 but the runner is out anyway, the interference is considered not to have happened. But applying that theory to batted balls, even a fly ball that is caught, could be problematic. Abel on 1B is running on the pitch. Baker hits a bloop that F4 charges, moving toward 2B. Abel collides unintentionally with F4, knocks him down, and starts to return to 1B. F4, on the ground, catches the ball anyway. F4, from his disadvantaged position on the ground, fires toward 1B but throws the ball away. Better that you called immediate interference and killed the play, even if the call appeared to reward the offense.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide! |
|
|||
greymule,
I think the rule of thumb that the rulesofbaseball.com is implying is "Did interference really happen? What it successful?" If the interference didn't affect what the defense was attempting(in most cases would be an out) then no interference actually took place. So in your two cases, neither should be called interference because in both cases outs were called on the play. So in your first case Abel scores on the bunt and in the second case place Abel on third base. Last edited by tibear; Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 10:12am. |
|
|||
Quote:
This sitch is different from interfering with a fielder fileding a batted ball. |
|
|||
Quote:
Either the Runner interfered or he didn't. That's the JUDGEMENT part of the interference rule. If in your judgement there was no interference then whatever happend on the play stands. However, do not wait until after the play to make your determination. once we JUDGE that there was interference as mentioned we penalize RIGHT AWAY. Quote:
Read Rule 2.00 Definitions. Interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball. With some exceptions (as in B1 interfering with F2 and the runner was retired), what happens AFTER the Interference is Moot. As mentioned as soon as an umpire judges Interference the call is 1. TIME 2. That's Interference 3. Somebody is out (and maybe 2 are out) Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Runner interference versus umpire interference | Jay R | Baseball | 1 | Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm |
interference??? | slowballbaker | Softball | 13 | Fri Apr 15, 2005 09:37pm |
Interference | WinterWillie | Softball | 6 | Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:13pm |
Interference | WinterWillie | Softball | 3 | Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:27pm |
Interference | Larry | Softball | 5 | Thu Jun 06, 2002 09:31am |