Interference by BR

[greymule]

A certain softball code prescribes what I consider to be perverse rulings on certain plays. So I'm trying to use OBR as a benchmark to understand the "legal" reasoning behind why these perversities could not happen in baseball.

Play A

No outs. Abel on 3B and Baker on 2B are both off on a suicide squeeze. Charles bunts but pops the ball toward F3. Abel slides across the plate and Baker stops at 3B. Seeing that F3 will catch the ball, Charles deliberately grabs F3's glove.

I would call Charles out for interference, and because of the willful and deliberate nature of the interference, I would also call Abel out as the runner closest to home, even though he was across the plate at the time of the interference. I would send Baker back to 2B.

Play B

Same situation, except that Charles tried to avoid F3 but bumped him anyway as F3 at the last moment reached toward Charles for the ball.

Obviously Charles is out and no bases can be run, but I'm not sure about calling a second out.

Play C

Same situation as A or B except that F3 catches the ball anyway and throws immediately to F5, who tags 3B on the appeal on Abel and then tags Baker for a triple play.

I think that even if I had called interference as soon as it occurred, I'd let the triple play stand. But I don't know that I could support this by the book.

Play D

Abel on 3B, no outs. Suicide squeeze. Baker pushes a nice bunt up the 1B line and Abel scores easily. Then, as Baker is running toward 1B, he drops his bat, and it hits the ball in fair territory.

Obviously Baker is out, but does the "no runners may advance" clause in 7.09 (b) still apply to Abel if he scored before the infraction?

What do you think?

[tibear]

Play A - Exactly as you called it
Play B - If the interference is not intentional then Charles is out and Abel and Baker return to their at-time-of-pitch base. (2nd&3rd)
Play C - Since the interference didn't affect the defense, the interference is ignored.
Play D - If in the judgement of the umpire, Charles bat hitting the ball was completely by accident then nothing is called. If Charles is deemed to have thrown the bat at the ball, then he is out and runners return to their at-time-of-pitch base(2nd&3rd)

[btdt]

Play C
Either it is interference or not.
This is not a situation where you ignore anything. Was it? Wasn't it?
If it is interference, doesn't matter if affected the defense or not.
Immediate dead ball, B/R out, evryone back to TOP

[greymule]

If in the judgement of the umpire, Charles bat hitting the ball was completely by accident then nothing is called.

Can't agree with you there, tibear. Bat hits ball in fair territory, intent is immaterial. Charles is out.

Ball rolls up against bat is different.

Thanks for your responses.

[tibear]

greymule,

If you notice the second part of my answer.

I guess what my intent was, if the ball hits the bat then no call, however, if the bat hits the ball then interference is called. In this instance once interference is called ALL runners return to their TOP base, timing is not a consideration.

[tibear]

btdt:
"6.06 (c) 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. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called."

Here is a situation with a batter where the interference is ignored because it didn't affect the play. I believe the same rule would apply to baserunning interference as it would to batter interference.

Interference is interference and if you can ignore it in one instance you should be able to ignore it in another.

[PeteBooth]

[

Play C

Same situation as A or B except that F3 catches the ball anyway and throws immediately to F5, who tags 3B on the appeal on Abel and then tags Baker for a triple play.

I think that even if I had called interference as soon as it occurred, I'd let the triple play stand. But I don't know that I could support this by the book.

You are quoting the incorrect rule code. As soon as B1 hit the ball towards F3 his/her status is now of a runner not a batter. We do not "wave off" interference. As soon as B1 interfered with F3 the call is

1. TIME
2. That's Interference
3. B1 is out, others return to TOP bases EXCEPT if you deem the interference to be intentional in which case R3 is also out.

As soon as the Umpire says TIME, the play is dead regardless of what happens afterwards. From my experience, once you as an umpire call TIME play stops anyway.

Here is another example; R1 interferes with F4, however, F4 still manages to get the throw off to F6 to complete the 4-6-3 DP. As soon as we rule interference, the play is dead and unless we judge R1's act of interference to be intentional, we call R1 out and leave B1 at first.

Interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball. We do not Wait to enforce or enforce AFTERWARDS. Exception: If B1 interferes with F2 but F2 throws out the runner, in that case the interference is waved off.

Reference OBR rule 7

Pete Booth

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by greymule

Obviously Baker is out, but does the "no runners may advance" clause in 7.09 (b) still apply to Abel if he scored before the infraction?

Rule 7.09(b) has been deleted from the book, as it is the same as 6.05(h), except 6.05(h) is "The batter is out when," instead of "It is interference by a batter or a runner when." So, we are bound by 6.05(h) only now.

I believe that no matter when the run scored on the play, that the rule is quite clear: "The ball is dead and no runners may advance."

[greymule]

OK, thanks. This all makes sense. I had no trouble with immediate interference on a ground ball, and if its unintentional and costs the defense a chance at a double play, that's too bad. It was fly balls I couldn't get straight, especially with runners far off their bases.

I will take "no runners may advance" to mean that if the batter or a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, then anyone not called out goes back to the base at TOP, no matter how far he had advanced before the interference.

It was an ASA case/test play that made me look to OBR for justification for sending runners back:

No outs, Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B. Daniels pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3, knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. Abel has touched home plate prior to the collision.

The answer is:

Dead ball, Daniels is out, Baker is out, Charles is returned to 1B, Abel scores.

Yes, it's true. (I substituted names for R1, R2, etc.)

[tibear]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

[

You are quoting the incorrect rule code. As soon as B1 hit the ball towards F3 his/her status is now of a runner not a batter. We do not "wave off" interference. As soon as B1 interfered with F3 the call is

1. TIME
2. That's Interference
3. B1 is out, others return to TOP bases EXCEPT if you deem the interference to be intentional in which case R3 is also out.

As soon as the Umpire says TIME, the play is dead regardless of what happens afterwards. From my experience, once you as an umpire call TIME play stops anyway.

Here is another example; R1 interferes with F4, however, F4 still manages to get the throw off to F6 to complete the 4-6-3 DP. As soon as we rule interference, the play is dead and unless we judge R1's act of interference to be intentional, we call R1 out and leave B1 at first.

Interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball. We do not Wait to enforce or enforce AFTERWARDS. Exception: If B1 interferes with F2 but F2 throws out the runner, in that case the interference is waved off.

Reference OBR rule 7

Pete Booth

I recognize what your saying. However, if you look at the play, did interference really occur. The BR attempted to interfere with F3 but was unsuccessful because F3 still made the catch, so in fact there was no interference.

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.

[greymule]

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.

[tibear]

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.

[sargee7]

Originally Posted by tibear

I recognize what your saying. However, if you look at the play, did interference really occur. The BR attempted to interfere with F3 but was unsuccessful because F3 still made the catch, so in fact there was no interference.

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.

Tibear. you're talking something completely different. you said that the runner was running illegally to 1B but don't say what he was doing that was wrong. I will assume he was out of the running lane. If that is case then the determining factor would be the fielder catching the ball so no interference, plus on a thrown ball the umpire would have to judge that the runner did something intentional to interefere with the thrown ball.

This sitch is different from interfering with a fielder fileding a batted ball.

[PeteBooth]

I recognize what your saying. However, if you look at the play, did interference really occur.

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.

The BR attempted to interfere with F3 but was unsuccessful because F3 still made the catch, so in fact there was no interference.

Again you are missing the point. We do not wait until AFTERWARDS when Interference occurs. Interference is NOT Obstruction. Under Type "B" OBS we wait until playing action ends and then make the awards IF ANY that the runner would have had absent the OBS. Not so when ruling Interference.

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

[Delaware Blue]

Originally Posted by tibear

btdt:
"6.06 (c) 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. [/B]"

Here is a situation with a batter where the interference is ignored because it didn't affect the play.

You're attempting to apply the wrong rule. 6.06(c) on applies when the batter interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play on another runner, i.e. a runner stealing second or third. 6.06(c) is not relevant since it applies only to the catcher and does not apply in the case of a batted ball. From JEA on 6.06(c) This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases.

Rule 7.09 applies in this situation: It is interference by a batter or a runner when -- ( j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball... PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

As soon as the batter becomes a runner, his status changes. He's no longer a batter and he, like any runner, must avoid contacting a defensive player making a play on a batted ball. If he doesn't, it's interference plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether the defensive player actually makes the play. There is no delayed dead ball. The ball is dead immediately, the BR is out, and runners return to their TOP bases.

Example, R1 and R2, one out. BR hits a ground ball to F6. R2 bumps F6 (by accident) just as he is about to field the ball. Despite the bump, F6 fields the ball and flips to F4 for the force out on R1. F4 makes the relay to F3 in time to retire the slow-footed BR. According to your application of interference, the double play stands - but it doesn't. It's interference the moment R2 bumped F6, the ball is dead, R2 is out, and the BR is awarded first base. R1 is advanced to second base.