Catcher's Interference options

[David Emerling]

Situation #1: R3. BR hits fly ball to the outfield. However, the BR's swing was interfered with by the catcher. Outfielder makes the catch after which R3 tags up and scores. Umpire invokes the catcher interference, awarding 1st to the BR and sending R3 back to 3rd. Offensive manager wants the result of the play instead. Fine! BR is now out and R3 scores. Play continues. Pitcher steps off mound and tosses to F5. They're appealing that R3 left too soon. Umpire agrees and calls R3 out!

Just for the record: I assume it is now too late for the offensive manager to say, "I changed my mind! We'll take the catcher's inteference."

Situation #2: R2. BR doubles. However, the BR's swing was interfered with by the catcher. Catcher interference is ignored and the play stands. Play continues with the pitcher appealing to 1st that BR missed the bag. Umpire agrees. Now what?

[Bfair]

Situation #1: R3. BR hits fly ball to the outfield. However, the BR's swing was interfered with by the catcher. Outfielder makes the catch after which R3 tags up and scores. Umpire invokes the catcher interference, awarding 1st to the BR and sending R3 back to 3rd. Offensive manager wants the result of the play instead. Fine! BR is now out and R3 scores. Play continues. Pitcher steps off mound and tosses to F5. They're appealing that R3 left too soon. Umpire agrees and calls R3 out!
Umpire agrees. R3 is out.

Just for the record: I assume it is now too late for the offensive manager to say, "I changed my mind! We'll take the catcher's inteference."
Agreed

Situation #2: R2. BR doubles. However, the BR's swing was interfered with by the catcher. Catcher interference is ignored and the play stands. Play continues with the pitcher appealing to 1st that BR missed the bag. Umpire agrees. Now what?
As you state, the infraction is ignored since runner and batter each advanced at least one base. The BR is out. Had there been 2 out before the play, BR is 3rd out and run scored by R2 is negated. The catcher interference nor the format of applying the rule does not relieve BR of his responsibility of legally touching the bases while advancing.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Rog]

# 1 - nice try Coach; but, you only get one chance to get it right!

# 2 - J/R: "*A runner who, in the course of running the bases, goes by a 8.05 base, has either "touched" or "passed" the base. If he has touched the base, he is not vulnerable to a subsequent appeal that he has missed that base. If he has passed the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch. The defense has a responsibility to recognize a failure to touch a base."

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Rog
# 1 - nice try Coach; but, you only get one chance to get it right!

# 2 - J/R: "*A runner who, in the course of running the bases, goes by a 8.05 base, has either "touched" or "passed" the base. If he has touched the base, he is not vulnerable to a subsequent appeal that he has missed that base. If he has passed the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch. The defense has a responsibility to recognize a failure to touch a base."

So, what you're saying is this: The out on BR stands (for failing to touch first) and the fact that he was a victim of catcher's interference does not allow the umpire to invoke that penalty and AWARD him 1st. Is this what you're saying?

[Rog]

re: "So, what you're saying is this: The out on BR stands (for failing to touch first) and the fact that he was a victim of catcher's interference does not allow the umpire to invoke that penalty and AWARD him 1st. Is this what you're saying?"

NO!

Situation #2: R2. BR doubles. However, the BR's swing was interfered with by the catcher. Catcher interference is ignored and the play stands. Play continues with the pitcher appealing to 1st that BR missed the bag. Umpire agrees. Now what?

The BR advanced to 2nd safely; so, the catcher's interference is negated.

But, what "J/R" states is: "A runner who, in the course of running the bases, goes by a 8.05 base, has either "touched" or "passed" the base. If he has touched the base, he is not vulnerable to a subsequent appeal that he has missed that base. If he has passed the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch. The defense has a responsibility to recognize a failure to touch a base."

Simply put, the BR is still responsible for touching each base in order; or, that missed base is subject to an appeal.

Teach them to "touch", coaches!!!!!

[David Emerling]

Perhaps I'm missing something in your explanation. So, what do you do once it has been established that BR missed 1st and a successful appeal is executed? He's out, right?

But then the BR never reached first ... which would require the umpire to invoke the catcher's interference penalty - right? Therefore, BR is awarded 1st notwithstanding the appeal.

Originally posted by Rog
re: "So, what you're saying is this: The out on BR stands (for failing to touch first) and the fact that he was a victim of catcher's interference does not allow the umpire to invoke that penalty and AWARD him 1st. Is this what you're saying?"

NO!

Situation #2: R2. BR doubles. However, the BR's swing was interfered with by the catcher. Catcher interference is ignored and the play stands. Play continues with the pitcher appealing to 1st that BR missed the bag. Umpire agrees. Now what?

The BR advanced to 2nd safely; so, the catcher's interference is negated.

But, what "J/R" states is: "A runner who, in the course of running the bases, goes by a 8.05 base, has either "touched" or "passed" the base. If he has touched the base, he is not vulnerable to a subsequent appeal that he has missed that base. If he has passed the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch. The defense has a responsibility to recognize a failure to touch a base."

Simply put, the BR is still responsible for touching each base in order; or, that missed base is subject to an appeal.

Teach them to "touch", coaches!!!!!

[Rog]

It's an appeal situation!!!!!

per J/R:

"To advance, 7.01
a runner tries to acquire the next (closer to home) base, and such runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches or passes it before he is out."

and -

"Penalizing Defensive (Catcher's) Interference

Once there is defensive interference, the ball is not dead. 6.08c
Ail continuous action is allowed to occur. If every runner and the batter-runner
acquires his advance base during continuous action, the interference is disregarded,
When continuous action ends, and the umpire determines that a runner or batter-runner has not acquired his advance base, the ball becomes dead, and the interference is then enforced as follows:

(a) The batter-runner is awarded first base.
(b) All sequential runners are awarded their advance base 7.04d
(c) Any runner stealing on the pitch is awarded his advance base.
(d) Runners who are not sequential and were not stealing must return to
their TOP base.

However, the offensive manager has the option to accept the result of the continuous
action rather than have the interference enforced, Such manager must indicate to the
umpire his choice of the result of continuous action; the umpire does not offer such an
option."

also -
Childress - B.R.D. (page #189) Section *397 -
last sentence:
"J/R agrees with me "If he passes the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch." (34, based on 6.08c CMT1 and 7.04d Nt)"

[devilsadvocate]

David writes:

"Perhaps I'm missing something in your explanation. So, what do you do once it has been established that BR missed 1st and a successful appeal is executed? He's out, right?

But then the BR never reached first ... which would require the umpire to invoke the catcher's interference penalty - right? Therefore, BR is awarded 1st notwithstanding the appeal."

Don't think of it as he never reached first. Think of it as he reached first, and then had first taken away.

Once he physically passed the base he had acquired the base, notwithstanding the fact that he did not physically touched the base. BR reached second safely, so the interference is ignored. When the missed base appeal occurs, it is as if the interference had never occured.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Rog
also -
Childress - B.R.D. (page #189) Section *397 -
last sentence:
"J/R agrees with me "If he passes the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch." (34, based on 6.08c CMT1 and 7.04d Nt)"
[/B]

Based on that philosophy, how about this:

Situation: R2, two outs. BR hits double, scoring R2 easily. BR missed 1st and there is a subsequent appeal. Does the run score?

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Emerling

So, what you're saying is this: The out on BR stands (for failing to touch first) and the fact that he was a victim of catcher's interference does not allow the umpire to invoke that penalty and AWARD him 1st. Is this what you're saying?

Dave, the catcher's interference obviously didn't stop the batter from striking the ball successfully, did it? He was able to obtain 2nd base!!!

Please explain to me...............

1. What did the catcher's interference have to do with the runner missing 1B??
   
2. Did the catcher prevent BR from touching 1B?
   
3. Why should the BR NOT have to touch 1B?

Freix

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by David Emerling

Based on that philosophy, how about this:

Situation: R2, two outs. BR hits double, scoring R2 easily. BR missed 1st and there is a subsequent appeal. Does the run score?

[/B]

David: Check out OBR 4.09a (1).

You're beginning to sound like The Devil's Advocate. (grin)