Thank You
 

I appreciate the reply Steve.....

But, the BR interfered with a play that caused the ball to become dead. Because the ball is dead he can't go to 1B. So how is he not out? He caused the INF, 2 are not out, so R3 is by rule out on the INF right?

If you don't call it this way, then you give the offense an extra out. There is no situation in the rule book that matches it, since everyone assumes the BR is trying to do something to not be out ont he play. In this play, the BR is giving herself up to try and help the runner score.

I can grasp what you are saying, I just think your applying the rules the wrong way.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The ball becoming dead on the interference is irrelevant. The only way you can get two outs on an interference call is if in your judgment a runner or batter-runner interfered with the obvious intent to break up a double play. We don't award the batter-runner first base here, and since only one out can be called it has to be him. Now, an argument could be made for two outs had the batter-runner been tagged out prior to interfering with the play on R3. He would no longer be a batter-runner, he would become a recently retired teamate.


Tim.

Reference, please. BRs can go to first when the ball is dead. None of those situations are relevant to this play, though.

Right, and, in general, whoever causes the interference is out.

Not correct. Reference, please. Be sure it uses the phrase "batter runner" and not just "batter."

Bob,
7-4-5
Penalty: When there are two out,the batter is out.When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to hme plate,If the runner is tagged out,the ball remains alive and interference is ingored.Otherwise,the ball is dead and the runner called out...........

I think you mean 7-3-5. That said, note that it refers to a batter. In the OP, the player who interfered is no longer a batter -- he is a runner (or a batter-runner).

Hmmm...

Now, having said that, 7.3.5I indicates that R3 can be out on this play (and if he is BR is awarded first).

No! That's true if the batter were still the batter....he's not a batter any longer.

:confused:

The INT itself caused the dead ball. Who said the BR wasn't out? The BR (interferer) is out for his violation, R3 returns to 3B. The BR is out because he interfered, not because he suddenly cannnot advance to 1B on a dead ball.

You seem terribly upset that R3 isn't also out on this play. I'm sorry about that, but the INT rules state that 'other runners return'. That's life, 'extra out' or not. Simply put, had this happened with 1 strike, the BR would remain at bat and R3 is out. With 2 strikes, its the other way around. Don't forget, the defense erred by not catching the 3d strike. So, who's being 'given' an extra out now?

*chants*
He's no longer a batter...he's no longer a batter.....there's no place like home.....there's no place like home.....


You keep saying 'apply the rules the wrong way,' but where are YOUR cites for calling out the BR for not immediately running to 1B on the D3K? Or why you keep calling her/him a batter (and trying to apply BI rules) when s/he is clearly now a BR? I'm not trying to be over-argumentative here, but this "it just don't seem right to me" stuff has no place in an otherwise-excellent situation and rules discussion (this is a GREAT topic to hash out :) ) We gotta bring the rules/cites to get it right, regardless of how we 'feel' about it.

[QUOTE]Bob I equate this play to the following citation in OBR rule 4

<i> PENALTY: If the runner on third refuses to advance to and touch home base in a <b> reasonable time, </b> the umpire shall disallow the run, call out the offending player and order the game resumed. If, with two out, the batter-runner refuses to advance to and touch first base, the umpire shall disallow the run, call out the offending player, and order the game resumed. If, before two are out, the batter-runner refuses to advance to and touch first base, the run shall count, but the offending player shall be called out. </i>

Here we have a batter turned runner refusing to go to first base in a reasonable amount of time, therefore, the BR is now declared out based upon OBR rule 4. In turn the BR does not vacate any space needed in order for the defense to make a play, so the runner on whom the defense was playing in this case R3 is also declared out.

In this play I have 2 outs. The batter turned runner had ample time to run to first but didn't and then compounded things by interfering with a play at home.

Pete Booth

yes there is a time limit. In the OBR rule book it is referred to as a reasonable time.

Check out rule 4.

Runners do not have ALL DAY to advance. They have what is termed a reasonable opportunity to advance.

Pete Booth

Why did you rule the runner out? The batter-runner is out.

Calling the BR out for failing to try to advance on a D3K is as absurd as calling him safe for the defense abandoning an effort to retire him.

BR is a RUNNER at the time of this interference, and is out. Return the runner.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]I don't read anywhere the the BR REFUSED to go to first. I think you're way off base trying to use this rule here. imo, the rule is only to avoid the BR saying something like, "Why shoudl I go to first? The game is over, and they can't put me out, so it's a waste of my multi-million $ contract."

I've read all of the posts and there is one thing I'm having a hard time visualizing. Assuming the batter is still in the box, most likely on the foul side of the box - then how did the batter impede the pitcher's approach to the plate coming off the mound? Was the batter a lefty? If so, I can understand and would agree to the INT. If a righty, they would either have to be on home plate or in the opposite batter's box to interfere with the PITCHER'S APPROACH? If you could describe with more detail, it would be helpful, as I am trying to understand the INT.

[QUOTE=bob jenkins]Uh, yeah. He 'refused' to go to 1B in the time it took R3 to run to the plate and get caught up in an INT call on the BR. What's that, a couple of seconds?

Sounds 'reasonable' to me.

On every play there are multiple ways for a player to make an out. This sitch is no exception.

Options to get Batter-runner out: Throw ball to first and touch base, tag him, B-R could interfere.

Only one will happen and I must make my ruling based on the action.

If I deem the B-R (not batter as has been pointed out) has interfered then the ball is dead and the B-R is declared out and R3 is returned to last base touched at time of the interference.

If I do not declare the B-R interfered the the run scores and since the ball remains live that still leaves the B-R in jeopardy to be put out (uncaught third strike).

How? Tag him or throw ball to first. 8-4-1f. This is the easy way.

If the B-R still does not attempt to advance to first and the defense is also not trying to tag or throw to first I will say that the pitch was strike three. If still no action I am not waiting very long before will call time and declare B-R out. (Out because he accumulated three strikes and now that ball is dead he can not advance).

In response to Big Guy, batter was RH, F1 approaches plate and her best position to take the throw from F2 would have been slightly to side of the plate to her right as she approached. Because the batter was directly in her path, the pitcher stays more to her left and approaches the plate head on. This disadvantaged F1 in positioning herself to attempt to make the tag.

One thing I would add in response to the discussion about intent on the part of the batter. As I noted up top, this actually happened in a softball game, but I wanted this board's take on the play because it could happen in a baseball game. It happened in a 10U tournament game. There were a lot of good teams at this event but the batting team was not one of them. They were far inferior in quality to every other team present. This play happened because the batter didn't have a clue; no intent whatsoever. But I still had to make a call.