Tough call for me today
 

I posted this on the softball board because it happened to me in a softball game today. I am curious what the call would be if this happened in a baseball game. I can imagine it happening with young kids.

Tournament game today. Runner on 3rd, 1 out, batter K's but pitch gets by catcher. Runner breaks for home, batter stays in box. Pitcher comes in to cover plate, batter still in box fails to clear the area around the plate as catcher throws to the pitcher. Runner somehow gets thru to the plate, throw from catcher not caught by pitcher and is rolling in infield. Batter still standing in the box.

How would you handle? It happened to me today.

You havent said if you judged that the batter interfered with the play - you just say the throw from F2 was not caught. Need more details.

I can say that it reads that the batter had plenty of time to clear the box for the play, so an INT call is imminent.

DTQ_Blue,

As described, this would likely result in the R3 being called out because of the interference of his recently retired teammate. HTBT to say for sure.

JM

Yes, I ruled that the BR interfered (altered the pitcher's approach to the plate). Yes I ruled the runner out. Now what would you do with the batter, who is now a batter-runner because of the uncaught 3rd strike.

Figures it's a SB game
 

If this was a BB game I got the BR out.

When the ball went dead, the BR has not moved. Therefore she/he abandoned their attempt to get to 1B. Out, Out, Out. You can't place her on 1B. He is in a force play situation here. Out, out, out

You could also use the "god rule" in rule 10 to make this call, since we want to punish the offending team to the maximum extent of the law. In this case, who did wrong? The BR did, so out, out, out.

How did you come up with abandonment? It can't be abandonment until after the batter-runner touches first base. You can't get two outs on this play, because there was no imminent double play possibilty. The BR is called out for interference, and the runner should be returned to his position at the TOP.

You also don't want to use the "god rule" to punish teams, or for almost any other reason.:cool:

Where is the abandonement rule in OBR...I can't find it on MLB.com...where is the rule in FED? Rule book is out in the car...thanks guys

The defense COULDN'T play on the batter. The batter interfered causing the ball to become dead. How can you reward someone for an illegal act?

Bob

This cannot be batter's interference. He is now a BR. From the J/R.




Section I: Batter Interference

Interference by a batter occurs exclusively in relationship to the catcher or the catcher's throw and only when the batter does not become a batter-runner.


Here we have a batter-runner that's disregarded his attempt to reach his advance base safely. Again from the J/R.

Section II: Runner Interference

B. Thrown Ball

It is interference by a runner on a thrown ball only if such runner:

1. commits an intentional action to interfere that disregards his try to get to a base safely, and

2. such action hinders a fielder trying to throw or trying to tag.

When runner or batter-runner interference occurs, the ball is dead.

Section III

NOTE: Apart from being outside the 45-foot lane, a Batter-Runner can only interfere on a thrown ball if his action is intentional and hinders a fielder. Similarly, a strike three where a batter becomes a runner is treated as a thrown ball situation, and such Batter-Runner can only interfere subject to the dictates of Section II, Subsection B, of this chapter.


Section IV: Penalizing Runner and Batter-Runner; Interference and Placing Other Runners

A. Penalization

A runner who interferes is declared out unless, as a result of preceding action, he is already out, then the other runner being played against is declared out. If no other runner is being played against, "weak" interference applies; that is, the ball is dead and runners must remain at their last legally touched base.




So in this play the BR is out and all other runners are returned to their last legally touched base.




Tim.

Sort Defense of Call, Sorry
 

I have a long day ahead, so I will have to brief....

1. In this case, the PU has ruled the runner out for Batter's interference at home plate, even though he is now a BR. :D

2. Then the ball becomes dead because of the Interference, right? :D

3. The BR did not move from the batters box, right? :D

Since we agree on all of these things, what has the BR done on this play?

A. He/She Struck Out.
B. Caused interference because they did not try to go to 1B as is their right on this play (dropped 3rd strike).

A Dead Ball does not allow the BR to advance, does it? No.

So while Abandonment may be the wrong word to use here, since it has a technical meaning in the Baseball rules, the BR gave himself/herself up when they stayed in the box interfereing with the play. If you follow J/R's logic here, then you have given the offense a huge advantage in the play, because they can interfere without penalty. Also, J/R assumes the BR will try to get on base, which this person is not doing.

How can you not call the BR out? The dead ball by definition does not allow her/him any chance to advance, and there is no reason why their rights were violated by the defense so they can be awarded 1st base.

I can't see how the batter can be anything but out on the play.

Let's change the play slightly -- R3, squeeze play, ball bunted to F3. R3 falls down 1/2 way to the plate. BR sees this and interferes with F3's attempt to throw to the plate.

I have BR out, R3 returning. I don't see how the original play is different.

In FED, you might be able to get two outs because with BR still in the box, the defense could get R3 out and then get BR out.

I incline toward Tim here. Upon strike 3, batter is now a batter-runner, so he's out, return R3 to 3B. There's no 'time limit' on how long it takes the B/R to move toward 1B, so I can't see 'desertion' here.

If it were the same sitch except NOT strike 3, then its BI, batter remains at bat, R3 out.

I appreciate the discussion
 

Bob and friends,

I don't see how your situation is analagous to the play here. Maybe I'm just missing something here.

The BR has bunted the ball to someone, now we have a possible play on the batter, and it would be impossible to see how the BR would decide to stay int he box to interfere with F3 trying to make a play on R3. And in OBR, don't you still have the option of two outs on this play? (Note: I have not looked at OBR, I have a lot of FED left to umpire).

I have a hard time getting around the fact here that the batter is already out if he or she does not attempt to get to 1B, and the INF call kills any chance of her even trying to get to 1B. She is not awarded 1B on the INF, is she? Are you not letting the offense buy an out?

And further, the interference by the BR is on a play on R3, not the BR. The BR has committed both an out, and an infraction. S/he is out because s/he cannot get to 1B on a dead ball.

I am not settled on my view of the play, please help me to understand what I am missing here, if you disagree with me.

I cant address the bunting deal, because thats a struck ball, whereas here its a D3K swinging.

Cite the rule where the B/R is 'already out' if he does not immediately start running to 1B. Neither desertion nor abandonment apply here..he has not 'left the dirt circle'. TWP: if there were no runners, D3K, and the B/R stood there and the defense retrieved the ball but made no play - how long would you allow the B/R to stand there before calling him out for 'no attempt?' 10 seconds? 60 seconds? 5 minutes?

I just dont think you can say that because the B/R didnt instantly leave for 1B (or desert), that alone makes him out...its not supported by rule. Unless I'm wrong ;) So, to me, at the time the INT occurred, the batter is now a B/R, who is still 'alive' (not out) for purposes of the play. By rule, its the same as if he was 1/2 up the baseline to 1B, and interfered with a throw to retire R3 at the plate. The fact that the B/R is still located in the box at the time of INT is irrelevant to his status as a batter-runner.

Yes, the INT is a dead ball, but the rule explicity states that the penalty is that the interferer is out (BR in this case) and the runner (R3) returned to TOI base. This 'cant get to 1B on a dead ball' is a chimera...he's already out for his interference, because when he struck at the pitch, he ceased to be a batter instantly. He's now a B/R, and different INT rules apply.

We are saying the B-R is out. What we are saying is you have to return R3 to third base, per the rules. You keep calling him the batter. He ceased being a batter upon his third strike, which was uncaught, so he became a batter-runner. He is not out on strikes, he is only out because he interfered with the play. The proper call in this situation (if it is egregious) is to call the batter out for weak interference, and return the runner to the base he occupied at the Time Of The Pitch (not the TOI).

This way, the offense is punished by virtue of not scoring that RISP, and having one more out. After all, it was an uncaught third strike, and a passed ball. It's not like it was the offense's fault this occurred, it was the defenses mistake. To turn this around from your point of view, you could say "why are we punishing the offense for the defenses error?"

As has already been mentioned, there is no time limit for the B-R to run to first base. Let's just say for the hell of it that there was no interference. Then all the defense would have to do is tag the B-R, or throw it to first base for the put-out. He can stand at home plate as long as he wants if nobody plays on him. Eventually, a member of the defense will realize that he's not out yet.

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.

In baseball or softball, the pitcher does not have the right to block off the base without the ball. Unless the retired batter (softball) actually intentionally interfered with the pitcher, and I don't see how she could have from her position in the batter's box. Had she stepped forward and impeded F1's approach, then I can see INT. But if she remained in her batting position like many youth players do when they don't understand the situation (they kind of freeze), then she is not by that act alone interfering with the pitcher. The pitcher can only block the plate with possession (or imminent play in the judgment of the umpire) of the ball, otherwise she is obstructing if there is contact which impedes the runner.

It seems to me that if the batter was in such a position as to be interfering with the pitcher, she would no doubt be blocking her own teammate from scoring as well.

Steve,

In 10U softball, the pitcher's plate is only 37' from home. A quick and alert pitcher gets to the plate to cover very quickly. Also due to the quality of the team at bat as noted above, R3 wasn't exactly off to a quick start down the line. F1 was not blocking the plate, but was at the plate before the runner and trying to set up slightly to the 3B side (throw was coming from slightly to the 1B side of the area behind the plate). That way, if she catches the catcher's throw, she just drops the glove. If she, a RH pitcher approaches the plate head on, she has to catch the throw and then reach back across her body to apply the tag before the runners foot contacts the plate.

I could see F1 looking at the batter and changing her angle of approach to the plate. IMO, the batter did not clear the area as she should have.

Causing the pitcher to change approach angles is not interference. It is not the same principal as used in obstruction situations, where causing a deviation of a path is a violation. If the batter made no move to prevent the pitcher from setting up for the throw, then she didn't interfere. The pitcher could have just came right in and contacted the batter out of the way, but chose to accomodate the batter by not pushing her aside. The pitcher decided to change courses, the batter did nothing to cause this.

Of course, I wasn't there, so I really don't know what the batter did or didn't do, but if she just stood there, that act alone does not constitute interference.

DTQ - I have to agree with SanDiegoSteve on this one. Merely being in the batter's box does not constitute interference and based on the description, it appears that the batter would interfere more with her own runner than the pitcher for this situation to be true. The normal assumption in any interference situation is "he/she has to get out of the way and let them make the play". Not true. Just like the FED slide rule to AVOID CONTACT. No contact, don't need to slide.