Had to dump 3...or did I?

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Instead of the next runner being out, shouldn't that be the batter/runner being ruled out on the interference?

Technically, it is whoever the next play was going to be made on. In this case, it appears it would be the batter/runner.

Sorry. My initial post is worded sort of funky.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Saying "that's ridiculous" shouldn't warrant an ejection.
Tim.

It was a little bit quick of an ejection. Still, the player knew not to argue as the other coach had already been tossed for continuing to argue.

[ozzy6900]

Tommy P. - From your description (and as many others have told you), you had a FPSR violation!

We had the exact play last night! The PU Called interference and we had just the opposite -- the offense screaming but no one got bad enough to be ejected. F2 recovered after a brief halt to the game and we continued play without further incident.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rei

Technically, it is whoever the next play was going to be made on. In this case, it appears it would be the batter/runner.

Sorry. My initial post is worded sort of funky.

If it was the FED FPSR, it's always the BR who is the second out; other runners return.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If it was the FED FPSR, it's always the BR who is the second out; other runners return.

My rule book is buried somewhere in my work van, so I could not look up the rule.

BUT.........I found my 2007 casebook. Page 78 concerning rule 8.4.2, there is a "Comment":

The umpire has the authority to declare two runners out when a runner or retired runner illegally interferes and prevents a double play In such circumstances, the runner who interferes is out and the other runner involved is also out. Also, when the batter-runner interfers, the umpire may declare two outs. The batter-runner is declared out and so is the runner who has advanced the nearest to home plate.

Somehow, I think that if it is a home to third double play attempt, and the runner coming into home interferes, I would be calling the runner going into 3rd out too.

If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rei

If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this.

Rule 8-4-2b PENALTY:

PENALTY: The runner is out, the ball is dead immediately, and interference is called. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder’s choice.

We go hunting for another out only when the BR interferes, and then pick the runner closest to home.

[UmpJM]

rei,

Originally Posted by rei

If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this.

From the FED rulebook "Penalty" following 8-4-2b:

...On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. ...

The penalty you suggested above applies to intentional interference to break up a double play, or 8-4-2g infractions.

JM

Edited to add: Ah, I see Dr. Byron has beat me to the punch.

[Tim C]

Rei intoned:

"My rule book is buried somewhere in my work van, so I could not look up the rule.

"BUT.........I found my 2007 casebook. Page 78 concerning rule 8.4.2, there is a "Comment":
"Quote:

"The umpire has the authority to declare two runners out when a runner or retired runner illegally interferes and prevents a double play In such circumstances, the runner who interferes is out and the other runner involved is also out. Also, when the batter-runner interfers, the umpire may declare two outs. The batter-runner is declared out and so is the runner who has advanced the nearest to home plate."

"Somehow, I think that if it is a home to third double play attempt, and the runner coming into home interferes, I would be calling the runner going into 3rd out too.

"If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this."

Rei:

I referred to this exact Case Book play at a local Portland Baseball Umpire Association general meeting this year.

Two of our members took me to task and pointed out that if the "Batter" caused the issue then you can call out the runner nearest to home plate. In this play, and the play I was discussing at the meeting, the runner caused the issue.

Again, the NFHS has tried to handle two situations in one paragraph and just made it confusing.

Last year I would have agreed with your view of the play -- I am now on Bob Jenkin's side of the street.

Good luck at the Legion State Tourament.

Regards,

Well then, I stand corrected.

I was thinking too, that had the described play been called correctly, there would be runners on first and second only with now two outs. The "hit" to the outfield would have only scored 1 run to make a tie game. So, in this case, even based on the next batters actions, the outcome of the game really COULD have been altered!

Originally Posted by CoachJM

rei,



From the FED rulebook "Penalty" following 8-4-2b:



The penalty you suggested above applies to intentional interference to break up a double play, or 8-4-2g infractions.

JM

Edited to add: Ah, I see Dr. Byron has beat me to the punch.

I have never seen an unintentional interference on a double play!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rei

My rule book is buried somewhere in my work van, so I could not look up the rule.

BUT.........I found my 2007 casebook. Page 78 concerning rule 8.4.2, there is a "Comment":



Somehow, I think that if it is a home to third double play attempt, and the runner coming into home interferes, I would be calling the runner going into 3rd out too.

If you can quote the rule to support your comment, I will gladly change my mind on this.

That's in reference to 8-4-2G (which contains similar or identical wording) -- interfering with a thrown ball or interfering with a fielder in his initial attempt to field a batted ball.

The ruling on a FPSR violation has already been posted -- and it's the BR who is out.

[bossman72]

Tee or Bob,

If this game was played under OBR, would you have no infraction of any kind on this play?

[jkumpire]

Tommy,

I understand quite clearly what you are seeing, and what you are getting at. But whether it is accidental or not, R3 is the guy responsible from contact and/or altering the play of the fielder. The throw and how F2 picked it up did not alter his chance to get the guy at 1B, R3 did.

That is why it is a clear FPSR violation. And I am sure you would have had a big yelling match with the offense in this case, but sometimes accidents happen and people get in trouble for them. Tough break.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Tee or Bob,

If this game was played under OBR, would you have no infraction of any kind on this play?

Well, I'm not Tee and I'm not Bob. At least today I'm not. But if I may I'll answer your question.

Under pure OBR, not even close to an infraction unless you deem the runner intentionally interfered.

Under modified OBR codes that have a "slide or attempt to avoid" provision, it's a HTBT, but from the description of the play it doesn't sound like INT.


Tim.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Under modified OBR codes that have a "slide or attempt to avoid" provision, it's a HTBT, but from the description of the play it doesn't sound like INT.

A lot of leagues around here have "slide or avoid," and I'm curious how you can justify not calling INT here. Assuming the contact occurs on the 3B side of the plate (I agree that this is HTBT, but F2 is stretched that way and turns to throw to 1B), we have no slide AND contact that affects the play. What does "slide or avoid contact" mean here?

I lean the other way: agree that it's HTBT (to judge where the contact occurs), but to me it sounds like INT under OBR w/ "slide or avoid contact".