what's the call
 

For you smart guys, bases loaded and one out, ball hit to shortstop who comes home, catcher throws to first and hits runner who is about 70 feet up the line and on inside of fair/foul line, while this is happening runner from 2nd is crossing the plate, what is the call?

Are we making the HUGE assumption that we have a lane violation out at first? There was no mention of if the throw was catchable, or even if someone was there to catch it.

In the original post, he stated that the runner was 70 ft up the line, on the inside of the F/F line. The runner is out for interference, and we all know that no runner can advance on this interference. What bearing do you think the position of F3 has on this play? the answer is none

I don't know about being smart enough to answer that question, but it might help to be somewhat clarivoyant.

As the question is stated, we have to assume that the throw home was in sufficient time and accompanied by a sufficient tag to retire R3. If that is the case, then that would be our second out.

For the subsequent throw to first, we need to assume that the batter-runner interfered with the fielder- if there even was one!- receiving the throw before we can assume the B/R out for interference.

And if all those assumptions are correct, no runs would score on this play as the third out was made against the B/R prior to him reaching first base.

But you've left out enough pertinent details that we could assume just about anything on this play. I could assume that the throw to the plate was late and R3 scores. I'll then assume that F2's throw to first was in the dirt and heading toward foul ground, not a throw likely to retire the B/R and thus not interference with the fielder taking the throw.

Now I'm going to assume that the defensive coach charged onto the field arguing for an interference call that wasn't there. Meanwhile, R2 and R1 continue running and cross the plate. The B/R makes it to third before the defense wakes up and realizes what's going on. The defensive coach is ejected when he calls the umpire a "blind *@#!%!".

So the obvious answer is: three runs score, there is still only one out, the coach has been ejected and we continue with a runner on third base! ;)

I wanna know who it is running from 2nd......Mercury? What, was he stealing on the pitch and almost to third when the ball is hit? Or is the throw from the catcher one of those Bugs Bunny super duper slow balls to first. Realistically, how could this R2 be crossing the plate as the throw from the catcher hits the BR? If he was this close don't you think the catcher would attempt a tag? Could you please elaborate a bit more?

Anyway, yep, out at home on the force, out on BR for interference, no run scores with 2 outs; no intervening play (no play made at home on R2) so with less than 2 send him back TOP base. (See 2.00 Interference comment OBR).

:eek: Dang! I never thought of that! :confused: Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! :D

Actually WHAT, was playing first and WHO was on second.

Well, this is not a well crafted question. The runner from 2nd (R2) is crossing the plate - so he has run 160-70 feet while the batter-runner has run 70? I don't think so.

But the obvious issue is running lane interference. Assuming you've got an out at the plate, is the batter-runner (BR) out for interference?

To call this kind of interference, you need 3 things:
1. BR has at least one foot outside (not on the line) the running lane; and
2. A quality throw from F2 that has a chance to retire the runner; and
3. BR's being out of the running lane interferes with the fielder making the play at 1B (for example, because the throw hit him).

Missing ANY of these 3, we don't call this kind of interference; 6.05(k).

If you have ALL of these, the BR is out, and all (remaining) runners return to their bases at the time of the pitch; 2.00 "Interference" (a) Comment. If it's the third out, no runs can score; 4.09(a).

We have one out already. Play at the plate for force is 2 outs. If we judged INT on BR, he is 3rd out, no runs score on the play.

Nice try.

Read the rule - the interference has to be with the fielder taking the throw - not the throw itself. If the fielder is nowhere near the base there is no interference under this rule.

But Rich, Cub42 is a professional umpire. How could he possibly be wrong?:rolleyes: ;)

I guess I should have not assumed that F3 was at 1st. I guess you guys see players frequently just throw the ball without somebody , especially the catcher throw to 1st, without anyone in the vicinity of the base. I also forgot to cover every possibility that could result. Yep, guess you showed me.

<i>I also forgot to cover every possibility that could result.</i>

And that, sir, is what separates the good umpires from the rest of 'em.

So let me get this straight, By answering some absurd question on a site, you know who is a good umpire, and who isn't? How about letting everybody know the lottery numbers too. It's a little different out on the field, than answering questions here. AND That, is what seperates good umpires from the rest of the pack.

Applying a little thought before answering a question, and not making a lot assumptions beforehand, would be a trait of a good umpire. Plus, it will help you out when it comes to passing tests.

To your question. Is answering this particular question correctly a mark of a good umpire? Not really. Is answering it incorrectly, or not thinking it through, an indication of a bad umpire? That's perhaps closer to the mark.

If the BR is hit in the back, but he's still twenty feet from the bag, there is a huge question of if the throw was on target. If F2 steps to his left to avoid a hook slide, that's creating quite an angle for this throw, and it could be ten feet off the bag.

The catcher gets the ball, the runner is 70 ft up the line and inside the F/F line. I haven't had any problem passing the required tests at any level of Baseball I have worked. You should look in the mirror and judge yourself before you try and shoot out comments on my abilities.

Easy now kid.

Go back to the original question. Who was covering first?

What if the BR fell down getting out of the box? By then R2 could be nearing home, the speedy R2 could be nearing home and the catcher wouldn't bother to throw to 1B, just tag R2 coming in.

But aside from all the assuming, if we accept the most logical play here, we have 2 outs and no runs.

I thought Hawk21 was asking about "an intervening play" in which R2 would return to third, not to second (had the play not resulted in three outs).

Or, he might be trying to say R2 should also be out on BR's interference (interference by a BR before reaching first, with the intent to break up a double play). Especially in this case, the question is poorly worded.

But, since he hasn't been back to clarify, I guess all of us wise ^h^h^h^ smart guys have covered all the bases on this.

you're the one that said the position of F3 has no bearing on the call.

to all the smart guys
 

I didn't want to spell everything out, but I guess I have too. Yes F6's throw to home is a force out for 2nd. out and batter/runner interferes with throw from catcher. Rule-7.09h read the rule. because of obvious interference by batter/runner (NOT RUNNER 7.09g)to breakup a double play, the 3rd. out is R2 who crossed the plate on the interference. if there was zero outs the same thing would result and you would have the batter/runner placed at 1st. base and R1 would be forced to go to 2nd. Remember it doesn't matter where the double play would have happened! If it was a runner(7.09g) then he would be the 3rd. out and no runs score and if Zero outs he is out for 2nd. out and other runners would go back to base previously occupied before the interference.

1) the correct rule reference is 7.09(g) (under the 2007 revisions).

2) The rule requires "willfully and deliberately" interfering (and being out of the running lane isn't sufficient)

3) The rule also requires that the interference be with a batted ball or with a fielder fielding a batted ball -- neither of which was present in your play.

way to go Bob
 

someone is paying attention, I don't have the 2007 version so my book is 7.09h. Yes, he did "intentionally and deliberately" interfere. Yes this was a thrown ball so batter/runner out for 3rd. out, no runs score! I will work with you any day Bob!

Apparently that someone isn't you. Read Bob's post again and pay specific attention to his third point.

GarthB
 

I am agreeing with him Mr. Garth if you read my post! I guess I confused you also!

Uh, yeah. Especially since he points out that this must involve a batted ball and you state that it involved a thrown ball. And then you indicate that the two of you are in agreement.

Yes, indeed, you are most confusing.

Gb
 

my reply to my original question was intended to see if anyone would notice what Bob noticed in my answer, I guess you don't agree with this so just let it go!

I agree with Garth that I don't seem to agree with Hawk21

That makes it much clearer.:rolleyes:

I frequently view, and occassionally post, but I have to ask a serious question.

Where does this forum get some of these posters?? :confused:

I'm thinking we could fill a large area, - surrounded with the razor barbed wire - with these guys/gals.

No your reply just showed you BLEW IT and dont' want to admit it! :rolleyes:

umpLarryJ
 

sorry but not the case. When I gave the answer, I just gave the rule ref. and said to read the rule, I didn't give you what rule 7.09 actually said not to make it obvious. I wanted guys to actually open the book and read the rule. Bob obviously did or even new the rule to come back with the correct answer.
Anyway, I know you have your opinion, but I know what I meant--Have a nice day!