When is a runner out for entering the dugout?

[kylejt]

OBR/LL rules. Two situations.

R3. Swing and miss on strike one, and a pass ball. R3 scores and goes in the dugout. Defensive dugout shouts "catchers interference!". PU confers with BU, and declare CI. BR awarded first base. Defense now wants R3 out for entering the dugout. PU puts R3 back on base. Right?

3-2 count. ball four called, but not shouted. BR thinks it's strike three, and goes in the dugout. PU calls him out for leaving the field. Right?

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by kylejt

OBR/LL rules. Two situations.

R3. Swing and miss on strike one, and a pass ball. R3 scores and goes in the dugout. Defensive dugout shouts "catchers interference!". PU confers with BU, and declare CI. BR awarded first base. Defense now wants R3 out for entering the dugout. PU puts R3 back on base. Right?

Unless there is a LL variation I am not familiar with, absolutely NOT Right.
Offense gets the option of the penalty or the play.
I cannot imagine a coach who would not prefer a run and batter still at the plate with the count 0-1, to R1/ R3 without the run.

And the D wanting R3, who scored, called out for "entering the dugout" is a new high for cluelessness in any league.

FWIW, I probably would not call out the batter in your second sitch, either.
"Entering the dugout" is a milestone for a BR who has given up his effort to run bases, it is not a separate and sufficient cause to declare him out. If the kid went to the dugout because he mistakenly believed I had called him out on strikes [because I failed to articulate my BALL decision - another reason to call EVERY pitch audibly], IN A LL GAME, I would probably correct the misperception and allow him to take his base.

[BretMan]

Title of post: When is a runner out for entering the dugout?

Two situations given: Neither of which is about a runner entering the dugout! One was a runner, until he scored and morphed into an offensive teammate. The other is a batter.

Knowing Kyle, from here and other boards, he knows how the above two situations should have been handled. That he is asking about them must mean he has an agenda. An agenda, I'm telling you!

[kylejt]

No agenda, promise.

[ljdave]

In what situation does PU confer with BU about interference at home plate, especially after the runner has since entered the dugout?

[DG]

Originally Posted by kylejt

OBR/3-2 count. ball four called, but not shouted. BR thinks it's strike three, and goes in the dugout. PU calls him out for leaving the field. Right?

So PU allowed him to go to the dugout after ball 4 and then calls him out? Lah me. Batters will definitely know the difference between ball 4 and strike 3 when I am behind the dish and if they are so stupid they head for the dugout anyway after ball 4 I will put a stop to that.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by ljdave

In what situation does PU confer with BU about interference at home plate, especially after the runner has since entered the dugout?

Anytime he wants.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ljdave

In what situation does PU confer with BU about interference at home plate, especially after the runner has since entered the dugout?

1) When the umpire realizes "after the fact" what he saw / heard and is looking for confirmation

2) When PU missed it (as often happens with newer umpires the first time this is seen / heard)


etc.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by kylejt

OBR/LL rules. Two situations.

R3. Swing and miss on strike one, and a pass ball. R3 scores and goes in the dugout. Defensive dugout shouts "catchers interference!".

Why would the defensive dugout be asking to be penalized?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

Why would the defensive dugout be asking to be penalized?

Possibilities:

1) They're just those clueless LL coaches you guys keep mentioning.

2) They're partially cluless and they thought it would negate the run because they know the part about runners only advance if forced but they don't know the part about the option.

3) The OP misspoke about which dugout yelled it out.

[kylejt]

3)

It was the offensive guys calling for CI. Sorry guys.

As for the clueless LL coaches, we have our fair share of those down at the ol' ball park. Not this time though. One dugout had two pretty savvy guys that went to Williamsport a couple of years ago, one is a HS coach the other a local legend in youth coaching. The other dugout had my 19 year old son it, and he's been to the one week and teaches umpire clinics now. Both sides were trying throw their knowledge around in this situation. One side wanted CI and to score the run at third, the other wanted R3 out for entering the dugout. Both sides knew what should have been called, but tried to sway my umpires.

It's just coaches being coaches.

[kylejt]

Here's the deal guys. I'm in charge of about 30 Junior umpires, ages 11 to 17. Most are pretty good, and some have gone to the week long in San Bernadino. But every once and a while I get to unwind some things that they've done, like the last two situations. I'm just looking for some guidance on how to handle them.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Possibilities:

1) They're just those clueless LL coaches you guys keep mentioning.

Personally, I would have substituted "LL" with, say, "rec ball." That way, no one group is more or less insulted than they should be.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

Personally, I would have substituted "LL" with, say, "rec ball." That way, no one group is more or less insulted than they should be.

I try to remember that at associaton meetings because the local LL assignor is a member or our group. But it has become an ingrained habit that is proving hard to break.

Most of us who refer to LL umpires use the term as a generic one for little boy ball. Like it or not, in many place of the country Little League has lost it's control of its brand much like Kleenix, Xerox and Asprin.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

Personally, I would have substituted "LL" with, say, "rec ball." That way, no one group is more or less insulted than they should be.

OK.

But FWIW, Kyle and I do real LL.