Umpire interference?

[mbyron]

Everyone's familiar with the umpire interference (UI) where the BU in the infield gets hit by a batted ball which an infielder could have a play on. We kill it, award BR 1B, and other runners return unless forced.

But there's another kind of UI: when PU interferes with F2's attempt to retire a runner who's stealing, we kill it and send the runner back.

Had a situation last weekend that, I now think, probably should have been UI. I was BU.

R2 stealing, outs don't matter. F2 comes up, steps on umpire's foot, throw sails into LF. (This is the same play I posted in another thread, where F5 landed on the runner and I called OBS, but that's another story.)

As we discussed the call I had made on F5, my partner mentioned that the throw was so bad because F2 had stepped on his foot. I asked him whether that wasn't UI (and explained the rule to him). He decided not to call it, since he hadn't moved: F2 had simply put his foot in the wrong place.

This was clearly his call, and he understood the rule, so I didn't argue with him. If I had been PU, I probably would have ruled UI on myself, on the grounds that, even if I'm in my usual position, F2 should have an unhindered play on the runner stealing.

I don't know the enforcement of this rule, and don't have the MLBUM. I would appreciate any guidance.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Everyone's familiar with the umpire interference (UI) where the BU in the infield gets hit by a batted ball which an infielder could have a play on. We kill it, award BR 1B, and other runners return unless forced.

But there's another kind of UI: when PU interferes with F2's attempt to retire a runner who's stealing, we kill it and send the runner back.

Had a situation last weekend that, I now think, probably should have been UI. I was BU.

R2 stealing, outs don't matter. F2 comes up, steps on umpire's foot, throw sails into LF. (This is the same play I posted in another thread, where F5 landed on the runner and I called OBS, but that's another story.)

As we discussed the call I had made on F5, my partner mentioned that the throw was so bad because F2 had stepped on his foot. I asked him whether that wasn't UI (and explained the rule to him). He decided not to call it, since he hadn't moved: F2 had simply put his foot in the wrong place.

This was clearly his call, and he understood the rule, so I didn't argue with him. If I had been PU, I probably would have ruled UI on myself, on the grounds that, even if I'm in my usual position, F2 should have an unhindered play on the runner stealing.

I don't know the enforcement of this rule, and don't have the MLBUM. I would appreciate any guidance.

If F2 just came up and threw (i.e. he didn't go out of his way to attempt to contact PU) then I have interference. I would have called the play you described "interference" even when I was a MiLB umpire.

There is no requirement that the umpire's movement initiate or contribute to the contact.

From J/R:

"R1, left handed batter. After receiving a pitch, the catcher twists to throw a pickoff to first base. Despite bumping the mask of the umpire, the catcher throws to a fielder at first. (The runner is not immediately retired on the catcher's throw): time is imposed, the interference enforced..."

Note that in the J/R example, the umpire did not initiate the contact. In fact, the example does not even state that the umpire moved. The only movement that occurs in the example is that the catcher "twist(ed) to throw." Irregardless, according to J/R, it is still umpire interference.

In your example, the umpire did not initiate the contact...but it does not matter as there was contact. Your partner should have called UI.

As an aside...long before I was an umpire of any competence, in the early 1990's I actually saw this called in a MLB game that I attended. The batting coach for the Red Sox got tossed as a result.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbyron

He decided not to call it, since he hadn't moved: F2 had simply put his foot in the wrong place.

What if...

He hadn't moved, the catcher drew back to throw and his throwing hand hit the umpire square in the mask? I wouldn't have a problem calling UI on that one.

The rule doesn't say, "If the umpire doesn't move, there is no interfrence", or, "If the catcher moves into the umpire, there is no interference". It just says, "The umpire interferes with the catcher making a throw". So, "I didn't move", isn't really a good justification for not making the UI call.

I think that the reason for this rule- one of only two possible Umpire Interference rulings- is the fact that the plate umpire is always going to be in close proximity to F2. Any contact, no matter who moved or who initiated it, can affect the outcome of the play. Give the benefit of the doubt to the defense if there is any contact at all and the play is altered.

As described, I would call UI on the play offered.

[cshs81]

Scenario: F2 goes to throw out a runner but drops the ball. One or two man crew. The homeplate umpire comes out from behind the catcher to get a better view of the play. As he does , he inadvertently kicks the ball as the catcher is reaching for it.

Anything?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by cshs81

Scenario: F2 goes to throw out a runner but drops the ball. One or two man crew. The homeplate umpire comes out from behind the catcher to get a better view of the play. As he does , he inadvertently kicks the ball as the catcher is reaching for it.

Anything?

This is nothing: F2 erred in dropping the ball, so I'm not helping the defense here.

Thanks law and Bret for confirming my assessment of the play. Next time I'll push PU a little harder.

I think that if we had ignored the OBS on the OP and gone with UI, we might have had an issue with a coach, since enforcing UI would have involved a run coming off the board. OTOH, they were mercied in that game even with the run...

[David B]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Everyone's familiar with the umpire interference (UI) where the BU in the infield gets hit by a batted ball which an infielder could have a play on. We kill it, award BR 1B, and other runners return unless forced.

But there's another kind of UI: when PU interferes with F2's attempt to retire a runner who's stealing, we kill it and send the runner back.

Had a situation last weekend that, I now think, probably should have been UI. I was BU.

R2 stealing, outs don't matter. F2 comes up, steps on umpire's foot, throw sails into LF. (This is the same play I posted in another thread, where F5 landed on the runner and I called OBS, but that's another story.)

As we discussed the call I had made on F5, my partner mentioned that the throw was so bad because F2 had stepped on his foot. I asked him whether that wasn't UI (and explained the rule to him). He decided not to call it, since he hadn't moved: F2 had simply put his foot in the wrong place.

This was clearly his call, and he understood the rule, so I didn't argue with him. If I had been PU, I probably would have ruled UI on myself, on the grounds that, even if I'm in my usual position, F2 should have an unhindered play on the runner stealing.

I don't know the enforcement of this rule, and don't have the MLBUM. I would appreciate any guidance.

If the umpire thinks he caused the bad throw then call it. I don't think I would call it unless I really thought I had caused the interference.

If F2 moves back into me, then he probably is not going to get the call, but that's not going to happen in real baseball.

I get so far behind the F2 that's not a problem anymore.

Thanks
David