WHAT'S YOUR CALL!

[etbaseball]

If anyone has experienced this play, please relay what action, if any, you took to resolve this issue. This occured today in a Federation game.

One out, R-1 breaks for 2nd base on a 3-2 pitch to B-1. The pitch is ruled a ball, however B-1 crosses in front of the plate and interferes with F-2's attempt to retire R-1 at second.

Can this be interference if it's ball four?

The F-2's throw winds up in center field and R-1 proceeds to 3rd.

What's the call?

How about the same set of circumstances, except the runner is R-2 attempting to steal 3rd base with ball four to the batter who interfers with F-2 trying to retire R-2 at third. What do we have?

I'll wait for you answers, thanks ......

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by etbaseball
If anyone has experienced this play, please relay what action, if any, you took to resolve this issue. This occured today in a Federation game.

One out, R-1 breaks for 2nd base on a 3-2 pitch to B-1. The pitch is ruled a ball, however B-1 crosses in front of the plate and interferes with F-2's attempt to retire R-1 at second.

Can this be interference if it's ball four?

The F-2's throw winds up in center field and R-1 proceeds to 3rd.

What's the call?

How about the same set of circumstances, except the runner is R-2 attempting to steal 3rd base with ball four to the batter who interfers with F-2 trying to retire R-2 at third. What do we have?

I'll wait for you answers, thanks ......

R1 moving on a full count, B1 hinders the catcher's throw after a call of ball four: A good case can be made for an interference call. One does not know what the stealing runner might do. He might overslide second and be tagged out, for example.

Certainly, with 0 or 1 out if the runner advancing is R2, you will call batter interference immediately, call him out, and return R2 to second. (With two out the half inning is over, of course.)

I believe a better mousetrap is to treat the play as if it were weak interference; that is, nobody is out, but runners are not allowed to advance. Other examples are: batter's backswing interferes with a catcher's attempt to glove the pitch, or the batter interferes with the return toss.

I would simply stop play and order it resumed with runners on second and first, all the while realizing there is no specific rule citation (other than 10-2-3g).

[etbaseball]

CC -

Thanks for the response. I'm please to say that my thinking on both of these examples was to balance the decision, and rule exactly as you did, in both cases.

I believe it's a simple explanation to the offensive coach that his batter altered F-2's attempted throw to second and I couldn't award R-1 third on the overthrow; not when his batter had something to do with the gain.

Thanks Carl......

[whiskers_ump]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by etbaseball
[B]If anyone has experienced this play, please relay what action, if any, you took to resolve this issue. This occured today in a Federation game.

One out, R-1 breaks for 2nd base on a 3-2 pitch to B-1. The pitch is ruled a ball, however B-1 crosses in front of the plate and interferes with F-2's attempt to retire R-1 at second.

Can this be interference if it's ball four?

I would be interested in knowing how and why you would have
interference here. Post does not state batter is lefthanded,
so logically BR must cross in front of the
plate to go to the awarded 1st base {ball four}. R1 is now
entitled, in fact forced to advance to 2B. I cannot see an
interference call. If F2 dumbly threw the ball into center
field, then hopefully offense was alert enough to take full
advantage of the situation. The only way I could see calling
interference is if batter is waving arms while crossing over
to get to 1B.

glen

[etbaseball]

Papasmurff ...

Actually, the error that occured was that the plate umpire pointed at the batter and declared interference, presumably a knee jerk reaction which, off course, was totally unwarrented with a ball four being declared. My guess is that he created his own pile of sh--, by opening his mouth to begin with. However, as CC explained, one could have a batter-runner who had just received an award of first base on ball four somehow interfer with the catchers throw to second base, it's not impossible; highly unlikely, but not impossible. I think most good umpires would have just ignored the action, with the interpertation that the BR was just proceeding to first base. NO CALL was what should have happened. Now because the ump blew the call he needed to rely on 10-2-3g in order to put the runner, who advanced to third on the errant throw, back on second base.

[Bfair]

Ed, there's really one issue that really bothers me in this situation.........
The batter ain't got ball four and hasn't walked until the official declares it.

Now, most umpires I know are not yelling "ball" at the smack of the glove. In fact, many have 1.5-2 second delays in their timing. So, how long does it take a catcher to glove the pitch and release the throw? With that in mind, has the batter yet become a runner when he interferes with the catcher?

While you seem quite willing to make this an umpire error, the catcher may not know what the call of the pitch is going to be, yet he has to react to the situation---a stealing runner.

Timing of the call could have a lot to do with the play that developed. If the batter received ball four, he has a right to advance. If he hasn't received ball four, then he shouldn't be in front of the plate.

How fast is your timing?


Just my opinion,

Freix

[etbaseball]

Freix -

The only comment I'll make is this. The moment the ball passes by the plate it's a ball or a strike. Not one, two or three seconds later.

I agree that most umpires, the good ones, have the desired timing which will be, as you stated, delivered 1.5-2 seconds after the specific action in question. The proclamation of the umps decision should not, however, influence the time the pitch literally became a ball. As you know, quite often the batter will know immediately that the pitch was a ball and start moving towards first base.

I don't think that I would use the criteria that the umpire did not announce his call and, therefore, becuase he didn't rule, nothing can happen until he does. BTW the foundation behind the timing that we all stress is designed to allow the umpire a moments opportunity to mentally review the action which just occured. Had the umpire done that in the example stated, I doubt if he would have pointed and annouced interference.

So, considering that, along with the issue that the defense should be aware of 'game situations,' I would think that the only prudent action would be for the umpire to recognize that the 'easy sell' on this situation is a NO CALL for batter interference.

Remember the often used quote ... "don't go picking boggers." Here's a place where somebody picked something and then found it necessary to use 10-2-3g.

[ref5678]

I had this happen once. First thing i did was kill the play. Then I gave R1 second and the batter runner first.

[TwoBits]

The batter became a runner at ball four. A runner cannot be called for interference if hit by a thrown ball unless he interferred intentionally (or was struck running to first base and not in the runner's lane which the batter-runner had not reached in this instance). The ball remains live.

[Edited by TwoBits on Apr 9th, 2002 at 03:08 PM]

[greymule]

As for 1.5 to 2 seconds after the pitch to make the call, I was watching some tapes of World Series games from the fifties and sixties, and those umps called the pitches immediately. They called plays on the bases very quickly, too, much quicker than today. I know we're all supposed to wait, but I wonder what the justification is. What was discovered between then and now that makes waiting a better practice? Personally, I prefer to call pitches immediately after they hit the glove.

PS. The umps in the tapes also called strikes at the letters and rarely called a checked swing a strike.

[Bfair]

Fed Rule 8
Baserunning
SECTION 1 WHEN BATTER BECOMES A RUNNER
ARTICLE 1. A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home base in the listed order when:

c. an intentional base on balls is awarded, or a fourth ball is called by the umpire; [my emphasis]

A base on balls is based on the declaration of ball four, not a pitch passing the plate area. If it were based merely on the ball passing the plate area, it would totally negate the concept of the pitch being declared a ball or a strike by the umpire. It's HIS decision that counts regardless of where the pitch is.

The basic concept of interference is that an offensive player should not interfere with the defense's effort to retire a runner with exception of certain needs of the offense. Needing to advance to 1B before ball four is called is not a need allowed by rule.

At the time of the pitch when the runner broke for 2B he did not know if the pitch was a ball, strike, hit, foul, or HBP. At the time that F2 initiates his throw, it's quite possible he does not know if the pitch was a ball or a strike. That could be a reason for his play as opposed to the stupidity of playing upon a runner forced to 2nd due to a walk to the batter. Should he delay his play on advancing R1 because HE thought the pitch was a ball---regardless of what PU thinks? Should the runner start to 1B because HE thinks it was a ball---regardless of what the PU thinks? Even after declared a ball, there is still possibility R1 may come off the base after touching it. So, did the batter interfere with a play attempt before or after the base on balls? Quite possibly so.

While I'll not argue that Carl's answer is not unreasonable, it could only be supported by 10-2-3g regarding points not covered by the rules. However, an interference call is supported by the batter interference rule (at time of interference), and by rule 8-1-1c (shown above). A base on balls is not awarded until the umpire calls ball four. If interference occurred before that declaration, a ruling of batter interference is supported by rule. If interference is supported by rule, then 10-2-3g is not since the point would be supported by rule.

While I am not necessarily advocating an interference call on the play described, I am saying it is not necessarily a wrong call. Certainly if R1 overslid 2B, an interference call could be a very viable potential---supported by rules.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[bob jenkins]

I think you could also extend 7.3.5I to this play -- it's a little more obvious that there's a play in the case than in the instance in this thread.

[etbaseball]

Bob -

I'd be more than willing to listen to the argument offered at 7.3.5l, as you say, however I don't have a 7.3.5l in my Federation rule book. ??? Please explain. Are you refering to 7-3-5a or 7-3-5c ???

[Bfair]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
I think you could also extend 7.3.5I to this play -- it's a little more obvious that there's a play in the case than in the instance in this thread.

Bob, I looked at 7.3.5I but knew if I showed it someone would accuse me of comparing apples and oranges. This caseplay shows, however, that the batter can be out for unintentional interference following a walk:

7.3.5 SITUATION I: With a runner on third base and one out, B3 receives ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R7. The ball contacts the bat in mid-air and is deflected into dead-ball territory.
Ruling: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for the interference. (7-3-5).

What's interesting to note about that caseplay is that they include under rule 7-3-5 which deals with batter interference, not runner interference.

Also note caseplay 7.3.5C:

7.3.5 SITUATION C: With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1.
Ruling: B3 is out for interference. If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base.

Now, the interesting note about this caseplay is that despite the batter having struck out, the Fed calls him out for batter interference. It certainly refutes the fact that some have argued regarding the pitch passing the plate as being the determining factor.

Both Fed caseplays treat the batter as a batter until he has legitimately cleared the plate area after his batting turn, and both caseplays continue to hold the batter responsible for his actions as a batter despite his completing his turn at bat.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Bfair]

Originally posted by greymule
As for 1.5 to 2 seconds after the pitch to make the call, I was watching some tapes of World Series games from the fifties and sixties, and those umps called the pitches immediately. They called plays on the bases very quickly, too, much quicker than today. I know we're all supposed to wait, but I wonder what the justification is. What was discovered between then and now that makes waiting a better practice? Personally, I prefer to call pitches immediately after they hit the glove.

PS. The umps in the tapes also called strikes at the letters and rarely called a checked swing a strike.

I had watched the replays of the great 1975 WS between the Red Sox and the Reds. What I really noticed (either in game 6 or 7) was the plate umpire's head height. It looked like he was hiding behind the catcher. Evaluators around here would have torn him up on his plate mechanics for that.

Also, in the Gerry Davis platework tapes they talk about many factors---including head height. Yet elsewhere in the tape they show replays of Durwood Merrill doing the dish with his head almost even with that of the catcher. That's not trying to knock Merrill, only to say that not everything is perfection---even in the bigs. However, it could support the saying that if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Things have changed and will continue to change.


Just my opinion,

Freix