What is the correct call?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

Is the offending protecting player on the defensive or offensive team. Trying to remember if that matters.......

It does matter...this happened to me this past summer...the offense hit a screamer down the 1b line, probably similar to the OP. However the offense sent a player down the line to shag a foul ball from a previous pitch. The shagger grabs the ball assuming the batted ball to be foul as well.

I immediately killed the play place R1 at 2b and B/R at 1B...My justification was that I was not going to give R1 a free base (3B) because his own player caused the dead ball.

Had this been a defensive player (example: defensive player chasing a ball down the third base line) I would've awarded the bases that they would've reached had the interference not occurred...R1 to 3B, B/R to 2B...

That's how I would've ruled it.

Either way, my understanding is that as soon as somebody else touches the ball who shouldn't be on the field at that time and prevents the defense from making a play...there's got to be a call...

I realize that there's holes in my above post...(neutral ball boy/girl, base coaches, etc..)..but I don't want to type any more.

Who else has thoughts?

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

It does matter...this happened to me this past summer...the offense hit a screamer down the 1b line, probably similar to the OP. However the offense sent a player down the line to shag a foul ball from a previous pitch. The shagger grabs the ball assuming the batted ball to be foul as well.

I immediately killed the play place R1 at 2b and B/R at 1B...My justification was that I was not going to give R1 a free base (3B) because his own player caused the dead ball.

Had this been a defensive player (example: defensive player chasing a ball down the third base line) I would've awarded the bases that they would've reached had the interference not occurred...R1 to 3B, B/R to 2B...

That's how I would've ruled it.

Either way, my understanding is that as soon as somebody else touches the ball who shouldn't be on the field at that time and prevents the defense from making a play...there's got to be a call...

I realize that there's holes in my above post...(neutral ball boy/girl, base coaches, etc..)..but I don't want to type any more.

Who else has thoughts?

Why would the penalty be any different? While you are allowed by rule to put the runners anywhere you want, you aren't giving the offense anything more than they would have gotten anyway no matter color uniform the interfering player is wearing. By imposing different penalties depending on who does what you are effectively making $hit up. Consistency is a virtue. Seersucker is a fabric.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

The PU and BU now move their conference to the fence in front of me. I see what is about to happen and I just wave and tell them that I will be in the parking lot.

This call sounds right to me.

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

They ruled a dead ball and put R1 back at 1st, the BR back in the batter's box with the original count of 2-1. The game was protested.

I bet it was seeing as how the batter hit a fair ball.

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

intentional interference by a person authorized to be on the playing field

Impose such penalties so as to nullify the interference.

3.15

I would go with this one if I was on the field.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

Why would the penalty be any different? While you are allowed by rule to put the runners anywhere you want, you aren't giving the offense anything more than they would have gotten anyway no matter color uniform the interfering player is wearing. By imposing different penalties depending on who does what you are effectively making $hit up. Consistency is a virtue. Seersucker is a fabric.

I see your point...but you can't really have a one size fits all ruling here...the rule doesn't even say that. I wouldn't be making anything up. Why would I reward the offense for a mistake by somebody on their own team? Right or wrong, that was my rationale...certainly I'll read the rest of these threads and learn one way or another. thanks for your post!

[David B]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I see your point...but you can't really have a one size fits all ruling here...the rule doesn't even say that. I wouldn't be making anything up. Why would I reward the offense for a mistake by somebody on their own team? Right or wrong, that was my rationale...certainly I'll read the rest of these threads and learn one way or another. thanks for your post!

If the offense interferes, then I'm going to penalize accordingly. I'm not going to give them anything I don't have to.

Same as a player interfering with ball in front of the dugout.

Thanks
David

[bobbybanaduck]

You don't have to give them the world, you just HAVE to give them what would nullify the act of interference. Even if Ichiro was in right and David Ortiz was batting, a ball that went fair over the bag and ended up in the bullpen would result in Ortiz at 2B, ball interfered with or not. That being said, the only questions that remain are just how far R1 and the B/R would have advanced. If it was the offense's bullpen, then maybe your judgment would be that R1 would have only made it to 3B. If it was the defense's bullpen, maybe, just maybe, your judgment would have R1 scoring and maybe it would have been a triple. THAT inconsistency I can live with. Putting R1 at 2B and the B/R at 1B I don't buy.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

You don't have to give them the world, you just HAVE to give them what would nullify the act of interference. Even if Ichiro was in right and David Ortiz was batting, a ball that went fair over the bag and ended up in the bullpen would result in Ortiz at 2B, ball interfered with or not. That being said, the only questions that remain are just how far R1 and the B/R would have advanced. If it was the offense's bullpen, then maybe your judgment would be that R1 would have only made it to 3B. If it was the defense's bullpen, maybe, just maybe, your judgment would have R1 scoring and maybe it would have been a triple. THAT inconsistency I can live with. Putting R1 at 2B and the B/R at 1B I don't buy.

I agree.

Two issues: 1) what's the call? 2) where to put the runners?

Authorized person interference is the right call, and it doesn't matter whose team interfered: this is not like runner interference or coach's interference, so we're not penalizing anyone. The spotter was doing his job and protecting the folks in the bullpen. The remedy for this kind of interference is just that: a remedy, not a penalty.

With that in mind, where do the runners go? Clearly BR has a double at least. If he's a speedy guy and the ball park is big, I might give him 3B, which would then take care of R1. If not, I'm looking at R1 to decide whether he could have scored -- the count and number of outs might be relevant here, too, since if he was off with the pitch it's likely he scores on a double.

If I give either runner more than 2 bases, I will have a damn good explanation ready for the opposing coach. 2 bases is an easy sell here; 3 requires more justification, for instance "Coach, R1's fast and he was off with the pitch: in my judgment he would have scored on a double down the line."

Some coaches might insist that R1 cannot advance past 3B on a "ground rule double." That's not what this is: the ball did not leave the field, and the rules require nullifying the act of interference, not a strict 2-base award.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

You don't have to give them the world, you just HAVE to give them what would nullify the act of interference. Even if Ichiro was in right and David Ortiz was batting, a ball that went fair over the bag and ended up in the bullpen would result in Ortiz at 2B, ball interfered with or not. That being said, the only questions that remain are just how far R1 and the B/R would have advanced. If it was the offense's bullpen, then maybe your judgment would be that R1 would have only made it to 3B. If it was the defense's bullpen, maybe, just maybe, your judgment would have R1 scoring and maybe it would have been a triple. THAT inconsistency I can live with. Putting R1 at 2B and the B/R at 1B I don't buy.

I agree with this the most.

Fair is fair, and a bolt down the line that takes a right turn behind first is a double, period. A first-to-third scenario is allowable for B1, but not a Vince-Coleman's-brother scenario.

And, this is one of those make it up if you have to deals, but if you take the fairest, least complicated route to a ruling, it's more likely to be correct. In this case, as in most cases, the fairest ruling was the right one.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I agree with this the most.

Fair is fair, and a bolt down the line that takes a right turn behind first is a double, period. A first-to-third scenario is allowable for B1, but not a Vince-Coleman's-brother scenario.

And, this is one of those make it up if you have to deals, but if you take the fairest, least complicated route to a ruling, it's more likely to be correct. In this case, as in most cases, the fairest ruling was the right one.

point well taken...that makes sense...I've never heard this issue being discussed before so in my case, I knew the rule, just not how to interpret it so I had to make my own interpretation...if I could do it over...I'd probably lean in the direction of your post...but as we know...each situation is different...

do we look at where the ball would've gone had the interference not occurred...regardless of who (offense/defense) commits the infraction?