What is the correct call?

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel

This is coming from an ump and more importantly an ex-player.
The guy is there to protect the battery on a FOUL ball...I know there is nothing in the rules, but this is an unwritten rule and just common sense...at 16U, you never know..It's his job to warn his teammates - "heads up" - no matter how fast a fair ball is coming their way..

You are not missing anything Rita...just one of those plays you have to just umpire..using the interference rule as Bobby cited..

I've never umpired a field that had the bullpen on the field. This is one good way to learn should I ever be on a field that does.

Rita

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by tballump

wouldn't the penalty be the same as if there were intentional interference by a fan, ball girl, or camerman in the big leagues? You just place the runners where they should be as if there was no interference. Of course the offensive team manager if he is like whitey herzog, should argue that his player is vince coleman's brother and would have scored on the play rather than just made 3rd base.

exactly!

[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.

[bob jenkins]

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

The correct answer, and with a rules reference (that I didn't check, but I believe to be correct).

After so many years on these boards, I am not surprised by the continued discussion and incorrect answers after bobby's post, but I still wonder why it happens.

[PeteBooth]

Ozzy Bobby nailed it. The relevant part of OBR 3.15 is in the Comment section.

If however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it that is considered INTENTIONAL interference REGARDLESS of what his thought process may have been.

In this OP we have an authorized person on the playing field who picks up a live ball. As the rules states regardless of what the players thought process was, the act of picking up the ball is considered Intentional Interference and the umpire has discretion on what penalty to impose.

Pete Booth

[ozzy6900]

I held off until the Protest Committee rendered the ruling (just to see if it got even more interesting). The Committee ruled that OBR 3.15 Comment did, in fact, cover the situation (thank you bobbybanaduck for the correct answer). I do not sit on the Committee but I was asked for an interpretation on the rule and the correct application.

The Protest Committee ruled that the umpires were wrong for the "do-over" and ruled that the game be replayed from the top of the 5th inning with R1 scoring and the BR at 2nd base. Both Managers were in agreement and the game was completed under the lights last night. The PU and BU were both informed of the ruling and they offered to officiate the replay. The Committee saw no problem with this as this is a Fall League. I did observe the game and all went well.

In my opinion, there are a lot of umpires out there that really need to brush up on the rules, especially the ones that you rarely run across. Not all of us are as fortunate as to have real bull pens (other than HS & College fields) so a rule such as this could very easily come into play.

[PeteBooth]

[

QUOTE=ozzy6900;544772]I

The Protest Committee ruled that the umpires were wrong for the "do-over" and ruled that the game be replayed from the top of the 5th inning with R1 scoring and the BR at 2nd base. Both Managers were in agreement and the game was completed under the lights last night.

Ozzy just curious this is Fall ball so why even bother picking up the game in the top of the 5th to begin with.

It's Fall ball so what's the point.

Also, you said that the umpires offered to do the game so I take it to mean they did not get paid (again) to show up.

Thanks

Pete Booth

[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?

[bobbybanaduck]

absolutely. if the ball would have rolled out of play for a GR double, then you have a good reason for leaving him at 2B and R1 at 3B with no argument.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Rita C

I've never umpired a field that had the bullpen on the field.

You need to get out more often. The majority of baseball fields have the bullpens down the left and right field lines.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

You need to get out more often. The majority of baseball fields have the bullpens down the left and right field lines.

Mybe where you live, but not everywhere.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Yes there is. Bobby has cited it repeatedly.

I'm sorry..what page does it say that there must be protection for players warming up on the field?

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel

I'm sorry..what page does it say that there must be protection for players warming up on the field?

The same page it says there must be bat boys, ball shaggers down the lines, etc. They don't have to bring someone out there, but if they want to, how many umpires are going to have a problem with it? "Authorized" does not mean required.

[PeteBooth]

On some law book page that says I can get sued if I see F1/F2 warming up with no protector and do nothing about it. Then God forbid a line shot hit's either F1/F2 and now the laywers get involved.

It's a safety issue which makes the "protector" an authorized person to be on the field.

Pete Booth