On-deck batter interferes

[David Emerling]

(FED rules)

How would you call this?

I had this happen the other day during a varsity HS game:

First, I need to give you a little background on the play so you realize how such a thing could happen.

It was the second game of a doubleheader between the same two teams. The second game was an absolute blowout. (Final score 22-3)

The winning team was batting, forever, with no end in sight. Walks, wild pitches, hits, errors ... it was a nightmare. The defense could hardly buy an out.

The catcher for the losing team was the starting pitcher for the first game and this kid was totally spent, not the least of all the reasons is that he had been getting pummeled with wild pitches in the dirt the entire game.

With the bases loaded and two outs, there was yet, again, another pitch in the dirt that bounced off the catcher and was deflected toward the batting team's on-deck circle. The third base coach had long since stopped sending runners, so R3 did not advance home although he could have easily. Further, the catcher had lost the energy to scramble after the ball and simply sauntered over to get it (obviously aware that the offense was no longer advancing their runners.) There was a general lack of urgency on the play on the part of both sides - which precipitated the on-deck batter to simply pick the ball up, much like it was a foul ball.

But it wasn't! It was a live ball.

Any penalty for this?

Hell, I just called R3 out for an offensive player intentionally interfering with a live ball while a play was in progress. The third base coach thanked me as he returned to the dugout. In fact, it was hailed as the "best call" of the game.

I'm fairly certain it was wrong - even when I called it.

But that play got me curious. I couldn't find anything in the rulebook that covers this although I'm sure there must be.

Any opinions for the rulebook answer to this?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Any opinions for the rulebook answer to this?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I'd assume to call it the same as a coach/player in the coach's boxes intentionally interfering with a play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Any opinions for the rulebook answer to this?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Did the act "hinder the defense from making a play" (or whatever the specific wording is)?

Given the specific facts, I'd have nothing but an admonishment not to do it again.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

The catcher for the losing team was the starting pitcher for the first game

Great coaching. No wonder the team stinks.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Great coaching. No wonder the team stinks.

The same thought occurred to me. I generally make the catcher throw the new ball back to the pitcher after a foul ball, but this kid was complaining about his arm so much that I started throwing them back for him.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Did the act "hinder the defense from making a play" (or whatever the specific wording is)?

Given the specific facts, I'd have nothing but an admonishment not to do it again.

You're thinking what I was thinking at the time. There really was no play but that's only because R3 chose not to advance. He could've easily.

I guess one could make an argument that any time a pitch gets away from the catcher with a runner on 3rd, by definition, there is a play. Maybe this "play" was just happening in super-slow motion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Did the act "hinder the defense from making a play" (or whatever the specific wording is)?

Given the specific facts, I'd have nothing but an admonishment not to do it again.

Agree. I had something similar on Thursday night. Batter takes ball 4 that gets by the catcher, rolls toward batting team on deck circle where the on deck batter picked it up and handed to the catcher. Defensive coach wants an out. I rule dead ball only. No play, no penalty, just dead ball.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Did the act "hinder the defense from making a play" (or whatever the specific wording is)?

Given the specific facts, I'd have nothing but an admonishment not to do it again.

Agree. Under the circumstances, even though you're dying for an out, probably not the correct call.

On the other hand, if the runner had been stealing home on the play in a normal game, the relevant rule would be:

Originally Posted by rule 8-4-2(g)

Any runner is out when:
his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3).... If the umpire is uncertain who would have been
played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out.

[ManInBlue]

22-3 - GREAT call. Assume the play, get an out. By rule you were correct. I'll leave it at that.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say to make up an out - but a wide zone, a technicality (as this one) - if they can't buy an out then give 'em a bail out.

[DG]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

if they can't buy an out then give 'em a bail out.

Obama would be proud of you.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DG

Obama would be proud of you.

Bush too, who initiated the bailouts.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by DG

Obama would be proud of you.

Still waiting for him to bail ME out!!!! I could force myself to live on $80 billion...it would be tight, but I'd make it.