Interference?

[sodo]

THis happened in a Colt league game that is operating uner NFHS rules. Runner on first - 1 out. Batter strikes out and catcher drops the ball. Runner at first takes off towards second & batter starts to run towards first and makes contact with the loose ball - accidentially. Umpire calls dead ball on contact and orders runner back to first. I contend that it is a live ball and incedental (sp) contact as the defense put the ball in play. There were several umpires at the game and they agreed with me. Not sure if it is the right call ot not. Any thoughts?

[dash_riprock]

Are you sure? Remember - the batter is out on strikes. He has not become a runner.

[sodo]

Good point - still not sure what I would call. What would happen if the batter was just hustling out of the box to the dugout and makes contact? I guess what has me thinking is that it was all incidental. Bad part is if the batter had any baseball knowlege he would not have taken off, but in summer leagues you see it all.

I did contact an official who does state clinics and he agreed that it should have remained a live ball. Funny part was that a HS coach was in the other dugout and thought I was nuts for saying live ball until the other guys in the crowd backed me. Hate to think we were all wrong as we are all licensed.

[DG]

Colt game under NFHS, interesting, since Colt is supposed to be OBR modified.

Possibly a situation not covered, I am not aware of a case play on it. But let's look at it logically, as we would have to to rule on it. If batter can run on strike not caught then the unintentional contact is legal, live ball, defense messed up by not catching the ball. But batter can't legally run in this situation, so he has put defense at disadvantage by unintentionally making contact with the ball. If he had interfered with catcher's throw after a K, the FED umpire might legally call out the runner if he thought catcher might have a play on the runner for a strike 'em out throw 'em out situation. He might do the same in this situation, if catcher had a chance to throw the runner out before the unintential contact occured. Absent that, calling the ball dead and sending the runner back to 1B seems reasonable.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I too have never seen a Colt game with NFHS rules. How bizarre.

I have interference, as the batter was out when he made contact with the ball. I don't feel that intent has anything to do with it. Why punish the defense for doing their job properly and rewarding stupidity? Return runner to 1st.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I too have never seen a Colt game with NFHS rules. How bizarre.

I have interference, as the batter was out when he made contact with the ball. I don't feel that intent has anything to do with it. Why punish the defense for doing their job properly and rewarding stupidity? Return runner to 1st.

If you have INT, you have to get an out too, and R1 is the only one left.

[bob jenkins]

NCAA has a specific AR on this -- the batter is (still) out, the ball is dead, no runners advance. IOW, it's another example of "weak interference"

I'd like to rule that same way in FED, but since they don't really have that concept in FED, it wouldn't surprise me that the answer is "R1 is out."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

NCAA has a specific AR on this -- the batter is (still) out, the ball is dead, no runners advance. IOW, it's another example of "weak interference"

I'd like to rule that same way in FED, but since they don't really have that concept in FED, it wouldn't surprise me that the answer is "R1 is out."

I agree, though I'd lean toward a stiffer penalty for the (stupid) play where the batter takes off to 1B, as opposed to the play where he is moving toward the dugout and inadvertently contacts the ball.

It makes a difference when players are doing what they're supposed to do.

[sodo]

I guess I should clarify. Even though we call it a Colt league here, it is more of a league to get players time that did not get it during the HS season, thus they operate it by using NFHS rules.

I scanned the NFHS rules and situation books from this year and I cannot really find any defining rulling for this. I could go with no call based on player intent and defense put the ball in play, dead ball based on non-runner contact (batter did strike out so he is not a base runner), and even calling base runner out if I thought catcher would have have a legitamate chance of geting him.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by sodo

I guess I should clarify. Even though we call it a Colt league here, it is more of a league to get players time that did not get it during the HS season, thus they operate it by using NFHS rules.

Colt League® is the property of PONY® Baseball. Here, we call this kind of league "Coaches League," and it is used during the summer and fall to evaluate the talent of the returning varsity, JV and Frosh talent, and it uses NFHS rules.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Colt League® is the property of PONY® Baseball. Here, we call this kind of league "Coaches League," and it is used during the summer and fall to evaluate the talent of the returning varsity, JV and Frosh talent, and it uses NFHS rules.

Around here it's PAL. Same concept.

[sodo]

If we call the runner back or out for interference, what about this situation. Runner at second, batter hits ground ball and gets thrown out at first. Runner on second takes off. On the transfer the fielder looses the ball and the batter/runner hits the ball as he runs by first and knocks it to the outfield. Do we dead ball it and bring the runner back? My iterp would be to play on.......is this somewhat the same situation as the original thread other than that a dopey batter getting struck out and running?

[mbyron]

Not the same: in your sitch the BR has a right to overrun 1B (he's doing what he's "supposed" to).

In the OP, a batter out on strike 3 with 1B occupied and less than 2 outs has no right to run the bases.

[SAump]

It use to be a common discussion among umpires whether the defense should know the situation or not. FED issued a ruling requiring the umpire to give voice to the defensive player. The umpire should yell, "Batter's Out," as soon as he notices the "B/r" attempting to reach 1B when 1B is occupied and there are less than 2 out.

[SAump]

There is a similar scenario where the batter takes ball 4 and is awarded 1B. The batter attempts to toss his bat back towards the dugout at the same time the catcher attempts to pick off the runner on 3B. Many claim that this is interference on part of the batter.

Think about the situation as it relates to the OP. There is a very fine line here too and the defensive coach will be out there requesting why the PU didn't call interference. The PU has to be on top of it before it becomes a "what just happened" moment.