Suggested Reading Material

[GA Umpire]

I wonder, will this answer end the debate. It is the same ruling as others have given. No INT on the ODH by rule 7.11.

We've received a few emails to this question recently. Here is the question and our response to one of them:


This situation has been hotly debated on a few umpire forums. What is
your interpretation/opinion of the following situation?


"R1, R2, no outs. Batter hits ball to RF for a hit. R2 scores easily. By
the time F9 is getting the ball in, R1 is rounding 3B. F3 gets the throw
and turns and throws to F2. F3's throw is off line and is about 12 to 15
feet towards the 1B dugout side of HP. During all of this, the on deck
batter has come to pick the bat up. He has the bat in hand when the off
line throw hits it and goes out of play. There was no intent by the on
deck batter to hit the ball or even get in the way."


Do we have interference on the ODH?


Josh,

Thank you for your question. It does not surprise us that there is not a
consensus on umpire forums, as there is quite confusion about which
category these types of offensive members fall into. The reason we say
this is that sometimes umpires place them, along with players in an
on-field bullpen, under people authorized to be on the field.
We believe, though, that they fall under offensive team members. The rule
book requires, except for basecoaches, that offensive members vacate any
position in order for a fielder to field a thrown ball. Because it seems
apparent in your situation that the fielder was not, nor could be, in
position to field the ball, there is no interference. Since it was not
done intentionally, the ball is alive and in play. Had the umpire believed
that the on-deck hitter interfered with the fielder fielding the ball
(perhaps if there were more runners on which a play could be made on, or
if the throw were in closer proximity to the plate or the catcher),
interference could be called for the interference of his teammate.

This is similar to a situation where the basecoach gets in the way of a
first baseman moving over to field a batted ball clearly in the stands.
Since the ball could not reasonably be played on, it cannot be
interference even though the basecoach was not able to get out of his way.
This is not the same for a thrown ball, obviously, as the rule book
provides that a basecoach that unintentionally interferes with a thrown
ball will not be called for interference.

We hope that this helps in your ruling.

Sincerely,



The Wendelstedt Staff

Is this done now?