The Wave

[spots101]

Runners on 1st and 3rd. R1 steals on the pitch. F2 throws to F6. F6 catches ball behind the bag and immediately throws back to F2 in an attempt to put out R3 stealing home. (Double steal, duh.) Here's the twist. R1 waves his hands in the air as F6 releases the ball. Result is interference on R1 but what if at the time F6 released the ball R3 was within a step from home making it obvious that with or without the interference the runner would have scored no matter what. Do we throw umpire judgement (R3 would've scored anyway) in here or stick with the intereference call and disallow the run? Should I not be thinking so much and just call it like it is or are there situations like this where you overrule the rule? Suggestions/comments please.

[jicecone]

OBR 2.00a "Interference-
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interfers with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgement of the umpire, legally touched at the time of interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules."

"on any interference the ball is dead"

Your call upon determination that interference has occured, "Time , Dead Ball, Runner(R1) is out for interference, R3 returns to 3B."

Not quite sure what you mean by "overruleing the rule"?
I believe as stated above, the rule is quite specific on what to do.

[Rog]

re: "Here's the twist. R1 waves his hands in the air as F6 releases the ball. Result is interference on R1 but what if"

Sorry - - - there is no "Crying in baseball"; and, there are no "what if's" either!!!!!

per NAPBL (currently PBUC):

SECTION 4 - INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION

4.1 OFFENSIVE INTERFERENCE
Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play More specifically, if a runner fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball or if a runner hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, the runner shall be called out for interference.
Note that under the Official Rules, a fielder is protected while he is in the act of fielding a batted ball. In addition, note that a fielder is also pro-tected while he is in the act of making a play after he has fielded a batted ball. If a runner hinders or impedes a fielder after he has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, the runner shall be called out for interference. Furthermore, a runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If the umpire declares the batter; batter-runner; or a runner out for inter-ference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was, in the judg-ment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference unless otherwise provided by the Official Rules.
Play: In a rundown between third base and home plate, the runner from second base has advanced to and is standing on third base when the runner in the rundown is called out for offensive interference.
Ruling: The umpire shall send the runner standing on third base back to second base. The reasoning is that third base legally belongs to the runner in the rundown. The following runner has not legally reached third base at the time of interference and must therefore return to second base.
Play: In a rundown between third base and home plate, the runner from first base has advanced to and is standing on second base when the runner in the rundown is called out for offensive interference.
Ruling: The umpire shall allow the runner to remain at second base. The reasoning is that on interference, all runners return to the last legally touched base at the time of interference.
Play: Play at the plate on runner attempting to score; runner is called safe. A following play is made on the batter-runner, and he is called out for interference outside the three-foot lane.
Ruling: With less than two out, the run scores and batter-runner is out. With two out, the run does not count. The reasoning is that an intervening play occurred before the interference. Runners would return to base last legally touched at time of interference. However; with two out, the runner reached home on a play in which the batter-runner was out before he reached first base. (Note this clarification to Official Rule 2.00-Interference (a) casebook comment.)

4.3 WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE INTERFERENCE
Rules 7.09(g) and 7.09(h) were inserted in the Official Baseball Rules to add an additional penalty when a base runner or a batter-runner deliber-ately and intentionally interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball to deprive the defensive team of an opportunity to com-plete a possible double play. Keep in mind the rules provide that the run-ner or a batter-runner must interfere with the obvious attempt to break up a double play. A runner from third willfully running into the catcher fielding a pop fly ball, or a runner on second base deliberately running into a ground ball or allowing the ball to hit him to prevent a double play are examples that require the call of a double play under these rules.
Rule 6.05(m) was inserted in the Official Baseball Rules "to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play rather than trying to reach the base." Note the fol-lowing official interpretation:
If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball or attempting to throw a ball with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare the run-ner out for interference and shall also declare the batter-runner out for the interference of his teammate.
In sliding to a base, the runner should be able to reach the base with his hand or foot.
EXAMPLES:
1. Bases loaded, no outs, ground ball to short stop. Anticipating a double play, runner from second intentionally crashes into short stop and grabs him just as shortstop is beginning his throw to second.
Ruling: Runner from second is guilty of willfully and deliberately interfering with a fielder with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play. Runner from sec-ond is declared out and so is batter-runner. Runners return to first and third.
2. Runners on first and third, no outs. Runner on first is stealing as batter hits a ground ball to shortstop. Anticipating a double play, run-ner from first intentionally rolls into and grabs the second baseman who is covering second and waiting for the throw from the shortstop.
Ruling: Runner on first is guilty of willfully and deliberately inter-fering with a fielder with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play Runner from first is declared out and so is batter-runner. Runner returns to third.
3. Bases loaded, no outs, ground ball to short stop. Shortstop's throw to second retires the runner from first. However; anticipating a double play, runner from first intentionally slides out of the base line and crashes into the second baseman just as he is beginning his throw to first base. Runner is not able to reach second base with his hand or foot.
Ruling: Runner is guilty of willfully and deliberately interfering with a fielder with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play Batter-runner is declared out for runner’s interference, and runners return to second and third. Note in this example that if the runner had not been ruled out at second (i.e., if the throw pulls the fielder off the bag) and the run-ner had still intentionally interfered in the manner described, both he and the batter-runner would be declared out.
4. Runners on first and second, no outs. On hit and run play, batter hits ground ball to deep short. Runner from first makes clean slide at second and is ruled safe. However; the runner then grabs the sec-ond baseman's arm as he is throwing to first base.
Ruling: Runner from first is out for interference. However; batter is awarded first base and runner returns to second. The runner inten-tionally interfered with the second baseman's throw~ but he did not willfully and deliberately interfere with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play. The runner's intent in this case was to reach second safely, and subse-quently he interfered with the second baseman's throw to first. Consequently, he is the only player called out on the play
In plays of this nature, the umpire shall be governed by the intent of the base runner. If the umpire judges that the runner willfully and delib-erately interfered with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, he shall declare both the runner and batter-runner out. If this is not the case, the umpire shall declare only the runner out. Note, however; that if in these situations the runner has already been put out, then the runner on whom the defense was attempt-ing a play shall be declared out. (See Section 4.4.)

4.4 INTERFERENCE BY RUNNER ALREADY PUT OUT
If any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner; such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate. The runner should be able to reach the base with his hand or foot if he is attempting to break up a double play.

[jicecone]

Rog,

"Runners on first and second, no outs. On hit and run play, batter hits ground ball to deep short. Runner from first makes clean slide at second and is ruled safe. However; the runner then grabs the sec-ond baseman's arm as he is throwing to first base.
Ruling: Runner from first is out for interference. However; batter is awarded first base and runner returns to second. The runner inten-tionally interfered with the second baseman's throw~ but he did not willfully and deliberately interfere with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play. The runner's intent in this case was to reach second safely, and subse-quently he interfered with the second baseman's throw to first. Consequently, he is the only player called out on the play
In plays of this nature, the umpire shall be governed by the intent of the base runner. If the umpire judges that the runner willfully and delib-erately interfered with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, he shall declare both the runner and batter-runner out. If this is not the case, the umpire shall declare only the runner out. Note, however; that if in these situations the runner has already been put out, then the runner on whom the defense was attempt-ing a play shall be declared out."

I believe this is addressed in BRD2002 pg. 158 *307,

"New Off interp 178-307:PBUC STAFF: Arunner who is safe but who "willfullly and deliberatly" interferes with a fielder with the obvious intent to prevent a double play is out and so is the batter-runner, even if the fielder has not yet received a throw. (phone call to cc,12/26/01)."

Spots101, dont let all these plays get you mixed up because they are dealing with a batter-runner and a forced out. Your situation was not that scenario.

[Rog]

Even under my "OLD" references I would have still called R1 out.
Thanks for the update though - I've got to get new ones, real soon!!!!!

[spots101]

Ice Man, what I meant by overruling the rule had to do with the interference at second base....I know how to rule on interference and I did so correctly in the play but I was just taking the scenario one step further by thinking of the same play except that R3, at the exact time of the interference at second, had already reached or was one step away from home. Now, picturing this in your mind, you know that there is no way that the throw will retire the runner at home and in seeing this "overrule the interference rule" and allow the run to score anyway.

I know this is not the correct thing to do and like you said the rule is very specific on what to do and I think everyone knows that. However, was there ever a time in baseball rule history where the ump applied judgement to this part of the rule (meaning the actual application of the rule). There had to be judgement in calling the interference but does anyone know of any instances where it is ok to apply judgement when awarding the rule itself? Am I making any sense?

[ChetL]

Spots101:
The judgment call comes in when you decide to call interference in the first place. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

It seems obvious from the rule itself that there is no room for judgment in applying the penalty. The judgment call comes when you decide whether or not the rule applies to the situation in the first place.

You say: "I know this [allowing the run to score anyway] is not the correct thing to do and like you said the rule is very specific on what to do and I think everyone knows that."

If you know it's not the correct thing to do then why are you considering doing it?

BTW, I'm not trying to be confrontational here; I really just don't understand why you are asking if it's OK to blatantly go against the penalty described in the rulebook.

Chet

[jicecone]

Im not the history buff on baseball rules and others can probably help out here, but I believe that not to long ago there was discretion given to the umpire (Fed rules?), about double plays. Meaning, if the umpire deemed that the interference was minor and the defense did not have a chance to get the out at first, then there would only be an out for the interference.

Im am not aware of a scenario such as yours, having any other ruling.

[spots101]

Ice man, the example and word (discretion) you gave was what I was trying to get at. Unfortunately, my example and discription obviously was not put together very well. I apologize to those I may have confused.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by jicecone



"Runners on first and second, no outs. On hit and run play, batter hits ground ball to deep short. Runner from first makes clean slide at second and is ruled safe. However; the runner then grabs the sec-ond baseman's arm as he is throwing to first base.

Ruling: Runner from first is out for interference. However; batter is awarded first base and runner returns to second. The runner inten-tionally interfered with the second baseman's throw~ but he did not willfully and deliberately interfere with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play. The runner's intent in this case was to reach second safely, and subse-quently he interfered with the second baseman's throw to first. Consequently, he is the only player called out on the play.

Jicecone,

As umpires we need certain guidelines (it helps to have played the game) on what constitutes intentional behavior and also whether that behavior was "willfully and deliberately".

IMO, players rasing their hands holding another player, etc, are all Willful and Deliberate acts otherwise they wouldn't do it. In your play, the reason R1 grabbed F4's arm is so that F4 would not throw out R1 Plain and simple and therefore, we ring up 2 on this play.

In FED, the umpire has more leeway because in FED the language "Willfully and Deliberately" is ommitted, however, whenever another player grabs / holds another player it can mean for the most part only one thing "that runner is willfully and deliberately" trying to prevent the fielder from making a play.

Pete Booth

[jicecone]

I agree 100% with you Pete, I thought that it was not too many years ago the Fed did not subscribe to the automatic out at first, on the end of a double play. I was using this as the only scenario I know of, to establish some history on for interference situations. Im sure there is a lot more than what I touched upon.

But, thanks for the help.