Ball Hits the ondeck batter, Read on!!
 

Situation

Bases loaded 2 outs.
Popup to 2nd base, dropped
Runner from 3rd scores
On deck batter goes to the plate to pickup the bat and chest bump the runner who just scored
1st base throws the ball home to attempt to get the runner who was advancing from 2nd
The ball hits the on deck batter(who is in the area of the plate) and goes up the 3rd base line
All runners score and the batter ends up on 3rd.

The ruling on the field, no interference or obstruction, all runs score play ball.

Please tell me that this was incorrect.


Popcorn

Hmmm,
 

Why would you want me to lie to you?

T

Ok, so could you point me in the right direction for the rule that allows the on deck batter to move into the field of play and be struck by a live ball with no penalty? Because if that is the rule it would only make sense to send them in front of the plate on any occasion when there may be a play at home. Had it hit the runner who scored I would think that 7.09 (d) or (e) would apply. The on deck guy being there is what I can't find a rule that applies to that specific situation.

Popcorn

popcorn,

He's an "offensive teammate". Unless his action is deemed to be intentionally interfering by the umpire, this is nothing but "E3".

There is a rare confluence of factors that might actually convince the umpire that interference should be called - but it doesn't sound like that's what happened.

JM

Jm,

Thanks for the reply. My only problem is that by the on deck player leaving the on deck area and moving in front of the plate into the field of play and chest bumping his team mate, how would that not be considered "hindering or impededing" the fielder. The fact that the fielder was unable to make a play on the ball due to the on deck batter and the just scored runner celebrating in front of the plate would by the very definition of "hindering and impeding"

Thanks,

Popcorn

So now the runner and OD batter are in front of the plate - not just in the area - and you want us to believe that a runner who just scored is somehow in front of the plate?

What's your stake in this?

There's a difference between "hindering a fielder" and "hindering the ball"

Yes, both are actually in front of the plate, and the on deck batter is on the left hand batters box side of the plate in front. He started the play in the on deck circle on the 3rd base side. And yes he and the player who had just scored were chest bumping in front of the plate. I can only assume they thought the game was over as they had just scored the go ahead run. When the no call was questioned the umpire stated there was no interference because "he had just scored". When I pointed out that the person who just scored was not who was hit, but the person who was hit and rolling around on the ground, again in front of the plate was the on deck batter, all the way over from the 3rd base side. He had no answer at that point other than to say no interfernce or obstruction.
And yes I was very much involved, I was coaching the defensive team. Wish they caught better, this never would have happened! I am having a difficult time understanding how two players celebrating in the field of play and being struck by a live ball thrown to the plate to try preventing one of their team mates from scoring is not a violation of any baseball rule.
I guess I should have been more specific in my original post as to the precise circumstances, but it seemed pretty cut and dried to me.

But I admit I had a dog in the fight.

Thanks again,

Popcorn

I appreciate the fact that you appeared to have taken some time to at least look up a rule. If I may suggest, you might want to contact your state rules clinician and ask for an official interpretation of that rule. That being said, there are some very qualified people on here that know at least as much as your state clinician.

Without seeing the play, we're left to make certain assumptions based on your version of the story...which may lead to you not hearing what you want to hear. Keep an open mind and absorb what some of these guys are writing.

Good luck

I'm normally right on with Bob, Tim C, JM, and Rich, but this seems like a CLEAR violation of 7.09 (d) or (e)

Seems like in the play mentioned, the players had enough time to get out of the way (in fact, they had enough time to celebrate, so it wasn't a case of the runners/teammates having to disintegrate to avoid interfering). Also, there was a definite (and realistic) attempt to retire a runner when the interference happened. So, I don't see much justification on passing on this...

bossman,

Why thank you for the compliment. :o

I've seen quite a few "post scoring" celebrations by an offensive teammate. (Usually, either the ODB who has come over to " base coach" the runner trying to score, or a "just scored" runner) and I have neve seen one interfere with a play at the plate.

Almost invariably, the "celebration" occurs away from the plate on the 3BLX. If the throw hits that cluster, it's a bad throw.

If an offensive teammate enters the natural throwing lane on a play at the plate, I would not hesitate to call the runner out for interference. A "just scored" runner, of course, would be allowed some latitude in this regard.

JM

I may be off-kilter, so if I am, tell me why:

Fed 3-2-3: ...nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner.
PENALTY: The ball is dead immediately and the runner is out.

5-1-1e: Ball becomes dead immediately when: (e) there is interference by ... any person (3-2-3)

OP stated the ball was thrown home in an attempt to put out R2. 3-2-3 is in effect. I added 5-1-1e for those nay-sayers that would say "But that's in the section on actions by coaches."

I have INT on this play for one reason - the ODH was in front of the plate when he was hit by the ball - right where you would expect a true throw from F3. There is no reason for him to be in fair territory. In fact, I think the chest bumping was just a decoy in an attempt to conceal his true motive - to intentionally interfere with a live thrown ball.

3-2-3 protects a base coach from INT if a thrown ball unintentionally contacts him (thanks FED, for requiring me to determine the intent of a baseball) in foul territory. Therefore, such immunity to INT is lost if the contact is intentional or occurs over fair ground. I think the same standard should apply to the ODH (as does the rest of 3-2-3).

An interesting side note: 3-2-3 begins: "No offensive team personnel, other than the base coach..."

Webster defines "offensive" as, among other things, unpleasant; disgusting; insulting.

Therefore, by FED rule, base coaches are unpleasant, disgusting and insulting.

As JM correctly points out, this is a judgment call all the way. Naturally, the defensive coach who brought us the case thinks that the ODH was directly in front of the plate and in the throwing lane. The calling umpire did not see it that way.

Before we throw our unnamed colleague under the bus, let's just agree:
1. that JM has posted the correct rule, and
2. that such "celebrations" are common and legal, and
3. that it's more likely that in the OP there was a bad throw than that the offense was secretly conspiring to maneuver their chest-bump into the throwing lane.

If the PU judges that it was a conspiracy, then by all means call the INT.

To conclude that, you'd have to assume the poster was lying through his teeth.
Plus, the explanation from the ump for not calling INT was "he just scored." Totally irrelevant and wrong.

Let's agree on something else: that the original poster was telling the truth, and that the ODH got hit by the throw in fair territory, in front of the plate, and that the throw was on the money to retire a runner attempting to score.

Now what do you have?

While I stand by this general distinction, there's a rule that says if a coach interferes in fair territory, it's automatically interference. (okay, I probably could write that sentence better).

I'd apply the same general philosophy to the play at hand.

I'm not assuming anything: on the contrary, I'm suspending belief about credibility here. Objectively, it seems much more likely that the throw was offline: that's far, far more common than offensive teammates going onto the field during play.

I've already agreed that this is a judgment call, and if the PU judges that the players were in fair territory it's an easy INT call. So I'm not sure what your point is there.

My point is to our colleagues on the forum: don't get talked into a bad INT call here by a coach who insists that offensive teammates may not be on the dirt circle. A bad throw into a crowd does not warrant INT.

As for the PU's explanation: sometimes in the heat of the moment we don't give the right answer. Took me a minute or two last weekend to come up with the expression, "malicious contact supersedes obstruction." His explanation was wrong, but understandable; and he might have another one today.

That's all I needed to hear. If you said that before, I missed it.

Or he's a coach and sees it the way he wants to see it. That happens, and I wouldn't call it lying. In the end, that's why schools hire us.

I can appreciate that, but there is other evidence as well:

1. The coach wasn't dumped.
2. The coach blamed his fielder (and not the umpire) for the runs
3. The explanation the coach asked for was entirely reasonable.
4. The explanation he received was not, but he didn't persist.

I know a great many coaches who would have reacted very differently.

Agreed 100%. When we have something goofy happen with a retired or just scored runner, we always have to consider (1) was there a play going on to interfere with? and (2 - more importantly) was the player doing what he's supposed to be doing.

In JM's example of "interfering" around 3BLX - the runner was doing what he's supposed to be doing (going to the dugout) and there was no play (since the throw passed the catcher, the scored runner was no longer interfering with the play at home plate). In the original play, he was NOT doing what he's supposed to be doing, therefore we have interference.

Prime example we see all the time is on an uncaught 3rd strike, the BR runs to first and accidentally kicks the ball. He was doing what he was supposed to be doing (going to first) and there was no intent to interfere, so it's nothing.

Objectively, it seems much more likely that the throw was offline: that's far, far more common than offensive teammates going onto the field during play.


If the throw were up the line I wouldn't have had a problem, I know the difference. It seems as if there is a presumption of guilt, and lack of objectivity by some of the posters. There are coaches who can be objective and listen to reason, just like there are umpires who will do the same. I was in no way rude to the umpire, I asked my question, he gave the answer and we moved on. The fact that I thought he was incorrect lead me here for additional clarification. I admitted to him on the spot that I did not know the specific rule that applied to this situation, it just seemed wrong. While I am certain I have not seen or coached as many games, as many of you on this board have seen or officiated, in the ones I have seen, I had never seen anything like this play that happened in this game. And the explanation that "he just scored" did not seem to do it justice.

Thanks for your help,


Popcorn
p.s. I have never been run in a baseball game, once in a basketball game, but thats a whole different story.

Easygoer, you need to understand that umpires are routinely questioned about what the call should have been in another game, and almost invariably the scenario is presented so that the questioner gets the answer he wants. Any experienced umpire would be careful answering such a question and would tend to err on the side of caution.

Personally, if I answer such queries, I always include the caveat that I can only give my opinion based on what was described, and that with judgement calls, the official that made the call may have seen things differently.

In your case, based on the description you gave, it does seem that this was likely interference. But we weren't there. And we don't know what the umpire saw.

Take it easy on them
 

The same scenario was discussed in the summer. The ball hit the bat held by the ODH and sailed into DBT. Most of the umps agreed to award R1 and B/R 2 bases for a ball thrown out of play. Sounds crazy, I know. Now it appears that no one read your OP before discussing the same ruling that was presented this summer.

After many pages on that old thread, the person who started the thread twisted the throw near the plate area to one that was offline drawing the catcher away from the plate. It occurs all the time around here. Apparently, this was enough to substantiate the no interference ruling for a large group of umpires on this website. Contact by offensive coach, player, and other authorized field personnel with a bad throw is grounds for a NO interference ruling.

I tried to point out that it may also have been ruled interference based of ODH's indifference to the play at the plate. The ODH's actions alone may have led to the interefence with a play at the plate. If one feels the ODH had a responsibility to avoid contact with a thrown ball that was live and in play (similar to a runner's obligation to avoid a live batted ball), he might agree with me. I stated this may also apply to basecoaches outside the coaching box. But the opinion of the board of directors was to treat the offensive personnnel as "part of the field" and ignore the obvious interference with any "thrown" ball.

I did want to point out that the defense did miss a play on a fly ball. Evans and Roder have a difference of opinion on the play and provide a different umpire interpretation as far as base awards from the Wendelstedt group and others here who support NO interference. I'll exit the discussion at this point.

This was incorrect. Int. would have been a just call for these two OTM's "intentionally choosing to not do" what the rules clearly say they must.

But one thing is true, it was not "obstruction"

Necessary
Available
Possible

Tell the PU to get the bat out of the way.

Careful w/ Plate Interference
 

Wouldn't that lead to an ejection?

A play at the plate has occurred where the action of the runner who scored, the "bat" boy, and the one who has come over to " base coach" the runner trying to score combined to block the plate umpire from clearly seeing a very close play at the plate. The PU had to literally shove a "teammate" out of the way before declaring his call.

Instant replay and rules regarding interference by the offensive team "behind" the play are not available to the umpire. The fact that the offense can and did block the sight of a plate umpire is just tuff nuggies.

Saw a play where a "big" runner slid into home plate first as the catcher was receiving the ball on the 3BLX. The catcher clearly saw a much faster trail runner racing to the plate and sliding right in behind the big guy. The catcher was shielded from applying the tag simply because the runner who scored stood up between them. Ruling: No interference.