Drop Third Strike, Ump Interference

[MIZFKU]

Hypothetical Situation...Just curious how you might rule it.

Drop third strike. Umpire somehow interferes with a throw from the catcher. This allows the Batter/Runner to reach 1st base safely.

My educated guess would be to put the Batter/Runner on first, despite interference.

[charliej47]

I've had it happen where F2 and I collide as he is trying to find the ball and I got nothing.

In FED I've benched a coach because he wanted the out at 1st when his F2 and I collided.

I believe the strict rule interpretation is that you send the runner back and here you can't so he would get 1st.

[mbyron]

Charlie, there is no rule that says to award the BR 1B on this play, so no "strict rule interpretation" will support the position you state.

The defense screwed up when they failed to catch the 3rd strike legally. Now it's the batter's or my problem to get out of their way so that they can fix their error? I don't think so.

Unless the BR does something obvious to hinder F2 as he hunts for the ball, I've got nothing here. It's up to F2 to get the ball and avoid me (I won't be dancing around, either), and if he collides with me, that's too bad. Catch the pitch next time.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by MIZFKU

Hypothetical Situation...Just curious how you might rule it.

Drop third strike. Umpire somehow interferes with a throw from the catcher. This allows the Batter/Runner to reach 1st base safely.

My educated guess would be to put the Batter/Runner on first, despite interference.

Don't let it happen!!!

[TwoBits]

In FED, on umpire's interference with a throw from the catcher, runners can be sent back to their original bases if, in the umpire's judgment, his interference allowed runners to advance.

In the OP's case, this isn't possible since the batter received strike three. There's no rule to cover this case, so I think you have a 10-2-3g situation. I think everyone agrees that the batter should remain at first in the OP.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

In the OP's case, this isn't possible since the batter received strike three. There's no rule to cover this case, so I think you have a 10-2-3g situation. I think everyone agrees that the batter should remain at first in the OP.

I absolutely do not agree. Nor do I think that this is umpire interference. And I also disagree that there is no rule to cover the case: there is, namely the dropped third strike rule.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I absolutely do not agree. Nor do I think that this is umpire interference. And I also disagree that there is no rule to cover the case: there is, namely the dropped third strike rule.

Here is the FED book's wording for the part that applies to the OP:

2-21-2: It is umpire interference when he inadvertently moves so as to hinder a catcher's attempt to throw...

No mention that this applies only to throwbacks to the pitcher or only throws to a base. As a matter of fact, the wording makes it seem as it this rule could apply on a fair batted ball that the catcher fields (although I don't see how an umpire could possibly interfere with that play).

That batter in the OP has got to go somewhere, whether it be the dugout or first base. Where would you place him, Mbyron?

[bob jenkins]

OBR specifically has UI as a throw to retire an runner attempting to steal, a pick-off or a throw back to the pitcher. NOT a D3K.

I'd apply the same thing to FED.

Heck, if the BR can't be guilty of (unintentional) interference on a D3K, how can the umpire be guilty of it?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

OBR specifically has UI as a throw to retire an runner attempting to steal, a pick-off or a throw back to the pitcher. NOT a D3K.

I'd apply the same thing to FED.

Heck, if the BR can't be guilty of (unintentional) interference on a D3K, how can the umpire be guilty of it?

Exactly. Perfect.

I see a reference in 2.00 INTERFERENCE about "preventing a stolen base"; is there more to the OBR reference than that?