on deck batter

[UmpTTS43]

At the time of INT, runner had already scored and batter runner at first. Kill the play, score the run, leave runner on first and tell the on deck guy not to do it again.

[coach g]

the throw was wild to first. It had ended up in the on-deck circle and I called him over to tell him something. Next thing I know, the ball comes toward him and he picks it up. The runner at first was not trying to advance. The runner from 3rd scored as the ball was hit to the SS.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

At the time of INT, runner had already scored and batter runner at first. Kill the play, score the run, leave runner on first and tell the on deck guy not to do it again.

Given the additional info, +1

[DG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

given the additional info, +1

+2

[Rich Ives]

Has it dawned on anyone that the OD batter didn't interfere - he assisted?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Has it dawned on anyone that the OD batter didn't interfere - he assisted?

Your comments are usually much more rules-based than that.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Your comments are usually much more rules-based than that.

OK then - did he interfere with the defense's ability to make a play (against the rules) or enhance their ability to make a play (assist - not covered)?

If assistance, should you let the play stand and leave the punishment up to his coach and team mates? (I'd vote for this.)

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

OK then - did he interfere with the defense's ability to make a play (against the rules) or enhance their ability to make a play (assist - not covered)?

If assistance, should you let the play stand and leave the punishment up to his coach and team mates? (I'd vote for this.)

The OD batter picked up a ball still in play. No assistance there.

I wouldn't defer my responsibilities to a coach and team mates.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

At the time of INT, runner had already scored and batter runner at first. Kill the play, score the run, leave runner on first and tell the on deck guy not to do it again.

Hmmmm...... Are we calling INTERFERENCE? Because if we do, shouldn't we be getting an out also?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Hmmmm...... Are we calling INTERFERENCE? Because if we do, shouldn't we be getting an out also?

It's offensive teammate interference without a play. The ball is dead, and the umpires will place the runners.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It's offensive teammate interference without a play. The ball is dead, and the umpires will place the runners.

I agree therefore the question. People will tend to call interference for this play and that requires an out. Hence, the point I am trying to make especially for the amount of rookies that are on this forum now.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I agree therefore the question. People will tend to call interference for this play and that requires an out. Hence, the point I am trying to make especially for the amount of rookies that are on this forum now.

You're not listening, oz. Interference without a play does not involve assessing an out.

From J/R, ch. 13, sect. VI:
With bases loaded a pitch eludes the catcher and rolls toward the on-deck batter. The runners each advance one base as the catcher pursues the ball. However, the on-deck batter reaches down and pick[s] up the live ball before the catcher can get to it: interference without a play being made. The ball is dead and the runners are restricted to their one-base advance.

[coach g]

the coaches, including me, were quiet. I knew the umps (kids) had not seen this play before and were making it up even though they consulted each other.

I think the consensus is since the play was essentially over, the ball should have been declared dead and the runner should not have been sent back to 3B. And I should have protested the game at that point. That way we could have re-started the game from there. But who wants to do that?

Thanks for the input.

[UmpJM]

coach g,

Thanks for answering my question.

As described, personally I'm impressed.

FWIW, I concur with mbyron & ozzy (who I believe are in "violent agreement") that a more proper call would have been (weak) "interference without a play" - kill it, put everyone where he is, mildly admonish the on-deck guy, reset and put the ball back in play.

JM