on deck batter

[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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

FWIW, I concur with mbyron & ozzy (who I believe are in "violent agreement")...

Hm, you might be right. I couldn't understand why he kept saying that if you call INT there has to be an out...