Help with an interference call.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Thanks Bob. I simply commented on the original play.

I would not judge interference by a player who is struck in the back by an errant throw after he crosses the plate and is stopping to pick up a bat while on the way to the dugout.

What if F1 was backing up the play and would have received the ball with a chance to make a play on an advancing runner? Do you not consider the ball hitting the scored runner as hindering his play?

[MikeStrybel]

HTBT. Too many things to consider to be accurate.

If I were to give the quick answer it would be no, I would not call interference on the runner for a ball thrown wide of the target that hits him in the back as he is making his way to the dugout after scoring...yes, even though the pitcher could have possibly caught the errant throw and made another play. I see no reason to penalize this runner for the error of the defense. Their throw struck him.

You asked me and I answered. Now, would you penalize a runner who is hit in the back as the result of an errant throw?

[umpjong]

Not sure why some are so hung up on the "potential/possible" play that might occur "if" the catcher or pitcher comes up with the errant (or not) throw.

Would you call R1 out in this play?

R1, no outs, screaming ground ball to F6 who tosses ball to F4 for putout of R1 at second base (R1 is still 40 feet from 2nd base). F4 then promptly tosses (erratically or not) the ball to F3, but strikes retired R1 in his helmet causing the ball to go into right field. (R1 had actually made one step in an attempt to veer out of the throwing lane). F3 absolutely would have caught the ball thrown by F4 (even if it were still somewhat errant) and there was absolutely no intent of the R1 to be hit by the throw. Anyone got interference on R1 here?

I say if you have interference on the OP then you have to have it here also, and God help you...

[TussAgee11]

Question 1: Did the scored runner impede/hinder a fielder making a play on the ball.

If Yes (as in the case of the OP, F2 was about to field, or as I said, it could be a fielder backing up the play in the case of an errant throw), then...

Question 2: Did that fielder have a play on another runner.

If Yes (as in the case of the OP, B/R was advancing to 2nd), then...

Enforce Interference.

It's all in the rules - you can't ignore it just cause you don't like it or think it shouldn't be that way. The relevant rules were already outlined in this thread, so I won't badger anymore.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Question 1: Did the scored runner impede/hinder a fielder making a play on the ball.

Judgment call.

If Yes (as in the case of the OP, F2 was about to field, or as I said, it could be a fielder backing up the play in the case of an errant throw), then...

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Question 2: Did that fielder have a play on another runner.

No. You cannot project something that never occurred. If he intentionally interferes with the throw, by rule, you penalize by calling out the closest runner to the plate.

If Yes (as in the case of the OP, B/R was advancing to 2nd), then...

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Enforce Interference.

It's all in the rules - you can't ignore it just cause you don't like it or think it shouldn't be that way. The relevant rules were already outlined in this thread, so I won't badger anymore.

In my opinion you are applying rules that are not applicable to the sequence of this play.

[TussAgee11]

7.09 It is interference by a batter or runner when...

e - Any batter or runner who has just been put out or any runner who has just scored hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.

2 things in there - (1) you need the hindering or impeding (presumably of a fielder, the rule doesn't say but we know from 2.00 what constitutes interference) (2) There needs to be a potential following play being made on a runner to enforce this rule.

You MUST project what would have happened had that hindering and impeding not happened in regards to a play on another runner... its right there in the rule. Sorry for being blunt, I just don't see how this rule doesn't apply to the OP and how it should be applied or judged any different. It seems clear as day, to me, when I read this language.

[umpjong]

If you agree that the retired runner did not intentionally interfere with the original throw, then how can you hold him responsible for what happened after the ball caromed off of him. If hes not guilty of interfering with the throw you cannot project that he impeded with a projected play that never was going to happen. Remember, the thrown ball was not legally interfered with...... Also see the play I set up. To call one interference is to call both interference...

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Not sure why some are so hung up on the "potential/possible" play that might occur "if" the catcher or pitcher comes up with the errant (or not) throw.

Would you call R1 out in this play?

R1, no outs, screaming ground ball to F6 who tosses ball to F4 for putout of R1 at second base (R1 is still 40 feet from 2nd base). F4 then promptly tosses (erratically or not) the ball to F3, but strikes retired R1 in his helmet causing the ball to go into right field. (R1 had actually made one step in an attempt to veer out of the throwing lane). F3 absolutely would have caught the ball thrown by F4 (even if it were still somewhat errant) and there was absolutely no intent of the R1 to be hit by the throw. Anyone got interference on R1 here?

I say if you have interference on the OP then you have to have it here also, and God help you...

Be careful here up upjong, there are case plays and documentation that cover R1 being called out if hit while more than half way to second. Which is more than the lack of documentation for the op.

A runner that continues to advance is not guilty of interference even when he knows he is out. Unless the interfereance was intentional. If I am coaching I am telling my players that if they don't think they can get an out, try and hit the runner, this ump will call interference.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Be careful here up upjong, there are case plays and documentation that cover R1 being called out if hit while more than half way to second. ...

jicecone,

Do tell!

While I am familiar with a case play (FED, FPSR) that documents that a runner who is LESS than halfway is NOT out when hit by such a throw, I have never in my life come across one even remotely like the one you describe.

Cite, please.

JM

[MikeStrybel]

Tuss,
If you want to penalize a runner who is hit in the back by a throw from the defense while on his way to the dugout, go ahead. Good luck with that. Around here it would probably get your schedule pulled.

Long ago, baseball rules did away with allowing the defense to gain an advantage by throwing a ball into the back of a runner. I choose to penalize those who hinder the play through blatant or avoidable actions. The runner in this scenario did not do that, the fielder who threw the ball is responsible. The runner was hit in the back while heading to the dugout, for goodness sakes. He did not impede the following play, the fielder did.

[TussAgee11]

Where in the OP did it say he was going to the dugout? You are just exaggerating the situation and twisting it in an attempt to make me look like an idiot. Not appreciated. In the OP the runner turned to pick up a bat up the 1B line and was in the line of the throw to a catcher who was going to field it.

Whether you like it or not, there is rules justification that it CAN be INT in the OP. There is NO rules justification saying that it can NEVER be INT. I'd rather umpire the game using the rules provided, in conjunction with my judgment in applying those rules, and if it gets me my schedule pulled, at least I kept my integrity and dignity.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jicecone,

Do tell!

While I am familiar with a case play (FED, FPSR) that documents that a runner who is LESS than halfway is NOT out when hit by such a throw, I have never in my life come across one even remotely like the one you describe.

Cite, please.

JM

JM, don't have my books with me and per say these are not FED Case plays however, there are two references, BRD and a recently published NASO book "Plays That Trip You Up" , that make reference to a runner that is hit by a throw in a FPSR situation, when more than half way to second. As already agreed with others on this forum it is probably a call that wouldnt be made unless the runner is very close to the bag, if at all.

The point I was trying to make is, that small amount of documentation is more than the documentation that explicity gives an umpire authority to call out a runner for interference, as being discussed in this op.

[UmpJM]

jicecone,

Thanks.

I've read the BRD treatment, but have never seen the NASO book.

Is it any good? Would you recommend it?

Sounds like we're of like mind regarding "closeness" of the runner - I think of it as the "jenkins interp", because he was the first one to articulate it in a way I found clear and entirely in accordance with the text and "spirit" of the rule.

JM

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jicecone,

Thanks.

I've read the BRD treatment, but have never seen the NASO book.

Is it any good? Would you recommend it?

Sounds like we're of like mind regarding "closeness" of the runner - I think of it as the "jenkins interp", because he was the first one to articulate it in a way I found clear and entirely in accordance with the text and "spirit" of the rule.

JM

I think it offers some good fresh new insight into Appeals, Balks, BOO, FPSR, HBP, Int and OBS for both NCAA and FED.

Yes I would reccomend it. I think it was less tha $20.00 or about three or four beers. Which may be a deterent for some.

[UmpJM]

jicecone,

You pretty much had me "sold" right up until the end when you called my attention to the "opportunity cost". (Man, what kind of beer do YOU drink. A connoisseur, perhaps?)

Now I've got to think about it!

Thx. I'll check it out.

JM