What if...

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Suudy

So what about multiple people on base? No outs, 1-2 count, R1 and R2 attempt a double steal. B1 strikes out and interferes with F2's attempted throw to third.

R2 out and R1 back to first?

Yep. (And don't forget the out on the batter.)

JM

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Yep. (And don't forget the out on the batter.)

Right.

However, as I asked on the other thread, I'm wondering about the mechanics on this. As mentioned, interference leads to an immediate dead ball (right?).

I'm making this up as I go, so please bear with me. The PU then:

1. Signals the strike out.
2. Verbalizes the interference ("That's interference!").
3. Calls time.
4. Points to R2 and calls the out.
5. Points to R1 and sends him back to first ("You, back to first.")

That about it?

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by Suudy

So what about multiple people on base? No outs, 1-2 count, R1 and R2 attempt a double steal. B1 strikes out and interferes with F2's attempted throw to third.

R2 out and R1 back to first?

Yep. In fed-speak that would be R1 out and R2 back to 1st.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Right.

However, as I asked on the other thread, I'm wondering about the mechanics on this. As mentioned, interference leads to an immediate dead ball (right?).

I'm making this up as I go, so please bear with me. The PU then:

1. Signals the strike out.
2. Verbalizes the interference ("That's interference!").
3. Calls time.
4. Points to R2 and calls the out.
5. Points to R1 and sends him back to first ("You, back to first.")

That about it?

Suudy,

While in most cases interference does, in fact, result in an immediate dead ball, batter interference is one of the rare exceptions. 5-2(a).

In your "sequence", if you were to move #3 after #4 you'd be good.

JM

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

The cute one-liner is not only unnecessary it will only further inflame an out of control coach.

"Coach, did you have a question?" is simple, direct and doesn't buy you an unneeded continuation of harassment or argument.

You're not reading CoachJM's response with the right tone.

Originally Posted by Suudy

Right.

However, as I asked on the other thread, I'm wondering about the mechanics on this. As mentioned, interference leads to an immediate dead ball (right?).

I'm making this up as I go, so please bear with me. The PU then:

1. Signals the strike out.
2. Verbalizes the interference ("That's interference!").
3. Calls time.
4. Points to R2 and calls the out.
5. Points to R1 and sends him back to first ("You, back to first.")

That about it?

No.

You have to wait for the play to finish between 2 and 3. If the initial throw retires the runner, then items 3-5 are ignored.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You have to wait for the play to finish between 2 and 3. If the initial throw retires the runner, then items 3-5 are ignored.

So R1 gets to keep second if F2's throw retires R2, and the interference is ignored (since R1 is tagged out, and B1 struck out)?

[UmpJM]

Suudy,

That is correct. If the F2's initial attempt to retire a runner is successful despite the interference, the interference is disregarded and the play stands. (Regardless of whether or not the batter struck out.)

JM

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

That is correct. If the F2's initial attempt to retire a runner is successful despite the interference, the interference is disregarded and the play stands. (Regardless of whether or not the batter struck out.)

Does it matter with regard to uncaught third strikes?

For example, no outs, 1-2 count, B1 swings and misses, but F2 drops the ball. B1 pushes F2 and starts to run toward first. R2 takes off for third. F2 recovers and throws 1) to first in time to put out the batter-runner, 2) to first and over the head of F3, 3) to third in time to tag R1, 4) to third but not in time to tag R1.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Does it matter with regard to uncaught third strikes?

For example, no outs, 1-2 count, B1 swings and misses, but F2 drops the ball. B1 pushes F2 and starts to run toward first. R2 takes off for third. F2 recovers and throws 1) to first in time to put out the batter-runner, 2) to first and over the head of F3, 3) to third in time to tag R1, 4) to third but not in time to tag R1.

That's not batter interference, but rather interference by the batter-runner. The ball is dead immediately, BR out, other runners return. 8-4-1a

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Suudy

So R1 gets to keep second if F2's throw retires R2, and the interference is ignored (since R1 is tagged out, and B1 struck out)?

Yes. IF the throw retires the runner, there really wasn't any interference.

[DG]

Originally Posted by jicecone

"your terrible".

Adios...

[UmpJM]

suudy,

When the batter becomes a runner on the pitch, he is no longer a batter but a batter-runner. That might seem like a trivial distinction, but it's actually important.

Since he is no longer a batter, he is no longer constrained by the batter interference rules. So, yes, it matters quite a bit.

Now, if the batter were to push the F2 (which to me implies intent), he's out on runner interference, I'm killing the play immediately, and it is certainly conceivable that I would call the runner out as well (due to his teammate's interference) if I felt a double play was likely or possible.

Conversely, if the BR just took off for 1B and the F2 just went after the loose ball and inadvertently "bumped" one another, then I've got "nothing" (a tangle/untangle in umpire parlance). If the F2 gets the ball and airmails it over the F3's head, and the runner is short of or within the running lane, I've still got nothing. If he's past halfway and outside the running lane (and in the "flight path" of the throw), I've likely got the BR out on runner's lane interference. The ball is immediately dead and runner's return to their TOP (OBR) or TOI (FED) base. (Likely the same place in this sitch.)

JM

[Simply The Best]

"Coach, I had already inferred you were displeased by my call. Did you have a question?"

JM ___

Simply The Best
The cute one-liner is not only unnecessary it will only further inflame an out of control coach.

"Coach, did you have a question?" is simple, direct and doesn't buy you an unneeded continuation of harassment or argument.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You're not reading CoachJM's response with the right tone.

Tone doesn't matter ime imo

[BK47]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

suudy,

Now, if the batter were to push the F2 (which to me implies intent), he's out on runner interference, I'm killing the play immediately, and it is certainly conceivable that I would call the runner out as well (due to his teammate's interference) if I felt a double play was likely or possible.

JM

JM, if there are less than two outs and first base is occupied at TOP on a dropped third strike, the batter/runner is out automaticly. If he takes off for first and pushs F2 on his way causing F2 to sail the ball to first base, or if there is a running lane violation, we really dont have anything on that because the B/R was already out.

What would you do in that situation? Where F2 made the mistake of throwing to first, an already occupied base at TOP on the dropped third strike with less than two outs and we have interferrence on the B/R? Like I said, F2 was not trying to throw to second to get R1, he was throwing to first.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BK47

What would you do in that situation? Where F2 made the mistake of throwing to first, an already occupied base at TOP on the dropped third strike with less than two outs and we have interferrence on the B/R? Like I said, F2 was not trying to throw to second to get R1, he was throwing to first.

Interference by a retired runner. The ball is dead; if you judge an out could have been made, that runner is out; if you're not sure which runner would have been played on, the runner closest to home is out. Other runners return to their TOI bases. 8-4-2g