What if...

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.