What if...
 

Fed rules.

7-2-5 Penalty

The batter shall not:

Interfere with the catchers fielding or throwing

If the pitch is a 3rd strike and in the umpires judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs) interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs). two may be ruled out.

1 - 2 count. R1 stealing 2d. B2 swings and misses, then interferes with F2's attempt to retire R1. Umpire judges a possible double play.

Ruling: B2 is out for strike 3. R1 is out for interference.

Question: Is there a scenario of this sitch where the R1 would not be called out for the interference?

I think you mean 7-3-5 Penalty.

B1 causes the interference however, because B1 is already out then the umpire can also call out the runner being played on if the umpire judges a possible double play.

R1 just ends up being called out for the batters interference. R1 has not comitted any infraction but the batter has, and he has struck out also..

Question: Is there a scenario of this sitch where the R1 would not be called out for the interference?

For the batters inteference? Only if the umpires judges that a double play was not possible. Eg. Batter strikes out and crosses in front of catcher. Catcher goes to take the ball out of his glove to throw and drops the ball.

R1 would not be out if B had a 1-1 count when this happened - would he? B out, R1 returns...

Someone tell me if lost my mind.:confused:


Otherwise, I agree - strike 3 B out and R1 out b/c of INT.

Correct. I did mean 7-3-5 penalty.

As for your answer 'only if'...it does not apply to my sitch. The sitch has the batter interfering. Key elements...

The batter strikes out, then interferes with F2's attempt to retire R1. Is there any reason why R1 would not be out in this situation?

No, R1 would not be out if the count was 1 & 1. B2 would be out and R1 would be returned too 1st.

For my question, none of the elements may change. Here they are again:

1 & 2. 0 out. B2 strikes out, then interferes with F2, who is trying to retire R1. Is there any reason that R1 will not be called out in this situation?

I get two outs on this play. If R1 isn't out by rule here, this scenario would happen every game.

ODJ,

What if the R1 had been obstructed by F3 as he took off for 2B?

JM

Chris, the rule reads that two outs "may" be called. Not shall or must. I gave you an example but, and there are many more however the rule allows the official to make a call of judgement.

98.3% of the time, R1 will also be out. But, if F1 mistakenly pitches from a wind-up, or R1 is a state 30-yard dash champ, and F2 has a rag arm, and the pitch is a change in the dirt that F2 doesn't catch cleanly, ...

It's happened once to me in my career where I sent the runner back instead of getting an out.

Thanks for the replies. I asked this question because I have an issue with the wording in the rules book. All of these suggested possibilities seem to apply to the wording logically. I'll try to remember that there is a 1.7% chance that the penalty will be to return the runners rather than call the out. As usual - it comes down to my judgment - which is usually horse poo-doo anyway. Of that there is a 99.347 % chance...unless I've been drinking Red Bull. :D

There is probably a slightly higher chance that your going to have to toss the Coach after he tells you that that is, a "horsesh*t call" , "your terrible".
"I can't believe you can call something like that," "You have no clue what your doing," "Your trying to hose us", "Your father wears high heel shoes," and my all time best, "Your ugly too."

Have a good season

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

JM

Right...but the chance goes down exponentially if it is raining, very very cold out...or very very hot.

Thanks J. Best to you too.

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?

Originally Posted by jicecone http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
There is probably a slightly higher chance that your going to have to toss the Coach after he tells you that that is, a "horsesh*t call" , "your terrible".
"I can't believe you can call something like that," "You have no clue what your doing," "Your trying to hose us", "Your father wears high heel shoes," and my all time best, "Your ugly too."


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.

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

JM

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?

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

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

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



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.

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)?

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

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

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

Adios...

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

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

JM ___

Simply The Best http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
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.
Tone doesn't matter ime imo

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.

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

mbyron, thats just it. I am sure F2 was throwing to first to retire B/R, however B/R was already out as first base was occupied at TOP. If F2 was throwing to second then I know I can get R1 out regardless if thrown out or not on the interferrence.

Would you reward the defense on this play and get the out at second even if the defense did not actually earn it because they threw to the wrong base? F2 should have known the situation: first base occupied at TOP with less than two outs means B/R cannot advance to first base on a dropped third strike. R1 can steal second all he wants which means F2 should throw to second to retire R1, not to first to get B/R.

Would you leave R1 at second because F2 screwed up and threw to the wrong base or would you simply send R1 back to first?

At the point the B/R pushes F2, it is a dead ball, and someone has to pay the price for the interference by the B/R. You can't call a second out on the batter and it doesn't quite matter where F2 was going to throw after that. The runner closest to home would be R1 and he or she would be out.

Exactly right. I'm killing it on the intentional push (the retired BR must do something to interfere -- merely running to 1B is not illegal, even if it draws a throw). The push is an infraction that is punished with an out, assuming that the defense might have been able to record an out.

And the bar is pretty low for that judgment: if the ball is near the catcher, then I'm probably judging that they might have made an out. If it's all the way to a backstop 60 feet behind the plate, then I'll probably kill it and send the runners back without calling an additional out.

+1

Got Ya, thanks.