Texas - ASU game 3

[Larry1953]

The Towles play occurred on April 6 versus the Reds. The play is on MLB.tv highlights of the game. The runner on second was headed to third on a steal attempt. The right handed batter took the pitch and kept the bat over his shoulder. Towles came up throwing and his hand hit the bat as did the ball which caused the ball to be deflected into the third base dugout. The runner was awarded home and the announcers praised the batter for staying in the box. After reading this thread it is obvious the PU blew the call. The batter unintentionally interfered with the throw and should have been called out. The runner should have been sent back to second. Agreed?

[Larry1953]

To answer my own question by Rule 6.06 c this is not a case of batter interference. The batter needs to step out of the batter"s box or make a specific motion to be called for BI

[Larry1953]

The NCAA rule (Rule 7 Section 11 f) says essentially the same thing although it adds the words "intentional or unintentional" not in the MLB rules

[bob jenkins]

1) THe "towles play" has nothing to do with the superregional play.

2) It would be ruled the same in both codes as "nothing; play on"

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) THe "towles play" has nothing to do with the superregional play.

2) It would be ruled the same in both codes as "nothing; play on"

Bob, I was using it as an example where a batter is not called for BI when his mere presence doing what is expected of him even though his presence altered the course of a play. I think a batter-runner who shifts his weight to first after he has been awarded the base on ball four cannot be called for an action that constitutes runner's interference particularly since that action has to be intentional. The contention that "interference takes precedence over the walk" is false. The PU made NO indication that he appealed to 1U on a check swing. I suppose it could be said that in such case the batter is in "limbo" like Schroedinger cat being in a quantum state between a retired batter who has been struck out and a batter-runner who has just walked. I think the rules need to be clarified about what takes precedence when a check swing call is pending. But, to be clear, there was no check swing appeal in the Texas-ASU game and the statement that interference took precedence over the walk is completely incorrect.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

To continue to beat the dead horse. I read the NCAA rulebook. It says the batter becomes a runner the instant of ball four.

No it does not. 8-2-b "The batter becomes a base runner: instantly after fours balls have been called by the umpire." (emphasis added)

Thus an action on the part of the umpire must occur. I don't think it far fetched that on a border line pitch the catcher may throw and be interfered with before the umpire calls ball 4. Again, this play is not as black and white as we would like to think from a rule's perspective or from a common sense and fair play perspective.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

No it does not. 8-2-b "The batter becomes a base runner: instantly after fours balls have been called by the umpire." (emphasis added)

Thus an action on the part of the umpire must occur. I don't think it far fetched that on a border line pitch the catcher may throw and be interfered with before the umpire calls ball 4. Again, this play is not as black and white as we would like to think from a rule's perspective or from a common sense and fair play perspective.

Tony,

I disagree with your analysis. I believe once the umpire let's everyone know the pitch was a ball, it's "retroactive" to when it happened.

That's how all such things work in baseball.

Also, from the NCAA Rule 2:

Batter-Runner
SECTION 9. A term that identifies the offensive player who has just finished the time at bat and is either put out or becomes a runner before the play ends.

"By definition", he's a batter-runner.

JM

[UMP25]

I agree with your statements, Coach. Tony is being way too analytical and unnecessarily complex. Umpires all too often do that.

[Larry1953]

Well, I can't resist a comment. The pitch was obviously a ball and the PU gave no indication he was waiting for U1 to make a call on a check swing. In fact, it is my understanding that the defensive team has to make some indication that they are appealing a checked swing to get the call anyway. If there wasn't time for the PU to call the pitch before the catcher's throw to second, then there certainly wasn't time for the catcher to ask for the appeal before making the throw.
Again, I think there needs to be a rules clarification on how a checked swing appeal affects the course of subsequent plays and what becomes "retroactive". Also, is a checked swing appeal subject to the same restriction as other appeals where they must be made before another play or pitch is made?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

In fact, it is my understanding that the defensive team has to make some indication that they are appealing a checked swing to get the call anyway.

That's not always true.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Well, I can't resist a comment. The pitch was obviously a ball and the PU gave no indication he was waiting for U1 to make a call on a check swing. In fact, it is my understanding that the defensive team has to make some indication that they are appealing a checked swing to get the call anyway. If there wasn't time for the PU to call the pitch before the catcher's throw to second, then there certainly wasn't time for the catcher to ask for the appeal before making the throw.
Again, I think there needs to be a rules clarification on how a checked swing appeal affects the course of subsequent plays and what becomes "retroactive". Also, is a checked swing appeal subject to the same restriction as other appeals where they must be made before another play or pitch is made?

Larry, I do not want to talk about this particular play. I am interested in the general behavior the player who begins this type of play, a 3-2 pitch with R1 running. When can the hitter head toward first base and not be guilty of interference? It doesn't seem right that he can be allowed to interfere F2's throw in such a way that it allows R2 to advance to third. Again, I do not wish to question the PU's judgment on this play.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I agree with your statements, Coach. Tony is being way too analytical and unnecessarily complex. Umpires all too often do that.

That's one take. Another take is that plays like this 3-2 pitch R1 running on the pitch, create potential issues. It does not seem right in this situation to allow the player who started as the batter to do something that would cause him to be out for interference on any other count and have that action allow R1 to advance to third.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Tony,

I disagree with your analysis. I believe once the umpire let's everyone know the pitch was a ball, it's "retroactive" to when it happened.

That's how all such things work in baseball.

Also, from the NCAA Rule 2:



"By definition", he's a batter-runner.

JM

JM, I am trying to figure out exactly when he becomes the batter/runner. The rule book says umpire calls. So would you allow R1 to advance to third in this situation if the player who started as the hitter immediately ran through the plate "interfering" with F2's throw in such a way as to allow that advance. Somehow that doesn't seem right either.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's not always true.

Bob, thanks again :-). The appeal of a checked swing is indeed not the same as an appeal on the bases. Hence the PU may initiate the appeal on his own. Here is a good article that describes the proper umpiring mechanics of the checked swing appeal:
The Amateur Baseball Umpire Home Page

Again, all of this cries for a rules clarification along the lines of "infield fly if fair". There needs to be some signal or understanding that "batter has walked if ball" or "play goes on if appealed to be a strike". Any rulings on batter interference should be made retroactively to the final outcome of the appeal. Both the offense and defense should remain alert to the "limbo" status of their actions. For example, the runner attempting a steal of second who was called out on the throw should be trained to "hold the bag" until all final rulings are made as to whether it was a ball or strike. Calls of BI should be allowed to be overturned and let the outcome of the play stand "as is" if ball four made the batter a runner. That solution would be infinitely better than the mess that was made of the Texas-ASU game.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

That's one take. Another take is that plays like this 3-2 pitch R1 running on the pitch, create potential issues. It does not seem right in this situation to allow the player who started as the batter to do something that would cause him to be out for interference on any other count and have that action allow R1 to advance to third.

What you are perceiving as "not seeming right" is causing you to overanalyze and make this even more complex than it should be. For one thing, who ever said the batter did something that required an out be declared?

I'll leave you with this quote from one of our instructors at umpire school, a quote I still remember 22 1/2 years later:

Don't trouble trouble, because trouble will have no trouble troubling you.