Catcher Interference

[jdmara]

Had a situation presented to me recently and thought I would run it by you all as well.

"R2, R3, 2 outs. As the batter swings at the pitch, he hits the catchers mitt. Ball goes to short right field for a hit. Runners both score and the ball is thrown home trying to retire R2. BR moves up to 2B. The defense appeals the batter missed first base and he is ruled out by umpire. How many runs score where do you put the runners and batter?"

I've got the following:

"Zero runs score. The batter is placed on first base and the runners are returned to their respective bases at the time of the pitch. The batter never reached first safely; Therefore, the catcher's obstruction is enforced. However, the offense may (dumbly) elect to take the result of the play (which would be the end of the inning with zero runs scoring). NFHS rules"

I can't seem to find a good case play or any citations in the JR or BRD. Thanks

-Josh

[UmpJM]

Josh,

I've got the following:

"Zero runs score and the third out of the half inning occurred on the appeal of the BR's miss of 1B. Since all runners advanced one base, the CI is disregarded and the play stands.

Per the principle established in the 8.05 Comment:

APPROVED RULING: A runner who misses the first base to which he is advancing and who is called out on appeal shall be considered as having advanced one base for the purpose of this rule.

even though the BR missed 1B, he is considered to have "advanced" when he passed the base."

JM

[bob jenkins]

I agree with Ump nee Coach

[Dave Reed]

JM is right, and his case is even stronger if you consider:

Rule 6.08(c) Comment: If catcher’s interference is called with a play in progress the umpire will allow the play to continue because the manager may elect to take the play. If the batter-runner missed first base, or a runner misses his next base, he shall be considered as having reached the base, as stated in Note of Rule 7.04 (d).

[jdmara]

Sounds great. Thanks Gents

-Josh

[mbyron]

I agree with JM (though Dave Reed's citation better supports the position).

Josh does mention that the case is FED rules, but the ruling is the same. Only the reference is different: 8-1-1e.