The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 02, 2012, 12:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,039
Umpire Interference / Batter Interference

Is the "delayed dead ball" aspect of these types of interference the same?

R1 is stealing when the (A) umpire, or (B) batter interferes with F2, whose throw goes into center field. The runner tries for third and is thrown out by F8.

I know in (B) that as soon as the throw does not retire the runner, the interference is enforced (in this instance, the batter is out and the runner returns).

Is it the same in A (except no one is out, of course), or does the play stand?

Looking for OBR, NCAA and FED rules on this.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 02, 2012, 12:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 152
Fed

In FED (5-1-2c), if there is no out made at the end of F2's throw (i.e. the initial play on the runner), the ball is then dead and the runner(s) return to their bases at the TOP.
__________________
Never argue with idiots...they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 02, 2012, 06:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northwest suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Is the "delayed dead ball" aspect of these types of interference the same?

R1 is stealing when the (A) umpire, or (B) batter interferes with F2, whose throw goes into center field. The runner tries for third and is thrown out by F8.

I know in (B) that as soon as the throw does not retire the runner, the interference is enforced (in this instance, the batter is out and the runner returns).

Is it the same in A (except no one is out, of course), or does the play stand?

Looking for OBR, NCAA and FED rules on this.
Bob, See NCAA page 74: 6-3a.

The ball becomes dead and baserunners return when the plate umpire interferes with the catcher's attempt to throw anywhere.

See you at the clinic tonight.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 02, 2012, 07:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: illinois
Posts: 251
Someone has been taking the NCAA test.

Have you submitted it yet?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 02, 2012, 08:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
I did. 92. I'm not happy. Something is wrong. (Yeah I know, five of my answers.) I'm looking forward to reviewing it.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 02, 2012, 09:23pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Good one.

I believe the codes are the same.

BRD has no mention of this situation although 337 and 338 are close.

J/R has an interpretation for OBR and lists a FED rule.

OBR 5.09 (b) and NOTE

NCAA 6-3a is under a "Delayed Dead Ball - Runners Return or Advance". While it says the ball is dead when umpire interferes with a throw anywhere it is under the delayed ball heading so I think the intent is to apply the NOTE comments under OBR.

FED case book on delayed dead ball clarifies the FED question I think. 5.1.2 Sit B is a good one.

All seem to agree to me, umpire interferes with catcher throw then delayed dead ball, runner retired stands, if not return. So as soon as throw goes into CF plate ump should call time and enforce the dead ball return of runner, same as he would if F2 interfered and the throw got runner into rundown.

Last edited by DG; Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:26pm.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 03, 2012, 08:29am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,026
Should it matter *who* does the interferring? The principle is the same -- F2 should have an unobstructed chance to retire the runner.

If his throw still retires R1, then the "interference" didn't have any effect. Otherwise, dead ball, runners return.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 03, 2012, 08:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStrybel View Post
Bob, See NCAA page 74: 6-3a.

The ball becomes dead and baserunners return when the plate umpire interferes with the catcher's attempt to throw anywhere.

See you at the clinic tonight.
Right, but it doesn't say *when* the ball becomes dead, and the "runner is out if initial throw retires him, otherwise enforce the interference" wording is written *only* for BI.

I sure thought it was the same, but a review (or over-thinking) has me wondering.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 03, 2012, 10:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
I share your dilemma Bob. And generally, I loathe countermanding the literal rule. But I can't see penalizing the defense (negating an opportunity for an out) for an act by the umpire when clearly the intent of the rule is to nullify the act.

And since the NCAA says its baseball rules "essentially are the same as for professional baseball," I consider this difference to be an uncaught typo.

Last edited by dash_riprock; Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 10:56am.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 03, 2012, 11:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
I share your dilemma Bob. And generally, I loathe countermanding the literal rule. But I can't see penalizing the defense (negating an opportunity for an out) for an act by the umpire when clearly the intent of the rule is to nullify the act.

And since the NCAA says its baseball rules "essentially are the same as for professional baseball," I consider this difference to be an uncaught typo.
In the play on the test, R1 is stealing, PU interferes, the ball is thrown into center field, R1 is then thrown out trying for third. So, negating the play would penalize the defense.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 03, 2012, 11:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
I think the question is whether the ball stays live for F2's initial throw, as it does with CI. If it does, then I you must follow the same guidelines, i.e., the ball is dead when F2's initial attempt does not retire the runner.

I didn't have that question on my first go-around but it is #38 on the 2nd one. Since an immediate dead ball is not one of the answers, I think the only other possibility is c - R1 is returned to first.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 03, 2012, 11:32am
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
I seem to recall this was a situation that was explained a year or two back at the NCAA meetings - and that if the initial throw did not retire the runner then the ball was dead and the rule enforced. That would indeed return the runner to 1B (with the batter being called out in this case).
Look on the front page of the 2010 NCAA Bulletin (available in PDF on the NCAA Central Hub).
JJ

95 on the test....darned if I can figure which ones I missed. Too bad we have to wait 2 weeks to find out...

Last edited by JJ; Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:41am. Reason: incomplete information
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 03, 2012, 09:05pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
In the play on the test, R1 is stealing, PU interferes, the ball is thrown into center field, R1 is then thrown out trying for third. So, negating the play would penalize the defense.
Only reason for the play is UI that caused throw into CF. Otherwise runner might be thrown out at 2b or have base stolen. Offense or defense did not err, putting runner back to 1b for UI is fair to all, and appears to me to within rule for all codes.

With runner back on 1b both teams are at same benefit as before the UI and defense has equal opportunity to throw him out if he steals again and offense has equal oppportunity steal.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Feb 04, 2012, 07:17pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Right, but it doesn't say *when* the ball becomes dead, and the "runner is out if initial throw retires him, otherwise enforce the interference" wording is written *only* for BI.

I sure thought it was the same, but a review (or over-thinking) has me wondering.
I thought in both forms of umpire interference the ball became "immediately" dead. Since it doesn't specify immediate or delayed, I assume dead means dead.

Try stayin' outta the way next time..............
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Feb 04, 2012, 07:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler View Post
I thought in both forms of umpire interference the ball became "immediately" dead. Since it doesn't specify immediate or delayed, I assume dead means dead.

Try stayin' outta the way next time..............
This type of umpire interference is clearly in the "delayed dead" part of the rules book.

Try readin' it next time.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Batter interference with the umpire BuggBob Softball 10 Tue May 24, 2005 10:48pm
Runner interference versus umpire interference Jay R Baseball 1 Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm
Batter interference? Robert G Baseball 4 Sun Apr 22, 2001 11:37pm
Batter interference. jicecone Baseball 4 Fri Apr 20, 2001 08:43pm
Batter Interference David Van Milligen Baseball 15 Sat Mar 17, 2001 12:07pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1