The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NorCal
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
You're missing the point... the batter is ALREADY out. BEFORE the interference. the book he's reading is RIGHT - and tells you who to call out IN ADDITION TO the batter.

but it was posted that there had to be umpire judgment on who to call out.. and that is not the case.
__________________
"My greatest fear is that when I die, my wife will sell my golf clubs for what I told her I paid for them."
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 23, 2012, 09:17am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umpmazza View Post
but it was posted that there had to be umpire judgment on who to call out.. and that is not the case.
Then why did you say, "If interference is called the batter is always out... ( unless the catchers initial throw retires a runner)". Just admit you misread and move on.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 02:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NorCal
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
Then why did you say, "If interference is called the batter is always out... ( unless the catchers initial throw retires a runner)". Just admit you misread and move on.
Funny i did misread..

sorry...bat out on strikes.. and the runners is out...
__________________
"My greatest fear is that when I die, my wife will sell my golf clubs for what I told her I paid for them."

Last edited by Umpmazza; Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 02:16pm.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 03:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
The following was discussed at our LOA's umpires' meeting last night.

NFHS Rules (but would like to know the answer for NCAA and MLB too):

Play: R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B; 0 outs; 2 strikes on the Batter/B3. R1 breaks for HP and R2 breaks for 2B as F1 delivers the Pitch to B3. B3 swings and misses for Strike 3 and F2 catches the pitch cleanly for Out #1. B3's swing causes him to step over HP. F2 catches the pitch cleanly and throws to 2B. The PU signals a Delayed DB, verbalizes the Interference by B3. F2's throw to F6 at 2B is in time for F6 to tag R2 for the Out #2 while R1 scores from 3B.
I do not know why the PU signalled a delayed dead ball since we do not have BI. The batter was out on strike 3 so he is no longer a batter. He is not a retired runner because he never became a runner to begin with (He was out as soon as he K'd and F2 caught the ball cleanly). He is treated as a member of the offense.

From the OP, the PU judged interference (signalled a Delayed DB and verbalized the Interference) therefore the ball should have been immediately dead at that point not delayed dead.

In this play R1 is out on the interference (since that is the runner on whom the defense played) and R3 is returned to third base. I would rule that way even in FED.

Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth

Last edited by PeteBooth; Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:00pm.
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 04:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
kyle,

That would be "making up a rule".

By rule, if the F2 chooses to play on the runner going into 2B AND his initial throw retires the runner, the BI is disregarded - treated as if it hadn't happened.
JM

B1 K'd so we do not have BI. We have interference by an offensive teammate which is a different ruling. The ball should have been immediately dead not delayed dead.

Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 04:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
[QUOTE=PeteBooth;827426]
Quote:


From the OP, the PU judged interference (signalled a Delayed DB and verbalized the Interference) therefore the ball should have been immediately dead at that point not delayed dead.

In this play R1 is out on the interference (since that is the runner on whom the defense played) and R3 is returned to third base. I would rule that way even in FED.

Pete Booth
If the ball is immediately dead then there can be no play on R1 (or R3 for that matter).
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 05:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;827432]
Quote:

JM

B1 K'd so we do not have BI. We have interference by an offensive teammate which is a different ruling. The ball should have been immediately dead not delayed dead.

Pete Booth
Pete,

I may have overlooked the fact that the batter had just struck out on the pitch when I first replied to kyle's post.

As you point out, and UmpTT suggested earlier in the thread, since the batter is out, someone else is laible to be called out for the (recently retired) batter's interference - except possibly in FED, because, for some reason, has decided to put the burden on the umpire to decide whether or not the defense could have retired a different runner.

UmpTT suggested that in OBR 7.09(e) supersedes 6.06(c) in this case, and I suppose, by analogy he would suggest in FED that 8-4-2g (the "retired runner" clause) supersedes 7-3-5. By that logic, the ball is immediately dead.

What bothers me about that train of thought is that a violation of 7.09(e) or 8-4-2g requires INTENT to interfere with the throw on the part of the offending offensive player interfering party, while under 6.06(c) and 7-3-5, intent is irrelevant. Essentially, the criteria for determining whether or not the offensive player did, in fact, interfere, are materially different.

I believe the intent is that - even though the batter may have just struck out - 6.06(c) or 7-3-5 govern, both the criteria for determining interference AND keeping the ball in play if the catcher DOES manage to get off a throw despite the interference and wait to see if that throw directly retires a runner before calling TIME!

I've checked all my reference materials and none of them clarifies whether your and UmpTT's interp is correct or my alternative interp is.

Yours and UmpTT's could very well be, but do you see the problem I suggest?

JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 06:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBooth View Post

If the ball is immediately dead then there can be no play on R1 (or R3 for that matter).
Correct but R1 is still out

Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 06:36pm
Is this a legal title?
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post

I believe the intent is that - even though the batter may have just struck out - 6.06(c) or 7-3-5 govern, both the criteria for determining interference AND keeping the ball in play if the catcher DOES manage to get off a throw despite the interference and wait to see if that throw directly retires a runner before calling TIME!

I've checked all my reference materials and none of them clarifies whether your and UmpTT's interp is correct or my alternative interp is.

Yours and UmpTT's could very well be, but do you see the problem I suggest?

JM
I was taught (admittedly quite a few years ago) under pro rules that 7.09e (fka 7.09f) was to be interpreted as the B/R being retired when he was removed from the plate area; e.g., he interfered after being thrown out at first. We were counseled that on a play where a batter retired on strikes interfered with a catcher's throw, it was treated just like any other pitch--delayed dead to see if the throw retired the runner. If not, the runner is out. It was explained to treat it like the Armbrister/Fisk call: actions ruled one way on the bases require different rulings when those same actions occur around the plate in a really short window.

It was a local clinic taught by AA/AAA umpires, and I don't know if that ruling was "official" in any sense. Even if it was it may have been superseded, but that is what was taught, apparently, at least at some pro level at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 06:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

Publius,

Makes sense to me.

JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 09:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 108
Send a message via Yahoo to rcaverly
[QUOTE=UmpJM (nee CoachJM);827447]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBooth View Post
As you point out, and UmpTT suggested earlier in the thread, since the batter is out, someone else is laible to be called out for the (recently retired) batter's interference - except possibly in FED, because, for some reason, has decided to put the burden on the umpire to decide whether or not the defense could have retired a different runner.
Nothing “possibly” about it in a NFHS game:

CB7.3.5 SITUATION C With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1. RULING: B3 has struck out. If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base. [Edited to add emphasis.]

I believe with a thrown ball, intent to interfere is necessary. A batter’s violation of the proscriptions listed at NFHS 7-3-5 a.-d. demonstrates his intent to interfere.

Last edited by rcaverly; Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 09:35pm.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 24, 2012, 09:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

rcaverly,

Dude, that's what I said.

And it absolutely IS "possibly" - because FED rules provide for the option of the umpire deciding that the defense didn't really have an opportunity to retire the runner after the batter who just struck out interfered - which is NOT possible under OBR or NCAA. (Of course, if I'm the umpire, it's not going to be possible under FED, either.)

Try to convince Pete Booth and UmpTT.

JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 108
Send a message via Yahoo to rcaverly
JM,

OK, I see your point. I must have been misreading your post.

Safe travels,
Dude.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Sat Feb 25, 2012, 03:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,577
Two Out, Score run

BACKSWING HITS CATCHER - If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard that he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing (i.e. the followthrough), it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the catcher's initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.

If it applies to strike one and two, it applies to strike three and to that "retired" batter.
__________________
SAump

Last edited by SAump; Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 04:41pm.
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,181
[QUOTE=PeteBooth;827426]
Quote:

He is not a retired runner because he never became a runner to begin with (He was out as soon as he K'd and F2 caught the ball cleanly).
8-1-1-b The batter DOES become a runner then is instantly out if strike three is caught.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
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
Does the run score? Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Softball 53 Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:51am
Score the run soundedlikeastrike Baseball 73 Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:51pm
Score the Run II UmpTTS43 Baseball 1 Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:13am
Run Score? gruberted Baseball 3 Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:09pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1