Does the run score?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by CT1

Then the defense would be better served by cutting off the throw to F6, or not tagging R2?

Of course they would.

[Rich]

I stopped reading at R1 on 3B. If you're going to use that stupid NFHS runner notation, I will just claim tl;dr and ignore the rest.

[kylejt]

Yow. See I'm envisioning the BR's action is to intentionally screen out the catcher's view of the runner coming in from third. I mean, why on Earth would F2 not just wait for THAT tag, as opposed to throwing down?

BR out on the K, Runner from third out on the INT, runner from first goes back because of the INT.

Thank you, and good night.

[UmpJM]

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.

Just because you think the BR was "intentionally screening" the F2 from seeing the runner advancing from 3B doesn't change the rule or give you the authority to make up your own rule to suit your personal sense of fairness.

JM

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

Just because you think the BR was "intentionally screening" the F2 from seeing the runner advancing from 3B doesn't change the rule or give you the authority to make up your own rule to suit your personal sense of fairness.

JM

So TT, is this incorrect then?

[UmpTTS43]

When you have F2 attempt a play when the now retired batter interferes, you kill it immediately "Time, that's interference. Batter, you're out on strikes" point to runner F2 wanted to play on, "Runner you're out for the interference" Then send other runners back.

On a side note, the initial throw interpretation only applies to OBR. In NCAA, and FED I believe, as soon as F2 makes an attempt and aborts his throw, the play is dead regardless if F2 subsequently throws to another base and retires a runner.

In all reality, F2 will know if R3 is running on the pitch. The most common senario is a delayed steal, R1 runs to draw a throw, R3 breaks on the throw or a suicide squueze.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

When you have F2 attempt a play when the now retired batter interferes, you kill it immediately "Time, that's interference. Batter, you're out on strikes" point to runner F2 wanted to play on, "Runner you're out for the interference" Then send other runners back.

On a side note, the initial throw interpretation only applies to OBR. In NCAA, and FED I believe, as soon as F2 makes an attempt and aborts his throw, the play is dead regardless if F2 subsequently throws to another base and retires a runner.

In all reality, F2 will know if R3 is running on the pitch. The most common senario is a delayed steal, R1 runs to draw a throw, R3 breaks on the throw or a suicide squueze.

I'm not questioning the OBR/NCAA ruling. That's pretty clear. The NFHS ruling, though, *is* different, based on case play 8.4.2 Situation K.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

On a side note, the initial throw interpretation only applies to OBR. In NCAA, and FED I believe, as soon as F2 makes an attempt and aborts his throw, the play is dead regardless if F2 subsequently throws to another base and retires a runner.

I think this part is the same in all codes. If there's an initial throw (ignore, for now the strike 3 issue) that directly retires a runner, ignore the interference. If there's an aborted attempt, or a rundown, or ...., then enforce the interference.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

[UmpJM]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;827432]

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

[Publius]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

[rcaverly]

[QUOTE=UmpJM (nee CoachJM);827447]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

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.

[Art N]

Originally Posted by richmsn

i stopped reading at r1 on 3b. If you're going to use that stupid nfhs runner notation, i will just claim tl;dr and ignore the rest. :d

+1

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I stopped reading at R1 on 3B. If you're going to use that stupid NFHS runner notation, I will just claim tl;dr and ignore the rest.

Rich:

The first two sentences of my OP were and I quote: "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):"

Notice the words highlighted in red. Therefore, it was well within my perrogative to use NFHS nomenclature. Either you want to make a learned contribution (and I knew you are very capable at making a learned contribution) to this thread, or don't make one at all.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

8.4.2 Situation K covers this play. B1 is out on strike 3. R1 is out if the umpire thinks he would've been out absent the interference, otherwise he's returned to first. It's a horrible ruling, IMO in that in OBR/NCAA we'd bang two and return R3 to third without any judgment.

This is not delayed dead, IMO. Return R3 to third.