Does the run score?

[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.

[UmpJM]

Publius,

Makes sense to me.

JM

[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.

[UmpJM]

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

[rcaverly]

JM,

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

Safe travels,
Dude.

[SAump]

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.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

Yep, that's the definition of Backswing Interference. Too bad that has nothing to do with our original OP.

[PeteBooth]

e three and to that "retired" batter.

The aforementioned has NOTHING to do with this OP

Pete Booth