Does the run score?
 

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.

The Question being discussed at our meeting is: Does R1 score, or must he return to 3B?

The NFHS Baseball Rules Delayed Dead Ball Table gives two possible answers:

Activity 1. Interference by batter when attempted put out is on runner
other than at home (R5-S1-A2a). Awards or Penalties 1. With two out, batter is out. Otherwise, if attempt on runner is unsuccessful, ball is dead, batter is out and runners return. If third strike, batter is out and umpire can call a second out (R7-S3-A5; R8-S2-A6; R8-S4-A2g);

or

Activity 2. Interference by batter when runner is advancing to home plate (other than hitting a throw from the pitcher, not in contact with pitcher’s plate) (R5-S1-A2a). Awards or Penalties 2. Runner is out unless two are out, then batter is out. If runner is put out, ball remains alive (R7-S3-A5; R8-S4-A2l).

Everybody agreed that the Defense's successful attempt to put R2 out negates B3's Interference but does R1's run count or is he returned to 3B?

MTD, Jr., and I are of the opinion that R1's run counts, because the Interference was negated and the Defense was successful in its attempt to put out R2. Others are of the opinion that R1 should be returned to 3B because the Offense should not benefit from B3's Interference.

What say you?

MTD, Sr.

Interesting. However, I would contend that since the interference did not impede the defense and since they chose to play on R2 and were successful, all other action is legal and the run scores. I don't see how the offense is benefitting from the interference.

Absent the interference, would R1 have scored?

If the first throw directly results in an out then the interference is ignored and the rest of the play stands. The run scores.

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

Of course, it's hard (if not impossible) to imagine that the defense would NOT play on R2 coming home. Then they get 2 outs & a runner at first base.

Agree with this in all codes.

Of course they would.

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

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.

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

MTD, Jr., was a catcher (as well as a first baseman) in H.S., and he said that he had a second reason for allowing R1's run to stand: With a runner on 3B why the heck is F2 trying to throw out R1 at 2B. Just not good defense. LOL

MTD, Sr.

+1

+1;)

7.09e Runner that is initially played on is out regardless and other runners return to base at TOI. This is an immediate dead ball.

The philosophy of disregarding INT if an out is recorded by F2's initial throw is only when the INT is committed by the batter, not on a retired batter.

FWIW, Wendlestadt had the same question on his site and his ruling was that this is still INT regardless if the runner on first was put out or not. Runner on third is returned. This is in line with 7.09e

This ruling applies to OBR and NCAA. I would think FED would be the same but I don't know for sure.

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.

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.

Bob, are you missing the fact that the pitch was strike 3?

Irrelevant, the throw retired the runner.

This is incorrect. Your above senario only relates to Batter Interference not Retired Batter Interference. Once the batter is retired the "initial throw" interp goes out the window.

I just gave you the rule. 7.09e

Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate. There it is.

So what's the proper mechanic for this then? The throw did retire the runner. Or is it immediately dead at the TOI?

So TT, is this incorrect then?

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.

I was when I agreed with him. :o

But note that the case play does NOT say "it's an immediate dead ball..." The case play allows the (errant) throw and then kills it. So, it seems to me, that they's allow the (true) throw and ignore the "interference".

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.

As I read situation K, we handle each runner separately. R1 (on third) cannot score because of the interference, so they are returned to 3rd. In the situation presented, F2's throw is errant, so we must judge whether R2 would have been out on a 'true' throw. If so, R2 is out. If not, R2 is returned to 1b.

Now, since in the situation presented here the throw retired R2, he is out. The assumption I make here is that in situation K, since the throw was errant, time is immediately called. Had the throw been true and retired R2, this would be a delayed dead ball. However, in any case, R1(on third) is returned to third. :confused:

R1R2. 0-0 count. Double steal. As F2 attempts to throw to 3rd to make a play on R2, he is interfered with by the batter. F2 aborts the throw to 3rd and throws to 2nd in time to retire R1. In OBR INT is ignored since initial throw retired a runner. In NCAA the ball is dead as soon as F2 aborts this throw to 3rd. Batter out, runners return.

UmpTT,

I'm killing it as soon as the F2 aborts his initial attempt to retire R2 as a result of the interference. Under all codes.

Batter out, runners return.

JM

BRD 2012 Section 275 pg 176, "Int by Batter w/ Catcher:Throw to Base:Batter Retired". NFHS: In summary if the if the ump believes the runner would have been out without the interference, the ump will declare the runner being played on, out. Others return TOP. If umpires judges no chance on any runner, Runners return TOP.

NCAA/OBR: The ump will call out another runner "whom he judges the defense would have played".

I would, and have taken the runner from third. Others return TOP.

NCAA/OBR you always get two. NFHS not necessarilly, but definetly for the Sit. presented.

First of all, Mark that would be R3 & R1 as we all despise the old FED runner identification. Please use the MLB and more accepted designation of R1=1st base, R2= 2nd base, R3= 3rd base.

That said, if F2 got the throw to F6 in time to tag R1 out, then there was no interference. The run scores.

I also think that F2 should have pumped to 2nd then nailed R3 coming into home.

Under OBR an aborted throw is not considered "an initial throw". If F2's initial throw retires a runner, even after an aborted attempt, the interference is disregarded as long as the batter is "the batter" and not a "retired batter".

True if INT was by the batter. We are talking about a retired batter, in which case you would be wrong. Again 7.09e

There is a distict difference between batter interference and interferece by a retired batter. Different rules, different interpretations. It really isn't that difficult.

As there should be... in case one, ruling the batter out is an appropriate penalty... in case to, batter is already out and would be NO penalty.
Truly. Truly stunned at the big names here not noticing the most important part of the equation.

Under TT's interpretation of 7.09e, that's what you have to do.

So...just so I'm clear...this is true under all codes on a retired batter who interferes w/ a F2 who's attempted to put out a stealing runner?

No under Fed you could possibly end up with batter out and both runners returning. If you think the catcher has an oppurtunity to get someone out and doesn't, kill the play and call out the runner from third.

In the situation brpught up for this thread, killing the play or letting the attempt and putout proceed juat doesn't matter. Either way the Retired batter is out, R1, or R2 for this thread is also out just because that is where the attempt was made, and return the runner from 3rd,(whatever designation were using).

in NCAA/OBR one of the runners is out no matter what.

Ozzy:

My OP was for a game played under NFHS Rules so it was very appropriate for me to use NFHS nomenclature. I know I also asked, as a matter of information only, rulings using NCAA and MLB rules, so get over yourself. I rarely umpire using NCAA or MLB rules so if I ask for a NFHS ruling I will use NFHS nomenclature.

MTD, Sr.

I would like to thank everybody who has participated in the thread, but in reading the posts, I find some people have not addressed the exact play that I gave in my OP and that has muddied the waters somewhat.

That is, B3's interference did not prevent F2 from throwing R2 out at 2B as R2 attempted to steal 2B while R1 was attempting to steal HP. Does R1's run count? Many people have talked about F2 failing to throw out R2, which is addressed in both the NFHS Delayed Dead Ball Table and Casebook Play 8.4.2 Situation B.

MTD, Sr.

Retired batter is out on strikes. Immediate dead ball on his interference. Call a runner out, return the other. Calling R1(2) out is easiest, most understandable to explain.

Key is the retired batter.

Not for this situation for Fed. The runner played on at second is the one that is out. R1 returns TOP.

NCAA and OBR , it works.

this book your reading is wrong...

there is no judgment on this play.. If interference is called the batter is always out... ( unless the catchers initial throw retires a runner) .. if the trow retires the runner, interference is disregarded.. if the runner is safe the batter is out. runners return to there base occupied at TOP. this is not judgment on which runner is out...

on this play if the batter strikes out, and there is less than 2 outs... the runner is also out.... pretty simple here.

But there is a penalty for interference..

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.

Of course there is. But calling the batter out (again) is no penalty. The penalty for a retired batter interfering is the runner being called out as well.

I will defer to mbcrowder's statements.

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.

Funny i did misread..

sorry...bat out on strikes.. and the runners is out...

[QUOTE]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

[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

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;827426]If the ball is immediately dead then there can be no play on R1 (or R3 for that matter).

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;827432]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

[QUOTE]Correct but R1 is still out

Pete Booth

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.

Publius,

Makes sense to me.

JM

[QUOTE=UmpJM (nee CoachJM);827447]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.

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

JM,

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

Safe travels,
Dude.

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.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;827426]8-1-1-b The batter DOES become a runner then is instantly out if strike three is caught.

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

Apply 6.06c
 

There is no interference. Hard to apply a penalty in the OP.

As I have stated before, you can't apply 6.06c due to the fact that the interference was caused by a retired batter, not a batter, in which 6.06 applies.

From the MLBUM 6.8 Batter Interferes With Catcher, it discusses the various penalties and criteria for disregarding INT via the "initial throw" interp. At the end of this section, it states "If this infraction occurs after the batter is out on strike three, the runner is declared out for batter's interference." There is no "initial throw" interp along with this.

Before you were using 7.09e. Is there a different rule that applies to this OP now? 6.06 applies to interference, I know, but some of us had posted that earlier and you thought it was 7.09e. I'm not trying to be argumentative or prove anything one way or another in my favor, I'm trying to figure out what rule we're using here. Are we sending R3 back to 3rd or not?

7.09e is the rule that is used for the orginial OP. Since there is no way to "disregard" this INT, all runners are returned to their bases TOI. So yes, R3 would be sent back to 3rd. 7.09e applies to a batter that has just been put out and 6.06 applies to a batter. Two different situations.

The aforementioned has NOTHING to do with this OP

Pete Booth

UmpTT,

The absence of an interp in the MLBUM on the specific case of a batter having interfered as he strikes out and the catcher subsequently throwing is not probative.

As a matter of fact, there IS a case play - #14 in the "Interference and Obstruction" section of the MLBUM, but it's not really probative either.

Again, the problem I have with applying 7.09(e) is that the conditions for calling interference under 7.09(e) require INTENT to interfere with a throw (or thrown ball) in order to call interference, while under 6.06(c) intent is NOT required. So, if you're using 7.09(e) you don't even HAVE interference on the (recently retired) batter. Clearly, the intent is that a recently retired batter is constrained just as an unretired batter is with respect to hindering the catcher's attempt to retire a runner. Additionally, 7.09(e) explicitly refers to a retired runner or batter-runner, NOT a retired "batter" - if we're going to define our interp by a strictly literal reading of the rule text. (Oddly, under FED rules, but NOT OBR, a batter who has just struck out IS a retired "batter runner". I digress.)

The history and treatment of 7.09(e) (formerly 7.09(f) ) is that it was instituted to constrain a baserunner's actions in attempting to break up a double play, NOT to have a different rule for "recently retired" batter's interference. See section 6.3 "Willful and Deliberate Interference" of the MLBUM (2009 Edition).

JM

P.S. SAump is a master of the non sequitur, so I wouldn't give it much thought.

When rules collide?
 

I still maintain that the batter had not committed interference by his actions after the third strike.

But for the sake of discussion, let us allow that he did commit interference. He is out, but he is already out. So now R1 is out because the umpire decides that is where the runner being played against declared out. Everything is peachy.

But now we already have an out on the runner who was played against and has also been legally declared out, and there was no further play.

7.09f(?) states that "if no other runner is being played against, it is interference without play - the ball is dead and runners must remain at their last legally touched base."

R3 breaks for home on the pitch, score the run, two outs. R3 breaks for home on the catch, return to third, two outs. That is the smallest difference, but it affects my ruling on the play.

[QUOTE=Rich Ives;827683]Though not explicitly spelled out as it is in FED, it's the same in all codes. That's why the batter, except in double-play situations, is allowed to attempt to reach first base safely when a third strike is uncaught.

[QUOTE=Publius;827913]Actually the OBR and NCAA rules say he becomes a runner if the third strike is NOT caught when eligible to attempt to go to first. 6.09(b ) 8-2-c . Implication is that if the third strike IS caught he does not become a runner.

Post 71 is my last in this thread.
 

P.S. SAump is a master of the non sequitur, so I wouldn't give it much thought.[/QUOTE]

See FED 7-3-5. The OP weaves it way through it. Good luck.

Can't wait to see K-2-4T-2T triple play overruled on BI in an NCAA game. If you hear of one, let me know.

It does say "Any batter who has just been put out." This rule encompasses a variety of INT senarios, some require intent others do not.

I don't know how else to demonstrate or explain that this is the rule to correctly apply the appropriate penalty to our original OP. I do know this is how I enforce it in my games that use the appropriate rule set.