obstruction??

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

The catcher ran into the runner. The runner didn't do anything from what I read in the OP except was returning to his dugout. Why bail out a bad throw, and a klutzy catcher?

Because the runner just happened to be in the one spot on the field where the klutzy catcher could run into him.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Because the runner just happened to be in the one spot on the field where the klutzy catcher could run into him.

That sounds like an excuse I got years ago from an umpire on a WP/PB. R3 and the pitcher gets one to the backstop. My batter stepped out of the box so the pitcher/catcher could make a play at the plate. Ball is rolling around the backstop, and R3 scores. Pitcher is late covering, and wouldn't have been close to making a play anyway. The catcher in desperation just pitches the ball toward the home plate area, and hits my batter square in the back. Umpire calls batter interference.

I walked down to ask what the deal was. He replied, "The ball hit him." I said, "I know that, but what did he do to interfere?" We repeated the same question and answer a few times.

When I finally got tired of his little cat and mouse charade, I finally told him I needed more detail than that. That's when he got pithy, and forfeited the game to the other team, even without an ejection in all of this. BTW-I wasn't impolite, or making a scene.

There's more to the story afterward, but I don't want to write a novel. However, the way I read the OP, it appears to me that the catcher caused the collision, not the runner.

The moral to my story is: The catcher in my scenario just threw the ball, and not even in the direction to where it needed to go anyway. The batter did nothing to interfere. He just happened to be in a spot where the catcher could randomly throw the ball anywhere, and still the call was incorrect. The same goes for the OP. The runner was doing what he supposed to do at that moment and time.

I would call interference in the OP if the scored runner actually did anything that intentionally caused the interference. I just don't see this as your garden variety interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I would call interference in the OP if the scored runner actually did anything that intentionally caused the interference. I just don't see this as your garden variety interference.

The problem is that the rules don't back up this interpretation. The scored runner (offensive teammate) MUST be out of the way. You could decide not to call interference on him if the catcher appeared to hit him on purpose ... but that didn't sound to be the case. Intent is not required on such a play - the scored runner is required to move himself completely out of the way.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The problem is that the rules don't back up this interpretation. The scored runner (offensive teammate) MUST be out of the way. You could decide not to call interference on him if the catcher appeared to hit him on purpose ... but that didn't sound to be the case. Intent is not required on such a play - the scored runner is required to move himself completely out of the way.

I've never seen an interpretation for this certain play.

[RPatrino]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

That sounds like an excuse I got years ago from an umpire on a WP/PB. R3 and the pitcher gets one to the backstop. My batter stepped out of the box so the pitcher/catcher could make a play at the plate. Ball is rolling around the backstop, and R3 scores. Pitcher is late covering, and wouldn't have been close to making a play anyway. The catcher in desperation just pitches the ball toward the home plate area, and hits my batter square in the back. Umpire calls batter interference.

I walked down to ask what the deal was. He replied, "The ball hit him." I said, "I know that, but what did he do to interfere?" We repeated the same question and answer a few times.

When I finally got tired of his little cat and mouse charade, I finally told him I needed more detail than that. That's when he got pithy, and forfeited the game to the other team, even without an ejection in all of this. BTW-I wasn't impolite, or making a scene.

There's more to the story afterward, but I don't want to write a novel. However, the way I read the OP, it appears to me that the catcher caused the collision, not the runner.

The moral to my story is: The catcher in my scenario just threw the ball, and not even in the direction to where it needed to go anyway. The batter did nothing to interfere. He just happened to be in a spot where the catcher could randomly throw the ball anywhere, and still the call was incorrect. The same goes for the OP. The runner was doing what he supposed to do at that moment and time.

I would call interference in the OP if the scored runner actually did anything that intentionally caused the interference. I just don't see this as your garden variety interference.

I would be interested to hear the point of view of the umpire in this situation. BTW, I didn't realize you are a coach.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I would be interested to hear the point of view of the umpire in this situation. BTW, I didn't realize you are a coach.

A little over twenty years removed. I still work with a couple of select teams on a very interim basis before the season starts.

[legend]

In this play the catcher appeared to have NO idea the runner (returning to the dugout) was in the area. He (the catcher) was focused on playing the errant throw, turned to run towards the plate and thats where contact occured. Imo, it was unintentional contact but as I have understood the rule as a 10+ year coach and 2+ year umpire, I thought the enforcement of calling the baserunner out was the correct ruling. I may have used the incorrect termoligy (obs. vs. Int.) but it sounds as if by the letter of the rule I got it right.
It was an unusual play whice is why I posted it on here. I knew I would get some help, either positive or negative, but help none the less.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by legend

I may have used the incorrect termoligy (obs. vs. Int.) but it sounds as if by the letter of the rule I got it right.
It was an unusual play whice is why I posted it on here. I knew I would get some help, either positive or negative, but help none the less.

That's a feeble takeaway for a novice umpire. You need not only to be right, but to be right for the right reasons and be able to explain why you are right.

You were lucky this time. Better to be good.

[legend]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's a feeble takeaway for a novice umpire. You need not only to be right, but to be right for the right reasons and be able to explain why you are right.

You were lucky this time. Better to be good.

Wow I didnt know we were in the presence of perfection... I'm guessing by the nature of your post on this topic that from the VERY first game that you ever did you not only knew every rule but were completely 100 % perfect on every call that you made... Why be a douch? Clearly I knew the rule to be able to call it correct. Nothing "feeble" about that.