R2 & R3 with 1-0 on the batter, catcher obstructs the batter's swing. Batter hits the ball down the 1st base line. The PU immediatly signals, points and calls "that's obstruction". The ball rolls into foul territory where it is touched by the pitcher. The catcher is on his knees holding what ends up being a set of broken fingers (so the obstruction is quite obvious). Place the runners and if necessary the batter.

This happened in a 16U game this weekend.

Interference, R2, R3 stay, batter awarded to first. Delayed dead ball.

Manager may take results of the play. In this case he will
take the award, (well we think).

Shouldn't that be batter awarded first and the runners are advanced one base?
Catcher's obstruction is a delayed dead ball, it is ignored if batter and runners advance safely one base. If they don't get the one base advance, award them.

OBR 6.08.c Approved ruling:
If the catcher interferes with the batter the batter is awarded first base. If, on such interference a runner is trying to score by a steal or squeeze from third base, the ball is dead and runner on third scores and batter is awarded first base. If the catcher interferes with the batter with no runner trying to score from third on a squeeze or steal, then the ball is dead, batter is awarded first base and runners who are forced to advance, do advance. Runners not attempting to steal or not forced to advance remain on the base they occupied at the time of the interference.

From the call - ie. "Obstruction" not "Interference" - one might be tempted to guess that this was a FED fixture.

Assuming it was OBR and not FED, I'm almost with bluduc but not quite. The ball became FOUL, touched by the pitcher in foul territory down the 1st base line. As such there was no "play" following the interference for the manager to optionally accept. If R2 & R3 were <i>not</i> stealing, only the batter gets to advance on the CI award. Period.

Having said that, what R2 & R3 in their right minds would NOT be moving on this play? Surely U16's would know enough baseball to be advancing on that hit?

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

Warren you are correct on the foul ball. I ***- u-me (ed) OBR.
Your reply got me thinking.
We have a definition of a squeeze in OBR. A bunt attempt which does not apply here.
When does a steal attempt begin? Is going on the batted ball a steal. Does the runner have to be going before the pitch?
At the time of the pitch? Would a big lead be considerd a steal? Does FED have such a definition?
Your views please.

FED covers it under 5-1-2b. It is a delayed dead ball and the batter is awarded 1st and forced runners advance 1 base. Runners not forced but are stealing are awarded 1 base.

Remember, the defense obstructs and the offense interfers. The catcher can only obstruct.

[Edited by ozzy6900 on Jul 22nd, 2003 at 09:48 AM]

In FED games only, Ozzy. In all other codes of baseball, it is referred to as catcher's INTERFERENCE. As usual, the traditional way to describe it wasn't good enough for the FED so we get another gratuitous difference.

Rich

R2 and R3 remain at their bases---unless stealing on the pitch or forced to advance because of award to BR, they would not advance.

BR is sent to 1B.

Catcher is sent to ER..........



Freix

An addendum..this is right from the NFHS case book...

Same situation happens, with R1 on third and R2 on 2nd. R2 attempts to steal 3rd base, EVEN THOUGH IT IS OCCUPIED. If catcher interference is called, R2's attempted steal gives him 3rd base (regardless of the fact that it was already occupied), which forces R1 home.

Sorta goofy, since if R1 was not stealing home and R2 is doing something stupid, he ends up being awarded for it. :)

Although there is no written definition of the term "stealing" in OBR, the definition might be implied from a reading of OBR 10.08 dealing with stolen bases.

Basically, if the runner had begun his <u>legitimate attempt to advance</u> <b><i>before</i></b> the batter had struck the ball, that should be considered "stealing" on the pitch.

That is separate and distinct from the scorer's award of a stolen base, requiring that the runner be "<i>...unaided by a hit, a put out, an error, a force-out, a fielder's choice, a passed ball, a wild pitch or a balk ...</i>".

If the runner had delayed his legitimate attempt to advance until <b><i>after</b></i> the batter had struck the ball, that would be a hit-and-run play and should not be considered as "stealing".

Taking any "lead" - long, short or intermediate - and holding it until the ball is hit should NOT be considered a legitimate attempt to advance. [<i>cf</i> OBR 8.05 End Note(b) - Pro interpretation requires a "<i>legitimate attempt to advance</i>" before the pitcher is absolved from throwing to an unoccupied base; taking a long lead, or faking an advance and returning, would NOT qualify as a legitimate attempt to advance]

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 23rd, 2003 at 02:42 AM]

Thanks Warren.
Section 10 is a place I don't go often. 31 years maybe 10
times. 10.08 (a) sounds good to me. "When a runner starts for the next base before the pitcher delivers the ball".
I have not called Fed ball in 10 years so I am out of loop on Fed rules. Most youth and adult ball around here play OBR.
Most problems with parents an coaches come from not knowing the the rules are not the same.
In fact many of the young umps I have used for youth league ball have played under Fed and must be retrained to call OBR. After football (Texas HS plays NCAA not Fed) I
will revisit Sec. 10 in detail.
Thanks again.

You're welcome, bluduc. Can't say I go to Rule 10 all that often myself. Most times it has been to point out to a mom or dad scorer that they aren't allowed to yell out about batting out of turn! It helps to know that it's there, though.

I can't believe you live in Texas but don't have a copy of Carl Childress' <i>Baseball Rules Differences</i>! As an Edinburg resident, Carl would be truly disappointed! ;)

You'll find all the differences between OBR, FED and NCAA right there in one volume. Maybe you could take copies to your chapter meetings and maybe even sell 'em for a profit in the stands at your games! :D

Just funnin' witcha, bluduc. Again, you're welcome.

Cheers

I would agree with your assessment that a runner must be judged as attempting legitimate advance before the batter swings in order to be considered as stealing. Any action to advance initiated after the swing would be considered a result of further playing action. However, Warren, I don't think I'd agree with your assessment of the commonly referred to "hit-and-run play."

When a "hit-and-run play" occurs in the states, Warren, the runner commits to his advancement after the pitch is initiated but before the pitch is struck at. It serves little purpose to call a "hit-and-run play" and have the runner wait to see what the result of the batter's actions are. Perhaps it's different down under......

The "hit-and-run play" results in an attempt by the runner to advance little different than a steal attempt. It might more accurately be referred to a run-and-hit play. Still, the fact that the runner initiated legitimate advancement prior to the pitch is reason to award him his advance base should catcher's interference occur.


Freix

http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/bits/images/koalani_f.gif

Warren,

Steve is right. A hit-and-run play is when the runner runs on the pitch, like a steal attempt. On this you would award the advance base on catcher's interference.

You are ignoring the messenger regardless of the message.

Rich

*sigh* You too have missed the point, Rich. I said that a play where the runner did not make a legitimate attempt to advance until <b><i>after</b></i> the batter struck the pitch would certainly be a hit-and-run play. It would. That's not to say that hit-and-run play's cannot begin much earlier ie. after the pitching motion has commenced. But a play that began so late most certainly <b><i>would</b></i> be a hit-and-run play ... quite literally!

Freix just disagrees to be disagreeable. He is bound and determined to prove his hypothesis that I know nothing about baseball. Please don't become his unwitting dupe in that fruitless endeavour, Rich.

And, yes, you are correct ... I most certainly am "<i>ignoring the messenger regardless of the message.</i>" Considering the foul suggestions he has previously made toward me, I feel well within my rights to do so. I would LOVE to have answered some of his more inane criticisms of my recent posts, but I have no intention of giving him that satisfaction.

Bottom line: Does it actually have to be a squeeze play or steal to award the advance base on CI? I agree the answer to that, at least on a practical level, is clearly "No". All that is required is for the runner to have made a legitimate attempt to advance some time before the ball is batted into play, IMHO.

Cheers

There's a lingo problem here.

Hit-and-run is a specific term used in the US where a runner will take off as if he's stealing. Most times, this runner does not have the speed to steal, so the batter has an obligation to swing at the pitch in order to put it into play.

Usually, the hit-and-run is designed to take advantage of the the hole created when F4 or F6 cover second.

It is REALLY run-and-hit, but that's not what we call it here. Saying hit-and-run and meaning hit-and-then-run would confuse most, if not all Americans that know baseball.

Rich

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

Freix just disagrees to be disagreeable. He is bound and determined to prove his hypothesis that I know nothing about baseball. Please don't become his unwitting dupe in that fruitless endeavour, Rich.

Warren, I sometimes disagree with posts that are inaccurate or misleading---yours included. Should I exclude yours due to your apparent paranoia?
While you accuse me of attacking you, it seems you are the one with the constant comments and inuendos toward me---as occurred here, Warren. You may need to look in the mirror to address the problem.

If my responses to your posts seem to you as more numerous than to others it's not because I seek that out, but perhaps because you may need to give more thought to what is being said <u>before</u> it is said. You also post more often than many others. Someone calling 100 games a year is twice as susceptible to error as someone calling 50 games a year.

I seldom make "me, too" posts, so better accuracy in your posting and elimination of misrepresenting people would resolve what you feel is a problem with someone else. The apparent problem, Warren, is moreso with your inaccurate posting, and the solution is well within your grasp if <u>you</u> care to address it.

And for the record, Warren, few baseball savvy people in the U.S. seeing a play where the runner stayed at his base until the ball is batted would refer to that play as "a hit-and-run play" <u>as you did</u>. I will stand by that statement. I understand things are sometimes addressed differently "down under", and that is why I qualified my exception within my original post. That may be a more common reference in your area.


Freix

Oh, please ...
 

Oh, look this is getting really SILLY. I used the term "hit-and-run play" to distinguish what was described from a "steal". That's all. It quite literally WAS a "hit-and-run play", okay a "hit-and-then-run play", even though that doesn't jibe with the usual understanding of when such plays are initiated. I wasn't trying to DEFINE what is a "hit-and run play". I was trying to show what is NOT a "steal". *sigh*

I'm sorry if my pecadillo caused some confusion among some of you 'mericans. It really was such a small matter in relation to the original post as to be not worth raising UNLESS, like BFair, you are hunting for every "pin" on which to hang a poster! [pun intended] *Sheesh!*

Cheers