I know we've talked about a sitch like this before, but...

Dropped in on a tournament on the way back home from vacation...needed to stretch my legs anyway, and have worked this tourney in the past, needed to see old friends, yada yada.

So...

1 out. R1 at 1B. B2 K's. Catcher drops ball. B2 runs to first. R1 runs to second. Catcher quickly retrieves ball and, IMHO and in the opinion of others looking on, purposefully tries to nail B2 in back. Succeeds in hitting B2 in back.

BU signals delayed dead ball (yeah, I know...). R1 rounds second and heads for third.

Ball is retrieved by catcher. Catcher throws out R1 at third.

Of course now is where all the !@#$ starts. After the dust clears, 3B coach comes sprinting down toward the PU because he has seen BU with his arm out.

BU and PU confer.

After the dust settles, they call B2 out and put R1 back on first.

Do you agree?

Maybe I agree, John. You did not say where B2 was when hit by the thrown ball. If a running lane violation, then I agree with the call. If not a running lane violation, then I have B2 on 1B and R1 on 2B. AND, I'm watching F2 more closely than normal. I do not think you have enough for a warning to F2, let alone an ejection, but if I smell something "foul", I'll be watching for it.


addition - I forgot to say that IF I have a running lane violation, then I have R1 probably on 2B but maybe on 1B - depends on where R1 was when the interference occurred AND I have B2 out.

What a brain fart I had - shows what happens with too little rest & too much time being busy & tied up. Anyway, I do not agree with the ruling. I have B2 out on strikes and R1 out on a tag. The delayed dead ball by BU is irrelevant - everyone is supposed to know what the situation is.

[Edited by Steve M on Jul 5th, 2005 at 08:08 PM]

Absolutely. (Assume we're playing FP by ASA rules)

ASA 7.6.N says B is a goner ... he never became a BR.

Right call in the end. Don't agree with all the hoopla it took to get there, though.

B2's location
 

B2's location when she was hit was also the subject of conjecture...From 10 feet behind the screen (optimum calling location, as parents/fans have been calling games from there since the mid 1800s) she appeared to be one foot on the "fair" side of the line, other foot on foul side...and the umpires disagreed as to where she was located.

The other thing we couldn't understand, even after the game when all parties talked...was why the base umpire would make any call in that situation. His signal was immediate. I could understand it if there were something blatant and his partner had a brain lapse, but...that was not the case.

I have B2 out on strikes and R1 out on a tag. The delayed dead ball by BU is irrelevant - everyone is supposed to know what the situation is.

I agree with Steve's final answer. B2 is out on strikes (what was the delayed dead ball call for?)

R1 is out on the tag at 3rd as she can advance on her own with liability to be put out.

The only variation I can see is since B2 was already out, you could possibly make a case of intereference by B2 and rule R1 out since B2 was already out on strikes with 1B occupied with less than 2 outs and could not advance to 1st on a dropped ball. But I would more than likely rule stupid catcher.

Don't understand the DDB call, but with the situtation posted, the batter is out on
strikes, R1 attempting to advance is out on tag, unless this is where obstruction may
have taken place if there was any.

Just one question, Steve..................................





IS THAT YOUR FINAL ANSWER?

Mike,
Ask me again after I've had a nap or 2. Glad I went back & looked at that again - before anyone else had a chance to notice it.

I'm thinking the DDB call was a boot by the BU.
Maybe he needed a nap or two also!

bkbjones,

"Dropped in on a tournament on the way back home from vacation..."

I thought the Mrs and I were the only ones who did that!
That's dedication...way to go!

Am I missing something?

No, I don't agree.

B2 is out, D3K didn't apply. (ASA 8-1-B)

F2 tried to make a play on the runner R1 stealing 2B, and B2 (now a retired batter) interfered with the play, so the runner closest to home is out. Her location (fair/foul/lane) and the tag are irrelevant. (ASA 8-7-P).

I certainly don't have a DDB or OBS on B1, even if she made it to 2B - much less to 3B.

I now have 3 outs. End of inning, switch sides.

Ok, how'd I do?

It's three outs, but not by way of INT.

The post specfically stated the the retired batter was "nailed" in the back by the catcher as she was proceding toward 1B. Well, if the catcher was throwing to 2B to get R1, it wouldn't be likely the retired batter would be anywhere near the throw unless the catcher was coached to throw at her.

B out on strikes, R1 steals 2B on DMC and then R1 is out attempting to take 3B.

After the dust settles, the catcher may be gone for USC if the umpire believes she was indeed throwing at the retired batter.

If the BU still has DDB signal up, this would be placing the runner in jeopardy. You can't indicate Obstruction and then call the runner out while you are still telling the offense it's still in effect. If this is the situation, I would agree with the way the umpires settled it. If the DDB signal was not still indicated, there are 3 outs.

C'mon, guys... the runner running on a (presumed) D3K is specifically excepted from the retired runner drawing a throw interference rule. You even reference the rule. And, if you are basing your argument on the fact that the 3K rule does not apply here since 1B was occupied, I ask you - how else would a retired runner running on D3K be an issue? IOW, the rule is obviously intended to cover the situation where the runner "thinks" she can run.

And, wrt interference with the play on R1... that would have to be an intentional act (other than merely running).

This might be worth some discussion. Certainly the BU was indicating SOME call with the DDB, and that call was later reversed. But, even if the OBS (supposed) was on the BR (who wasn't a BR), you can't obstruct a retired runner.

I'd be inclined to let the outs stand and possibly eject the catcher. Another thought is if F2 obviously intentionally nailed the BR, dead ball for flagrant misconduct, eject F2, return R1 to 2B.

I respectfully disagree. The rule (8-7-P) doesn't apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule. Well, in this sitch, the batter never became a batter-runner, so the "exemption" to this rule doesn't apply. And it certainly doesn't mention presumed. What DOES apply is the runner "after being declared out" intentionally interferes... In this sitch, the runner intentionally ran to first. Whether she knew the D3K was off or not, she intentionally ran to 1B, knowing (intending?) that the throw would go to 1B to get her out. Smells like intention to me.

How else would a retired [batter-]runner running on D3K be an issue? It wouldn't - you couldn't have a retired BR running on D3K. You could have a retired runner running on a presumed D3K... but see above for that. I guess I don't understand your question...?

Now this side of the argument I can see. A few things tho:
- What's DMC?
- Which overrules: Interference by a retired runner, or USC on the catcher? Can a runner (retired or not) interfere with an USC throw?

To both Tom and Mike: I am somewhat playing devil's advocate to spark discussion, not to be disrespectful. I am trying to learn (aren't we all?) so I can get the call right when/if it happens to me. I mean no ill will. :)

DMC = Dumb Move, Catcher

Speaking ASA

There is no interference or obstruction on the play as defined in the original scenario UNLESS R1 was obstructed and not mentioned in the post.

A batter not entitled to run to 1B on a U3K and drawing a throw is specifically excluded as a form of INT (8.7.P).

In the ensuing discussion...
 

In the ensuing discussion, which included, among others, a former NUS member, the tournament UIC and others...

The BU said he brain lapsed with the DDB call and his intention was interference on the BR...which (of course) resulted in a discussion pretty much like the discussion so far on this board. :)

The consensus was...there was no real consensus.

Re: In the ensuing discussion...
 

Just out of curiousity, does this umpire work NFHS?

No it's not... there's nothing mentioned about a runner not entitled to run.
(Underline emphasis added by me.) If the batter was eligible to run on a U3K, then the rule wouldn't apply. But since our batter wasn't eligible to run, the rule is still applicable.

Or is this rule written weird and I'm reading it wrong?

Both, actually.

The exception is that a retired BR, who has struck out, but who runs anyway in case the third strike rule applies, cannot be considered to be committing an act of interference merely by running to 1B.

The defense (specifically, F2) is expected to know the situation and play accordingly.

So that last sentence in 8-7-P should read:

This does not apply to the batter-runner or retired batter running on the dropped or assumed dropped third strike rule.

?

Re: Re: In the ensuing discussion...
 

[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiousity, does this umpire work NFHS? [/B][/QUOTE]

Mike,
I assume he does, although that didn't come up during the discussion.

P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.

This does not work in this situation because the catcher threw towards 1b. R1 was heading towards 2b. How could B2 be interfering with a play on R1 unless she was running towards the pitcher's rubber?

Okay, here's my $.02.

First, this is certainly not interference in ASA. The rule sequence is 1) it used to be called interference up to about 5 years ago, so 2) a rule passed making it a dead ball and no action if a batter retired drew the throw (that rule lasted only one year, as I best recall), to 3) the more current rule making it a live ball, not interference, and the defense has a burden of knowledge the offense is not burdened with. This history and background of the rule changes make it clear that it must NOT be interference, only if another intentional act occurs can it be considered.

Second, by the play sequence, I have three outs; it is almost impossible that you would sell me that a DDB signal on a play on BR put the runner in jeopardy, and that she didn't continue to a play beyond any point of possible protection (even if the runner thinks she is the obstructed runner). The only way I have anything different is if I judge USC on the intentional hitting of the BR by F2. But, I would have to be soooooooo certain it was intentional; and if I did, I am returning the runner to 1B, because I don't believe she would have touched 2B before the ball hit BR, and I have a dead ball immediately on that call.

So, I can accept the possibility of one out and runner returns to 1B, but only if I also have an ejection (probably two or more, because defensive coach almost certainly goes with catcher; either because I think it is taught, or because he doesn't accept me ejecting his catcher).

[Edited by AtlUmpSteve on Jul 6th, 2005 at 02:00 PM]

Re: Re: In the ensuing discussion...
 

Why?

Re: Re: Re: In the ensuing discussion...
 

I had the same thought, actually. This was such a case of parts of a rule that don't apply, I was also thinking the BU included the NFHS ruling that running lane interference would apply on a walk (result would be BR is out and runner would return to 1B).

Dont assume, why you wanna be like us anyway, theres are enough perfect folks already, whats soo wrong with hoopla, and who the heck is B?