We've talked about this...

[bkbjones]

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?

[Steve M]

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]

[noobie]

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.

[bkbjones]

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.

[DNTXUM P]

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.

[whiskers_ump]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Steve M
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]

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





IS THAT YOUR FINAL ANSWER?

[Steve M]

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.

[JEL]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
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.

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!

[SRW]

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by SRW
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.

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by bkbjones

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

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.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by DNTXUM P
The only variation I can see is since B2 was already out, you could possibly make a case of intereference by B2...

Originally posted by SRW
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).

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).

Originally posted by TexBlue
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.

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.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Dakota
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).

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...?

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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).