Wife's HS game yesterday. R1, batter(pitcher for visiting team) walks, ball gets by catcher. R1 rounds second and heads toward third. Courtsey runner heads from thirdbase dugout toward firstbase during live ball. Catcher begins to throw to thirdbase but does not throw due to CR in her line of fire. Runners move up to third and second. Plate umpire sleeping and BU is moving to third for a call.
What is the ruling. They let the play stand. Thanks

If the umpire believed the CR kept C from getting R1 out, INT should have been the call and R1 ruled out.

BTW, your wife plays high school ball?

I suspect they let the play stand because A) BU was covering a potential play and didn't see CR, and B) PU was sleeping. I would think that if they saw CR out there, this is a pretty easy call to make.

No, my wife is the coach of the HS team and is also an umpire in the summer leagues and fall.
What would you consider the player(CR) on the field? She would not be considered the CR until play has stopped and the umpire has acknowledged her. Can't find anything in FED book that clearly defines the situation, maybe Rule 3-5-5. Does not give the penalty. At least make the runners go back to 1st and 2nd. I would think call R1 out and allow the BR 1st then after fuss have to eject the coach(grin).

3-3-1 covers the fact that she is not a CR until it is a dead ball period. 2-32 defines interference as including all offensive personnel and (I agree with you) that 3-5-5 states what was done is not allowed.

Too bad there is no penalty associated with 3-5-5. :)

It obviously could be ruled an out if interference is judged. It is just not specificially noted in a "penalty" section.

Try: 2-32 "...a member of the team at bat who interferes with, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play...." and, 3-6:6 (only runner(s) and on-deck, and batter allowed on field) and, 10-2:3g would lead to the conclusion that the extra player interfered with the play.

It does not matter what the designation of the member is.

The key here is that the "CR-to-be" who has entered the feild must actually interfere (in the judgement of the umpire, of course) with an opportunity to make an out. Her wrongful presence on the feild does not automatically constitute interference, nor would it be a reason to kill the play until the umpire judged that interference had taken place.

The PU may not have been asleep after all, he/she may just not have believed that the "CR-to-be" caused F2 to hold up her throw. Can argue that all day but it is a judgement call all the way.

Interference on the non-player. She is not a courtesy runner until a dead ball is called, and she has taken the player's place on the field. Dead-ball, the runner at third is out.

I almost agree with this. NFHS 2-32 requires that the fielder be "attempting to make a play" -- play, not out. For interference to be ruled, there must be a play that was interfered with. Merely getting in the way of a defensive player who might have eventually made a play is not interference.

As described, this situation sounded like interference... "Catcher begins to throw to third base..."

Depending on what "begins to throw" means and what the PU saw, this may have been judged a nothing.

I would think you would have to penalize the offense because they had an illegal player on the field during a live ball situation. The player on the field is not a CR until play has stopped and time has been given. The PU had his back turned and was walking back to the plate and saw nothing. Poor mechanics I think.

If there was no interference, the team should be warned, and if the offense is repeated, the offending player is restricted to the bench. 3-6-6.

The umpire can't call what he didn't see. The PU should not have had his back to the field during live play. Tough for you, poor for him.

Thanks for the information with this messy question.

Correct she is not yet a CR, she is an offensive player not yet participating in the game. She has NOT taken another players place she is simply out on the feild and should not be, yet. This is not a reason to call a dead ball, not until this offensive player actually causes interference or all play has ended. You don't want to take away the opportunity for defense to make an out, but they still have to MAKE an out, your not going to give it to them just becuase of this early-CR's presence.

Isn't this much simpler than we're making it?

If an offensive player, not authorized to be on the field, interferes with the defense's attempt to make a play on a runner, IT'S INTERFERENCE!

Whether the action by this unauthorized player actually *was* interference is completely a judgment call.

But once it has been determined one way or the other - the ruling is simple.

Not interference - play stands.

Interference - R1 is out.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Post removed?
 

Mick,
Can you tell me why my post on this thread was removed?
Did I do something wrong?
Please e-mail me.
Thanks.

"Catcher begins to throw to thirdbase but does not throw due to CR in her line of fire. "

How do we know why she did not throw? Do we know that she didn't want to risk a bad throw? Or that it was too late? Or that the ball slipped in her hand so she stopped the throwing motion? Or that she didn't have a brain freeze?

What ever happened to "No throw, no interference?"

If this play was down the 1B line, and the B-R was outside the 3' lane, and the catcher turned to you and said "I can't throw Blue, she is in my way," would you call interference?

If a batter backed out of the box and was right in front of a catcher who failed to throw on R1 trying to steal 3B, would you call interference?

What is the difference between these plays and the OP's play? Are we letting the legality of the CR cause us to automatically assume the catcher was interferred with?

WMB

Whoever told you that there was no interference if there wasn't a throw?

If I see a player preparing to throw the ball, but check-up because a member of the opposition passes in front of or is stationed outside their designated areas during a live ball, that is very likely going to get my attention and an INT call.

In this particular case, you may be right. Perhaps a throw was required.

But, I disagree with hardened concept of "no throw, no interference." I think that is a good <b>general</b> rule as far as a trying to determine which way to go in an iffy-situation.

Let's change the circumstance a little and you tell me if you think this is batter's interference:

Situation: Right-handed batter. Runner stealing 3rd. The catcher receives the pitch and decides to create a throwing lane <b>behind</b> the batter - which is not too uncommon. But the batter backs up, thinking she is getting out of the catcher's way when, in fact, she is moving directly into the catcher's path. The two players are practically on top of one another as the catcher rares back to throw and finds the batter in her face. The catcher aborts the throw attempt. The two players never actually touch although they were just inches from one another.

Batter's interference?

I would say - <b><i>ABSOLUTELY!</i></b>

Does the catcher really have to slam her throwing hand into the batter's helmet in order to demonstrate that she had been interfered?

Granted, this completely a judgment call on the part of the umpire. But I think there is ample room to rule batter's interference in this situation, although an actual throw was never made by the catcher.

Did the batter hinder the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner? If the answer is, "Yes!", then it's interference. It's up to the umpire to determine what constitutes a legitimate attempt to make a play. An aborted throw <b>can</b> be an attempt.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

The key words might be "hinder" or "confuse". A runner in the way or a batter backing out is not as confusing as an non-participating offense player in the infield.

Going back to an early response, if I judged the uninvited player in the infield was the reason the catcher or other fielder failed to throw, I would call interference.

Of course, I would be watching, not napping.

Re: Post removed?
 

And if it's something we all should know, please educate us, without bias toward Tony of course.

Can't be interference without a throw is not a catch-all. It applies to batter interference in the lane specifically because this rule says that a batter is only out for being out of the running lane if she interferes with the fielder's opportunity to CATCH a quality throw. So there can't be interference by the BATTER in that case unless there was a quality throw to interfere with.

Interference elsewhere can be all sorts of things, many of which have NOTHING to do with a throw. The rest of the interference rule refers to the interference with the chance to MAKE A PLAY (as opposed to catching a ball). Big difference, and it applies in this sitch.

I grant you that we are not mindreaders, and don't know why F2 held up... but in a case like this (a non player streaking across the line of sight of a player considering making a throw), I'd err on the side of penalizing the offense here absent any other information.

Catcher begins to throw to thirdbase but does not throw due to CR in her line of fire.

This is from the OP. The scenario offered specifically states that the catcher "begins to throw" to 3B.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this is interference based on the information offered. No mind reading, second-guessing, reading into the play, etc.

If you choose not to call INT due to "no throw, no INT", what are you going to do when the catcher clocks the CR-to-be in the ear-hole?

"But Blue, you told me I had to throw the ball!"