Tripple Play STOPPED

[mick]

Originally Posted by Bobbi Stevens

So just image for one minute, the umpire saw the player deliberately knock the ball out of my glove, then this would be interference, therefore he would be given out ? Yes ??

would the umpire then judge that i would of also got the runner out at 2nd ?

I personally felt that i would of got all three.

Yes, the umpire probably could have given you the out at 2B, and maybe 1B, though the out at 1B had more variables and would make it tougher for the ump to be "certain".

[Bobbi Stevens]

Is there a rule about runners knocking balls out of gloves, or a rule that cover this incident ?? So i can look it up ???

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Bobbi Stevens

Is there a rule about runners knocking balls out of gloves, or a rule that cover this incident ?? So i can look it up ???

We don't know which rule book you are using, but for example the runner rules in ASA are in Rule 8, Section 7, starting around sub section L. Other rule books have similar sections, usually titled "runner is out" or something similar.

Note: the out at 2nd could be because the tagged runner is now out and as a "retired" runner "deliberately" attempted to prevent a double play. The triple play would be a real stretch on the umpire's part.

[Skahtboi]

As an aside, "would've" does not equal "would of," but rather "would have." Just a pet peeve of mine.

[emaxos]

As long as we are providing grammar corrections, how about triple play, not tripple play.
It takes a village!!

[CecilOne]

Come on you guys, ease up.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by emaxos

As long as we are providing grammar corrections, how about triple play, not tripple play.
It takes a village!!

I was going to suggest trippple play.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I was going to suggest trippple play.

Good call, Dakota.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by emaxos

As long as we are providing grammar corrections, how about triple play, not tripple play.
It takes a village!!

Oh...trust me. I could've gone on and on. The incorrect spellings, though, could have been accidental. However, most people today actually believe that "would of" is really what folks are saying when they mean "would've."

[bkbjones]

If it was SP, a "Ripple" play would have been more apt.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Bobbi Stevens

Is there a rule about runners knocking balls out of gloves, or a rule that cover this incident ?? So i can look it up ???

Note that the rule will not specifically mention a runner knocking the ball out of the glove.

If runner does this deliberately, then it is interference, and the interference rules apply. "Deliberately" is entirely in the judgement of the umpire. If the runner swipes at your glove with her hand (ala A. Rod.), that's pretty obviously deliberate. But if the runner simply runs hard into the glove with no other motion to dislodge the ball, then it's probably your bad for failing to control the ball during the tag.

[Bobbi Stevens]

Thanks for getting the thread back on track.

He was a new player and he quite clearly pushed the glove out of the way to stop me tagging him. A big argument kick off after the game about it, between the sides and email have started flying around. I was just looking for some rule to quote to end this argument

[celebur]

In that case, all you can quote is the rules on interference as mentioned by previous posters. But because they don't explicitly mention that interference includes deliberately knocking the ball out of the glove, the people you're trying to convince may not find this compelling.

On such a play, though, it is entirely the judgement of the umpire that matters, and there are two judgements that need to be made. The first is whether there was interference. If what you described as "he quite clearly pushed the glove out of the way" is accurate (this is very subjective, btw), then it sounds like interference to me. If there was interference, then the second judgement is the likely outcome of the play had there not been interference. In your case, a double play seemed obvious, so if interference had been called, two outs would be the minimum penalty. But a triple play is never as obvious, and the umpire would have to be convinced that such an outcome was likely before giving a three-out penalty for the interference.