Timing play??

[Tru_in_Blu]

This shouldn't have required a discussion between the umpires. If the BU saw the BR contact the ball while in fair territory, it should have been an immediate dead ball, BR out for interference and base runner(s) returned to last base touched at the time of the interference.

Since they did confer and agree on interference, they then had to decide where the runner was at the time of the interference, certainly the runner had not crossed home plate yet, much less reached third base.

In short, this is not a timing play.

[Jasper]

Thank you for the quick replies!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

...If the BU saw the BR contact the ball while in fair territory,....

I disagree with some of what you seem to say here (not that it matters to the OP; the replies are correct, not a timing play). My comment is about what the BU should do. In the case of a batter hit by a batted ball in the vicinity of the plate, the BU should immediately declare DEAD BALL, but should not rule on whether the batter was in or out of the box. The PU should rule on that. Once the ball is declared dead, the PU should rule on foul ball or out.

[kcg NC2Ablu]

call it dead when you see it let PU sort it out if the batter was in or out of the box.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

call it dead when you see it let PU sort it out if the batter was in or out of the box.

I would think that if the PU were able to determine out/safe after BU kills the ball, the PU would have seen the interference and made the call. If PU doesn't kill the ball then he obviously didn't see the interference.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

I would think that if the PU were able to determine out/safe after BU kills the ball, the PU would have seen the interference and made the call. If PU doesn't kill the ball then he obviously didn't see the interference.

I agree he didn't see the ball contact the batter, but the situation where the BU kills the ball usually is that the PU sees that it was close, but is not sure of the contact. The BU confirms the contact, and then the PU makes the call on out/foul. The ball is dead, so if the PU is unsure, the umpires can talk.

[kcg NC2Ablu]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

I would think that if the PU were able to determine out/safe after BU kills the ball, the PU would have seen the interference and made the call. If PU doesn't kill the ball then he obviously didn't see the interference.

its not a question of did he or didnt he its a question of where was the runner. When you call it dead he should be able to tell where the runner was. Thus not an issue if he saw the interference or not.

[topper]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

its not a question of did he or didnt he its a question of where was the runner. When you call it dead he should be able to tell where the runner was. Thus not an issue if he saw the interference or not.

I disagree. What credibility does the PU have when judging foul/out by when he/she hears the BU kill the play? Good luck explaining that one.

If my BU does not kill the play on his/her own, even if delayed, in this situation, I will not come together at the coach's request. If we didn't see it, it didn't happen. If BU saw it and didn't kill it, shame on him/her.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by topper

I disagree. What credibility does the PU have when judging foul/out by when he/she hears the BU kill the play? Good luck explaining that one.

If my BU does not kill the play on his/her own, even if delayed, in this situation, I will not come together at the coach's request. If we didn't see it, it didn't happen. If BU saw it and didn't kill it, shame on him/her.

It is a highly unlikely scenario where the PU will not see the contact AND there is an extended range of space where the contact COULD have happened.

From the PU's perspective (no contact with the balls seen in each case):

The batter swings at the pitch, hits the ball down, and the ball scoots out into the infield (or out into foul territory). BU kills the ball. Contact was in the box, foul ball.

The batter hits the ball out in front of the plate (or a dribbler moving out into the infield), the batter-runner begins running, BU kills the ball. Since the ball was out of the batter's box, contact was out of the batter's box, batter out.

The PU is not blind and is not unaware of where the batter-runner is and where the ball is; he just did not see the actual contact. 999 times out of 1000, though, he will know that IF there was contact, WHERE the BR was when it happened. And, he'll know this with more certainty than the BU will if the contact is in the vicinity of the batter's box.

[topper]

Originally Posted by Dakota

IThe PU should rule on that. Once the ball is declared dead, the PU should rule on foul ball or out.

Not sure what PU would base the ruling on, he/she didn't see the contact.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Not sure what PU would base the ruling on, he/she didn't see the contact.

It would depend on the situation. Since we are not supposed to guess outs, maybe the PU knew where contact with the ball could have occurred, just not sure it did.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I disagree with some of what you seem to say here (not that it matters to the OP; the replies are correct, not a timing play). My comment is about what the BU should do. In the case of a batter hit by a batted ball in the vicinity of the plate, the BU should immediately declare DEAD BALL, but should not rule on whether the batter was in or out of the box. The PU should rule on that. Once the ball is declared dead, the PU should rule on foul ball or out.

Dakota,

I took at face value that "The batter is out of the box" from the OP.

The runner has about 30' where she can run in fair territory before having to be in the running lane. A RH batter who bunts down the 1B line might be hit in the front of their body, effectively screening the PU from seeing contact in fair territory. If I see this, I'm calling a dead ball and the BR out. The angle from "C" is a little better than the PU, but also a lot further away. Add in moving fielders and a runner breaking for 3B once the ball has hit the ground, and it can be a busy situation.

My point is that if the PU doesn't see it to call it, and the BU does see it, it should be called immediately. If the BU did see it and had to wait for a conference, that's something s/he'll need to work on for the next game/opportunity.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Dakota,

I took at face value that "The batter is out of the box" from the OP.

The runner has about 30' where she can run in fair territory before having to be in the running lane.

I know the OP stated things generically, but as I said, I'm talking about the vicinity of the plate.

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

My point is that if the PU doesn't see it to call it, and the BU does see it, it should be called immediately. If the BU did see it and had to wait for a conference, that's something s/he'll need to work on for the next game/opportunity.

I agree, the dead ball should be called immediately. But, if this happens in the vicinity of the plate, that is as far as the BU should go short of the PU asking for information.

[Jasper]

Thanks for all the input everyone

Let me try to explain where the contact was made more precisely.

It was a right handed batter, ball went pretty much straight down and a little forward. Took about a knee high bounce and ended about a foot in front of lefty batters box. Batter started running and like jump stopped just outside the batters box seeing she was going to make contact with the ball. From my perspective, which was behind and left, I could not tell if she touched the ball or not. At the time I felt if she did make contact with the ball it would have went forward more than it did. I am sure the PU couldn't see any contact as he was blocked by the catcher and batter/runner. PU did signal fair ball though.

I, like most of you, figured if the BU saw the batter/runner contact the ball, it would have been called dead at that point. Play on I thought.

The 2 umpires were not going to conference until the defence, brought it up between batters.

That is why I thought it may have become a timing play, based on what I thought was an appeal from the defence. But from what I read this could not have been the case.

Just to let you know I do not have a player on either team, just happened to be there.

Thanks again for the input.