Florida vs Puerto Rico LL game

[RKBUmp]

Anybody else catch the game? Turned it on just in time to catch the top ofthe 7th inning.

4 officials on field and apparently not one of them knows the rule regarding a retired runner drawing a throw. That is unless LL rules are that much different than ASA and FED.

[PSUchem]

Yup, just came on here to see if anyone else watched it.

Situation (if I remember correctly): R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B, 1 out. B3 bunts. Someone (F1? F3? F5? I can't remember) fields the ball, checks the runner, and throws out B3 on a very close play. Fielder at 1B throws home, not in time to get R1. Meanwhile, R2 moves up to 3B. B3, never looks at U1, and doesn't see his sell "out". 1B coach is a player, so no help here. Seeing the ball go to HP, B3 takes off for 2B, drawing the throw from the catcher, where U2 calls B3 out again. (Apparently, B3 wasn't the only one that did not see U1's call.) R2 runs home and scores before a late throw to the plate. Confusion ensues. 3 outs were called, but 2 of them on the same runner.

As you say, unless LL rules differ from ASA, there could have only been 2 possible outcomes:

1) They deemed interference on the already retired runner, in which case the runner on 3B should have been declared out as well, for the 3rd out of the inning.

2) They did not deem interference, rather DMC, and allow the run to stand.

Actual ruling (presumably, based on announcers and mic'ed umpire conversations): Interference on the batter-runner after already being retired, placed R2 back on 3B.

WTF?

[RKBUmp]

Thier first ruling was DMC, run stands. Puerto Rico coach then protested the call. Overheard plate ump say something about calling someone, but never saw anyone else come on field. Plate ump then called both coaches to the plate, said they were calling the retired runner for interference, and placing runner back at 3rd.

As you said, WTF???????? If you have interference, someone is out.

[Tex]

Plus they are on national tv (ESPN). Six umpires, the announcers, and the defensive coach that don't know the rules. How embarrassing. Not one of them knew that the runner is out at 3rd for the interference by the retired runner at 2nd.

[MigoP]

Rule 8.6. art 18. NFHS. Continuing to run bases after being put out may be considered a form of interference. 8.6 sit. A Case Book. Ruling,if the interference prevented the fielder from making a second out you can get a double play.

[Rich Ives]

LL doesn't play by NFHS or ASA. They have their own rule book.

LL rule is the same as OBR on this.

The LL Instructors Manual says

If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he/she has been put out, he/she shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impending the fielders.

Which is a direct lift from OBR Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

The umpires got it right.

[RKBUmp]

If that is the case, then they still didnt get it right because they called the runner who was put out for interference, took the run off the board and put the runner back at 3rd. By the way that rule reads then their initial call of nothing should have stood.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

If that is the case, then they still didnt get it right because they called the runner who was put out for interference, took the run off the board and put the runner back at 3rd. By the way that rule reads then their initial call of nothing should have stood.

The umpires had it right. Whoever overruled it was wrong.

[Tex]

MigoP: The NFHS rule is 8-6-18 After being declared out ... a runner continues to run and drawing a throw is considered a form of interference. The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of interference shall be declared out.

Rich Ives: I agree with RKBUmp, why did the runner who scored go back to 3rd? Also interference was called by the umpires because of the throw. Where is the out that goes with this interference?

The umpires still made an incorrect call.