Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 955150)

I don't disagree with anything you state here, Mike. But I want to discuss a different philosophy that could result in a different result. And to generate further discussion.

We know, and have discussed over and over, that the rulebook does not and cannnot cover every possible scenario, exception, what-if play. We, as umpires, are expected to rule on these exceptions to the rules based on the most similar applicable rule, to apply the intent of the rules. Some rules are meant to be narrowly construed as exceptions to the bigger picture; others are meant to help understand the bigger picture.

8.7-M is specific to call interference if a coach runs and draws a throw. 8.7-P is specific to call interference if an already retired runner (or scored runner) continues to run and draws a throw. The exception allows a batter-runner (sic) who is entitled to run on the D3K; we also know, because the case plays say so, that what "they" really allow is a retired batter who has NO right to run on the D3K to run anyway. But that ends at first base, because so does the inappropriate designation of batter-runner!!

Does any rule, case play, or approved ruling specifically allow ANYONE ELSE on the offense who is not currently a runner or batter-runner to simulate legally running the bases and draw a throw? Suppose (yes, third world, but making a point, I hope), that the on-deck batter crossed with the batter who is running with no right to run, and the on-deck batter completed running the to first, and then continued to run to second and draws a throw?? Would you conclude and rule then that since the on-deck batter doesn't meet the specific criteria in 8.7-M or 8.7-P that it was a DMC?? How about if a player ran out of the offensive dugout and started running the bases while the catcher was chasing the passed ball, so that F2 didn't realize it wasn't a legal runner?

I strongly suspect that in these more extreme cases that you would apply 10.1; and I also suspect that your result would be the same penalty as 8.7-M and 8.7-P, because they are the most similar rulings that would guide you in determining the proper result. (Yeah, you would likely have an unsportsmanlike ejection, too, and maybe a coach or two to follow, but that's in addition to the play ruling.)

So, we have two rules that spell out the result if the two most likely categories of offensive team members draw a play where none should exist. We have one very specific and case-play clarified exception; and this play in the OP isn't that, either. Why would we not consider the NEXT most likely category of offensive player that has no right, rhyme or reason to run as an attempt to create the same effect ruled interference by the two most similar rulings?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 955172)

I don't necessarily disagree, it is valid reasoning, but you know as well as I that many get themselves into trouble when they try to stretch rules farther than they were meant.

Let me ask you this. If a coach told you he was going to have his batter take off on ball 3, what would you do?

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 955179)

"Coach, I will rule on that, if any ruling is necessary based on what happens as a result; but you need to understand that someone running that isn't legally entitled to COULD be judged as interference."

Originally Posted by wallyb (Post 955215)

greetings...would telling the coach that attempting to run to first base on ball 3 could be considered a form of delaying the game and citing rule 5-4 e be effective?

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 955219)

I wouldn't use that, unless you really felt that the batter was purposely delaying the game for something very apparent, like approaching darkness or time limit that would give the offense a distinct advantage.

But I suppose you could use 7-3-D about failing to keep one foot in the box between pitches, and issue the appropriate warnings and strike calls. ;)

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 955170)

There is a passed ball which is an exception to 7.3.D



Look up the definition of "play". There was no attempt to retire the runner therefore there is no play with which to interfere.

Originally Posted by wallyb (Post 955215)

greetings...would telling the coach that attempting to run to first base on ball 3 could be considered a form of delaying the game and citing rule 5-4 e be effective?

Originally Posted by wallyb (Post 955380)

well, i see your point. no i wouldnt be prepared to forfeit the game for the purpose of stopping the coach from using a trick play but i would be if i considered the coaches repetetive tacticts unnecessarily delaying the game. what do you think the best response would be if the coach told you that he was going to have every batter run on ball 3?

Originally Posted by wallyb (Post 955389)

so would i but what would your response be to a coach who told you that he was going to have every batter run on ball 3?

Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 955391)

Stupid coaching. Wouldn't work after the second time (at the latest).

Originally Posted by wallyb (Post 955389)

so would i but what would your response be to a coach who told you that he was going to have every batter run on ball 3?