Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
johnnyg08

Interference

Recommended Posts

Saw this one online...thought I'd bring it here as well to get some discussion started.

"Hey guys , looking for a NFHS ruling and a OBR on this scenario. R2, (a) 0 or 1 out. (b) 2 out. Dropped third strike and the batter interferes with the catcher. The Catcher is still able to throw out R2 stealing from second. Do you get two outs on that? Is the interference ignored? Is the ball dead immediately?"

FED and OBR

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

This is not BI (where it can be ignored if the throw retires the runner).  It's BR Interference -- a different rule for a different situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, noumpere said:

This is not BI (where it can be ignored if the throw retires the runner).  It's BR Interference -- a different rule for a different situation.

FWIW, we agree with each other. Feel free to be more specific. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnnyg08 said:

FWIW, we agree with each other. Feel free to be more specific. 

I think i gave enough of a hint.  Those who know the answer already know it; those who do not will learn more by looking it up on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I think i gave enough of a hint.  Those who know the answer already know it; those who do not will learn more by looking it up on their own.

Ha ha...one would think. I went back and forth w/ this guy for over two hours last night. BTW, thanks for the non-answer. :-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Ha ha...one would think. I went back and forth w/ this guy for over two hours last night. 

That's too long, or would be for me.

If I'm asked a ruling, I will answer, plus one followup question. If the person wants to argue, life is too short: he can do with the info what he will.

There are cases of gaps on the rules and conflicting interpretations that bear some extended discussion. This is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Sounds good. Looks like we can lock it up! Good discussion! Not for one second did I think this thread would head in this direction. Wow.

Sorry: I didn't mean to comment on the thread, just on the general phenomenon of prolonged umpire discussions with people who cannot be wrong about things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, currently we have seven posts on the scenario and not one to help an umpire who may have also seen the play on the other site solve the scenario.

As you can imagine, there are several incorrect posts from several people on the other thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Well, currently we have seven posts on the scenario and not one to help an umpire who may have also seen the play on the other site solve the scenario.

Well, I blame noumpere for that. :D

This is runner INT by the BR. The ball is dead, the BR is out, and other runners return to their TOI bases. If it's the third out, the half inning is over. Same ruling, all codes.

I'll qualify this response slightly, as the bar for runner INT by the BR is different in FED and OBR. For FED, it must be intentional (8-4-1a). For OBR, the standard is "clear hindrance [with F2, not with the ball]," which need not be intentional (6.01(a)(1)). As it's a given of the play that the BR DID interfere, the ruling will be the same. (OBR also has this as a TOP return, but that's not materially different.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, maven said:

Well, I blame noumpere for that. :D

This is runner INT by the BR. The ball is dead, the BR is out, and other runners return to their TOI bases. If it's the third out, the half inning is over. Same ruling, all codes.

I'll qualify this response slightly, as the bar for runner INT by the BR is different in FED and OBR. For FED, it must be intentional (8-4-1a). For OBR, the standard is "clear hindrance [with F2, not with the ball]," which need not be intentional (6.01(a)(1)). As it's a given of the play that the BR DID interfere, the ruling will be the same. (OBR also has this as a TOP return, but that's not materially different.)

Clarification question (and not trying to break chops):

8-4-1a states: 

The batter-runner is out when:

a. he intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike

If the catcher is THROWING the ball, has he not already fielded it?  I interpret 8-4-1a as the BR interfered with F2's ability to gain possession of the ball to make a play.  To me the OP is analogous to a running lane violation.  The catcher had fielded the ball and the actions of the BR prevented a put out, intentional or not.

Thanks in advance for the upcoming knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

Clarification question (and not trying to break chops):

8-4-1a states: 

The batter-runner is out when:

a. he intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike

If the catcher is THROWING the ball, has he not already fielded it?  I interpret 8-4-1a as the BR interfered with F2's ability to gain possession of the ball to make a play.  To me the OP is analogous to a running lane violation.  The catcher had fielded the ball and the actions of the BR prevented a put out, intentional or not.

I don't see any of that in the OP. Indeed, the order of presentation suggests the opposite, that the BR hindered F2's attempt to retrieve the misplayed pitch, but once F2 got it, he was able to make a (unhindered) throw to F5 and retire R2 stealing (late, apparently).

Moreover, we always need to remember that RLI involves (mainly) hindrance with the fielder taking the throw, which is not part of this play (I know grayhawk will be along to remind us that FED-RLI includes hindrance of the fielder fielding the ball; that is unlikely to involve F2, unless he gets up to the running lane, 45 feet away from HP, as fast as the BR).

FWIW, I agree with your interpretation of 8-4-1a. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, maven said:

I don't see any of that in the OP. Indeed, the order of presentation suggests the opposite, that the BR hindered F2's attempt to retrieve the misplayed pitch, but once F2 got it, he was able to make a (unhindered) throw to F5 and retire R2 stealing (late, apparently).

FWIW, I agree with your interpretation of 8-4-1a. :)

Thank you.  I interpreted in BI in the OP as if he stepped over the plate on a throw to 2nd.

(Drifting into "Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP." territory there...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading the comments on the other thread when someone said, it's a delayed dead ball because "There is no type A INTERFERENCE in FED, only type B." :banghead:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the BR, who is entitled to advance to 1B on a D3K, INT?

Unless I'm reading the situation wrong, the OP sounds like a baseball play to me!  

Trying to see what you all are seeing! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Tborze said:

How did the BR, who is entitled to advance to 1B on a D3K, INT?

Unless I'm reading the situation wrong, the OP sounds like a baseball play to me!  

Trying to see what you all are seeing! 

 

 

You're right. The post leaves us asking a few questions. We have to fill in the blanks with what we think is happening. 

Perhaps, the umpire(s) in this game improperly called interference on this play? We don't know. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't.

In other words, instead of killing the play, they left it live. It reads as though they kept it live, when they should have killed it because he wrote that F2 threw out R2 advancing to third base. Had the play been killed, F2 may have aborted his attempt to retire R2 at third base. 

The person who asked the question did not clarify any of the points made or other questions asked in his original post. We had to take it at face value.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tborze said:

How did the BR, who is entitled to advance to 1B on a D3K, INT?

Unless I'm reading the situation wrong, the OP sounds like a baseball play to me!  

Trying to see what you all are seeing! 

 

 

I pictured a batter swinging and missing, F2 blocks the ball, ball is out in front of the plate, BR pushes F2 as he starts towards 1B. Not  a tangle/untangle, but a blatant push. Fact is, the question is about how to handle this play when there's INT by the BR, which has been answered...Kill the play, BR out for INT, return R2.  How and if the BR  actually interfered is another conversation for another thread. It's just a given in this question.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Richvee said:

I pictured a batter swinging and missing, F2 blocks the ball, ball is out in front of the plate, BR pushes F2 as he starts towards 1B. Not  a tangle/untangle, but a blatant push. Fact is, the question is about how to handle this play when there's INT by the BR, which has been answered...Kill the play, BR out for INT, return R2.  How and if the BR  actually interfered is another conversation for another thread. It's just a given in this question.

Exactly, if there was interference. (Hinder in OBR/Intentional in FED) the mechanic is the same. Kill it. It is not delayed dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confusion arises in part because many umpires cannot define the difference between a batter and a batter-runner, so they don't know whether this is batter INT (delayed dead) or runner INT (dead, special provisions for the BR and D3K).

Definitions, definitions, definitions.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aah!  So the original poster may have been thinking BI instead of INT (BRI) on a runner.  I was thinking INT was called merely because BR may have unintentionally interfered on his way to 1st.  But, we are assuming there was indeed INT and what the penalty is for that. Got it!

TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's unintentional INT right over the plate would you call INT or Tangle/untangle? 

If the BR is between F2 and the ball, we can't expect him to disappear and it's not a batted ball, but a thrown ball, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mister B said:

If it's unintentional INT right over the plate would you call INT or Tangle/untangle? 

If the BR is between F2 and the ball, we can't expect him to disappear and it's not a batted ball, but a thrown ball, correct?

We could have tangle/untangle. It turns into INT or OBS when one does something that blatantly impedes the other i.e. F2 trips BR , BR shoved F2 out of the way. If they merely bump and separate, we could have nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Richvee said:

We could have tangle/untangle. It turns into INT or OBS when one does something that blatantly impedes the other i.e. F2 trips BR , BR shoved F2 out of the way. If they merely bump and separate, we could have nothing. 

The BR gets the benefit of tangle/untangle only on a batted ball, where ordinarily we'd get runner INT for hindering a fielder on a batted ball. He's earned that benefit by putting the ball in play.

On a D3K, he's struck out, and may advance only because the third strike was not legally caught. FED extends some protection to such a BR anyway, making the bar for INT intentional hindrance. But OBR does not: Wendelstedt opines that "There is no 'both-players-doing-their-job' [tangle/untangle] exception as with batted balls out in front of the plate."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×