Catcher's Interference

[MonroeUmp]

A variation of this happened to me last night. LL Intermediate. One man crew.

Runner on 2nd base, batter swings, nicks the catcher's mitt but hit the ball cleanly to the right field gap on an artificial turf field with no fences. So it rolled and rolled and as soon as he hit it I figured why even bother calling "that's interference?" It was obvious that the batter was going to get at least a double. As it turned out he hit an inside the park home run. So the CI would be a non-issue.

However, on his his trip around the bases, he missed first base. As soon as he scored, the defense appealed and I called him out. 

So now what? With the CI, do I put the runner back on 2nd, batter on first?  And then give the offense choice of play vs. penalty?

And: how many umpires would get this right??

 

 

 

[Jimurray]

28 minutes ago, Vumpire said:

A variation of this happened to me last night. LL Intermediate. One man crew.

Runner on 2nd base, batter swings, nicks the catcher's mitt but hit the ball cleanly to the right field gap on an artificial turf field with no fences. So it rolled and rolled and as soon as he hit it I figured why even bother calling "that's interference?" It was obvious that the batter was going to get at least a double. As it turned out he hit an inside the park home run. So the CI would be a non-issue.

However, on his his trip around the bases, he missed first base. As soon as he scored, the defense appealed and I called him out. 

So now what? With the CI, do I put the runner back on 2nd, batter on first?  And then give the offense choice of play vs. penalty?

And: how many umpires would get this right??

 

 

 

CI is ignored if the batter and all base runners advanced at least one base on the play. The batter is considered to have advanced one base even if he missed it. CI ignored. Appeal granted. Score would depend whether the batter made the third out or not. The number of umpires who get it right would depend upon their training, rules knowledge, and reading comprehension. 

[johnnyg08]

Correct. Coach can not turn this into an option play of the criteria stated by @Jimurray have been met. 

 

 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Correct. Coach can not turn this into an option play of the criteria stated by @Jimurray have been met. 

 

 

But you have not opined about how many umps would get this right? Or are we asking if whether @Vumpireshould get this right or he gets a pass because not many guys who pass as umpires for money might not be umpires but guys who take money to call balls and strikes. But, believe me, we need them too, if they are willing to do the safe and out job, you better be willing to give them some slack. The coaches can always protest if that's allowed in their league. But it also sucks to know that you have been identified as not an umpire by a select few when you kick a fairly simple rule. That select few, including me, will not affect your life in the least.

[udbrky]

One man crew? Probably way less.

[Aging_Arbiter]

One man............is not a crew.

crew

[kro͞o]

NOUN

crews (plural noun)

1. a group of people who work on and operate a ship, boat, aircraft, spacecraft, or train.

   • a group of people working on a ship, aircraft, etc. other than the officers.
     "the ship's captain and crew may be brought to trial"
     synonyms:

     ship's complement
   • US the sport of rowing a racing shell.
2. a group of people who work closely together.

   "an ambulance crew" ·

   a group of people associated in some way.

   • "a crew of assorted computer geeks like Kyle Hutson"
      

 

[johnnyg08]

18 hours ago, Vumpire said:

A variation of this happened to me last night. LL Intermediate. One man crew.

Runner on 2nd base, batter swings, nicks the catcher's mitt but hit the ball cleanly to the right field gap on an artificial turf field with no fences. So it rolled and rolled and as soon as he hit it I figured why even bother calling "that's interference?" It was obvious that the batter was going to get at least a double. As it turned out he hit an inside the park home run. So the CI would be a non-issue.

However, on his his trip around the bases, he missed first base. As soon as he scored, the defense appealed and I called him out. 

So now what? With the CI, do I put the runner back on 2nd, batter on first?  And then give the offense choice of play vs. penalty?

And: how many umpires would get this right??

 

 

 

Well, if I'm being honest, I think some umpires would get talked into it. That being said, most of us are amateur umpires working amateur games played and coached by amateurs. 

We're going to kick a rule here or there, esp on something like this. 

 

[Jimurray]

5 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Well, if I'm being honest, I think some umpires would get talked into it. That being said, most of us are amateur umpires working amateur games played and coached by amateurs. 

We're going to kick a rule here or there, esp on something like this. 

 

I would have to cut @Vumpire some slack if he was talked into it. LL does not add the OBR note to their 6.08(c). The note with the new OBR number:

"Rule 5.05(b)(3) Comment: If catcher’s interference is called with a play in progress the umpire will allow the play to continue  because the manager may elect to take the play. If the batter-runner missed first base, or a runner misses his next base, he shall be considered as having reached the base, as stated in Note of Rule 5.06(e)(4)."

You could infer the same ruling for CI as for a balk but semantically it wouldn't apply. From the OBR balk rule: "APPROVED RULING: A runner who misses the first base to which he is advancing and who is called out on appeal shall be considered as having advanced one base for the purpose of this rule."

Even worse for our LL umpire is even the absence of that approved ruling in the LL balk rule. So our LL ump could get talked into another kick with a balk without additional training or other experience.

Interestingly, both FED and NCAA do not address a missed base in their CO/CI rules and you would have to infer the ruling from either the NCAA balk rule Approved Ruling or your knowledge of the OBR CI comment. 

 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2018 Little League Baseball Umpire School Rules Instruction Manual (rule 6.08c):

INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:

If catcher’s interference is called with a play in progress the umpire will allow the play to continue because the manager may elect to take the play. If the batter-runner missed first base, or a runner misses his/her next base, he/she shall be considered as having reached the base, as stated in Note of Rule 7.04(c).

[Senor Azul]

From the 2018 Little League Baseball Umpire School Rules Instruction Manual (rule 8.05 PENALTY):

INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:

(Intermediate 50/70/Junior/Senior League) A.R. 2—A runner who misses the first base to which that runner is advancing and who is called out on appeal shall be considered as having advanced one base for the purpose of this rule.

[Jimurray]

It seems in OBR and LL that even without notes or comments in the CI or Balk rules that a generic note exists that states that a missed base is considered as advanced to. That note in LL is, thanks to @Senor Azul, 7.04(c). In OBR it was old 7.04(b) Comment and new 5.06(b)(3)(D) Note. The reference in OBR "as stated in Note of Rule 5.06(e)(4)" is actually wrong. 

The wording of that Note in LL and OBR is:

'NOTE: When a runner is entitled to a base without liability
to be put out, while the ball is in play, or under any rule in
which the ball is in play after the runner reaches the base to
which he is entitled, and the runner fails to touch the base
to which he is entitled before attempting to advance to the
next base, the runner shall forfeit his exemption from liability
to be put out, and he may be put out by tagging the
base or by tagging the runner before he returns to the
missed base;"

It still might leave some doubt in an umpire's mind about what to do in CI or a balk so actual notes in both rules or the RIM do help. What cites in NCAA and FED support the interp? I just know that's how it is.

[Senor Azul]

2017-18 NCAA rule 8-3o-3 Note 3 Any runner who reaches or passes the base the runner would have received on an award is considered to have advanced to that base even if subsequently declared out for not touching the base.

[Senor Azul]

2018 NFHS rule 8-2-3 NOTE: Any runner who misses the first base to which he is advancing and who is later called out shall be considered as having advanced one base.

[Jimurray]

45 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

2018 NFHS rule 8-2-3 NOTE: Any runner who misses the first base to which he is advancing and who is later called out shall be considered as having advanced one base.

You’re good and while I knew I could rule that way that would confirm it for me. Apparently I have a reading comprehension or retaining what I read comprehension issue also. But a new umpire could still be misled into giving the penalty that should have been ignored instead of the play. Best to do it like OBR and re enforce with a note in the actual rule. 

[johnnyg08]

Also, knowing that touching the base is not a requirement to acquiring a base. 

[MonroeUmp]

One purpose in asking: when we see CI but have a batted ball that is going to result in an obvious extra-base hit, is there any need to verbalize it? Based on the above I'm not seeing any circumstance where the CI wouldn't be disregarded.

[yawetag]

As PU, I'm pointing and calling, probably before I can tell it's an extra base hit.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, yawetag said:

As PU, I'm pointing and calling, probably before I can tell it's an extra base hit.

Same here. Call it right away.