Richvee

I’m with you on this. I don’t see UI as a reason to give the bater a pass.

Nice find. 8 years later, we really still don’t have a concrete answer/interp.

There’s another video (it’s on the refmasters site) that shows a higher wider angle and looks to me like U3. Called it , and very well may have influenced by the 3BC. I think PU was acknowledging U3’s call. My two cents? I hope if I’m ever on a state final and see something like this I have the wherewithal to process this, ignore 3BC and come up with a safe sign and a loud, verbal, “Thats nothing”.

That’s so on point!!! So much so, that when I have one of these guys on the bases in “C” with 1st and 3rd, I say “fine, you want to be on that side? Then I’m not coming up for R1 @third. You got it all. “ 😁🤷‍♂️

Either way.. I'm looking for an explanation...let's take the judgement of BI out of the equation... batter swings strike three, F2 cocks, hits PU's mask, batter stumbles into F2.

B. 1. Any argument about pickoffs to 3B are flawed. You may be farther away in "B", but your angle is fine. Whereas your look at a play back into 1B from "C" is suspect. 2. B starts you in better position for groundouts and plays at 1B. 3. On a base hit to the OF, PU has R1 into 3B. You have no need to be on the left side of the diamond.

You're saying you would return the runner for UI, and ignore the BI?

So I'm watching the end of the WCWS. One out, R1. 2 strikes. Runner steals, Batter swings and misses strike three, F2 's goes to throw, hits PU's mask, as retired batter leans across home plate maybe in the catcher's line of the throw. The call on the field was umpire interference and they sent the runner back. It was upheld on review. Now I don't think BI is a reviewable call, but that's not my question. Let's say there was undeniable BI, but F2's arm hit PU's mask prior to the throw. I'm interested in the baseball interps. Do we get an out for BI? Or since the UI came first, we send the runner back?

FED....and FED only has a stipulation that, if the umpire believes F2 had no chance at throwing out the runner, the umpire can return the runner to their TOP base, and not call them out. In real life....I think the only way an umpire (who actually knows this rule) would send the runner back and not get an out, is, if the runner was literally on the next base when the catcher received the pitch.

I’m late to the party. But I watched this live. This was indeed a review initiated by the Utah Valley coach of a MC call.

That’s all nice. You’re U1 in anNCAA game. He does this with a runner a 1B. What’s your call?

I’ll take “clueless broadcasters” for 100 Alex

This reminds me of the long clip NCAA put out this season with a similar play at the plate. I was more confused after watching that clip. Now, I'm just as confused. Seven minutes of review to sort this out, and I'm supposed to make a decision after one look live in a Juco or D3 game.

No. The same argument @jimurrayalterego is making. Nothing in the rule book regarding the set says the pitcher must step towards home. This is the reason I have a legal pitch with the bases empty, but I’m with you, Steve. With a runner on, this is a step to 1b and the rules tell us a there must be a throw to 1b when a pitcher steps towards 1b from the rubber.

That’s my take but there’s people online I respect who disagree. Interested to hear from the UE community.

Sorry for the FB link, I don’t know how else to do it. (Perhaps someone can help) Anyway, crazy delivery. I don’t have an issue with bases empty. However, IF we saw this with an R1, what do you have? https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16VHGQEuBu/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I don’t know. On the 13th, it looks like Bates is between the two bags. That’s nowhere near in line with F9. I think it was the Dodger bench getting on Gibson. 3BC playing peacemaker, and Roberts not really knowing what happened.

And quite possibly the origin of this thread question.

Yes they would...God forbid they align with other codes.

Yet there is a case play for an R1 "interfering" with F3 by leading off and deliberately getting in the line of sight between F3 and F1

It does take the judgement of "Did the runner hinder the throw" out of the equation. That's a good thing. one step forward (judgement of throw eliminated) two steps back. (1)Call it time of throw regardless of outcome, (2) return runners TOI

We saw it in the Met/Dodger game, and detailed by CCC. Its obstruction in OBR as per the Umpire manual It's obstruction in NCAA 8-3-f, pg 80...Visual obstruction by a defensive player may be called if a fielder interferes intentionally with a base runner's opportunity to see the ball on a defensive play. I can't find a reference in FED...Anyone have something?

it still requires throw to call it. The interp doesn't change this. I can point to the rulebook and say the infraction is ignored because it did not interfere with the fielder or the throw. 8-4-g(1). Conversely, what if the coach knows 8-4-g(1) and I call RLV and send his R3 back to 3B? How do I back out of that one?

I had full intention of calling this by the rule, until speaking with others I would be working and in some cases, answer to. I wasn't about to be out on that island alone.

What interpretation? Never seen it. 😁 Seriously. If I Called it would be the first time in my area. Pre season, I talked with at least a dozen, if not more of most of the best High school umpires I work with, (including my chapter rules interpreter) and no one was willing to call this as written, until the rule is rewritten. Until “this violation is ignored….” part of the rule disappears from the FED rulebook, I think we have a fair case not to follow the interp.