Int on a Runner who scores?

[treedog24]

I had this happen to me last year and I want to get some opinions on it since I don't really think I got a straight answer on it. Here's the Stich:

R3,R2. BR hits a two-bagger. R2 comes in standing up and the throw was way late, R3 who has scored peels back towards the backstop which on the lower third is wood to protect the fence. The ball is thrown to F2 and is high, goes off his glove and hit the top piece of wood and bounce up towards the face of the R3 who had just finished up coaching R2 to the plate and was headed back to the dugout. In a total reaction, he puts his hand up to protect his face and catches the ball and then quickly drops it. BR advances to 3rd. I kill the play and send BR back to 2nd but don't award any outs. DC is looking for at least 1 maybe 2 outs. Does my call of no outs and sending the runner back to last occupied base pass kosher? or is this HTBT? I don't think that F2 would of got BR.

The whole HPB or BI thread got me thinking about this one.

[Umpire in Chief]

I think this is a judgement call. Remember int does not have to be intentional. If you judged his act to have interfered with the play then you could declare the BR out. If not let it go. We've all seen those potential int plays where the int actually helps the catcher or fielder and then we can negate the int.

From your situation it appears you ruled the contact not to be int. So IMO I don't think you should have sent him back.

[UmpJM]

Treedog,

Your ruling was correct.

This is what J/R refers to as "interference without a play" or "weak interference". You "kill it" and put any runners back where they were at TOI.

Had the recently scored runner not actually gained possession of the ball (say it bounced off his hand instead of him "catching" it), the proper ruling would be "nothing" - live ball, play the bounce.

Warren,

Interference with the defense's opportunity to field a batted ball does not require intent.

Interference with a thrown ball does.

Interference with a "wild throw" that was so off-target that it bounced off the backstop requires a whole lot of intent.

JM

Edited June 16, 2009 by UmpJM

[noumpere]

Interference with a thrown ball does.

Interference with a "wild throw" that was so off-target that it bounced off the backstop requires a whole lot of intent.

JM

Especially interference that's not by a runner, but by a "person authorized to be on the field." And, if it is intentional (that is, not that he meant to interfere -- affect the play, but that he meant to contact the ball), then the umpire can use the "god rule" and put the runners where he thinks they would have ended up.

Since the offense interfered, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense, so unless BR was practically on top of third, put him back at second, as the OP did.

[zm1283]

FED rules.

I had a play somewhat similar to this at the end of the spring season. I think we had runners at first and second. Batter hits a ball in the gap that's a for sure double. R2 scores easily, but the defense has a play on R1 that's trying to score. The throw is up the third base line, so the catcher ends up knocking it down about 6-8 feet up the line and about 5 feet foul, so the play on R1 was not close. The ball ends up bouncing off the catcher and ends up close to R1 who had slid and stood up to pick up the bat that was laying there. The catcher had ran to get the ball because the BR was headed to third by this time. As he picked it up, R1 was in front of him. They never touched (I know you don't have to have contact for Interference), but the catcher did have to double clutch on his throw to third, where the BR was safe. I didn't call anything, and the DC came out to argue it.

1. I know it's a HTBT, but do you have interference?

2. If it was Int, do I have to call the BR out going to third, or can he be sent back to second?

[Mr Umpire]

It sounds like everything happened so quickly that it was part of normal play and just tough luck. HTBT but I would say play goes on with no reference to it.

However, if you ruled INT, then someone is out on this one b/c R1 has already scored so he can't be out. Since he can't, next best one is BR. The reason I say someone is out is b/c the defense has a play on someone. In OBR, 7.11 applies.

But, if there is no play, then "Time" would be called and send BR back to 2B unless he is on 3B at the time of INT. In your play, it sounds like they had a shot at BR so he is out for his teammates INT if that is called.

This is how I would call it but am open for suggestions.

[mstaylor]

It's sounds like nothing but if you did have an interference you have to decide did the catcher have a play on the BR going to third or was he just retrieving the ball to make sure there was further advance. If he had a real chance at third and you rule interference call the runner at third out. If you don't think there was a play then decide if the runner was at third or just short of it. If you have interference without a play then he will either be at third or returned to second.

[Umpire in Chief]

Treedog,

Your ruling was correct.

This is what J/R refers to as "interference without a play" or "weak interference". You "kill it" and put any runners back where they were at TOI.

Had the recently scored runner not actually gained possession of the ball (say it bounced off his hand instead of him "catching" it), the proper ruling would be "nothing" - live ball, play the bounce.

Warren,

Interference with the defense's opportunity to field a batted ball does not require intent.

Interference with a thrown ball does.

Interference with a "wild throw" that was so off-target that it bounced off the backstop requires a whole lot of intent.

JM

Great points Thank you!

[zm1283]

Thanks guys.

The BR was between second and third, so there was a chance they would have had a play, and the catcher ended up throwing to third. (Ball went high and F5 caught it)

I talked about it with my partner and we agreed that if I called INT, the BR going to third would have been out. It's good we were right at the time.

[treedog24]

Thanks to all, Warren I really like the site and the thoughtfulness of everyone's answers.:censored: