Test question Batter INT

[mazzamouth]

R1, R2, one out, 1-1 count. On a double steal, the batter swings and misses and interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw to 3B to retire R2. Because of the interference, the catcher does not continue his throwing motion to third, but instead throws to 2B in an attempt to retire R1. His throw is successful and R1 is retired. In the meantime, R2 is standing on third.

your choices are

A. R1 is out at second. R3 remains at third. The batter has a 1-2 count.

B. The batter is out for interference. R1 and R2 must return to their bases at the TOP.

C. The batter is out for interference. R1 returns to first but R2 remains at third since he acquired third prior to the interference.

D. R1 is out, R2 returns to second and the batter remains at bat with a 1-2 count.

yes I have the answer..just wondered what you all think.. plus it will keep your noodle involved..LOL

[NFUA_44]

Engaging the brain on a Saturday? Thanks Mazz!

The answer would be A, assuming OBR. Can't think of anything FED that would make it different but I could be wrong there, and I'm not taking the 40 seconds to go dig up my new FED book this very moment.

Once R2 is retired on the play it's a play on situation, effectively ignoring the Int.

Had R2 not been retired, all runners return TOP, and batter is out.

Tom

[BrianC14]

R1, R2, one out, 1-1 count. On a double steal, the batter swings and misses and interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw to 3B to retire R2. Because of the interference, the catcher does not continue his throwing motion to third, but instead throws to 2B in an attempt to retire R1. His throw is successful and R1 is retired. In the meantime, R2 is standing on third.

your choices are

A. R1 is out at second. R3 remains at third. The batter has a 1-2 count.

B. The batter is out for interference. R1 and R2 must return to their bases at the TOP.

C. The batter is out for interference. R1 returns to first but R2 remains at third since he acquired third prior to the interference.

D. R1 is out, R2 returns to second and the batter remains at bat with a 1-2 count.

yes I have the answer..just wondered what you all think.. plus it will keep your noodle involved..LOL

I'm going to judge that F2 was prevented from retiring the lead runner, and given that, the answer is B. The reason being that if you allow R2 to remain at 3B, then the offense has gained an advantage by interfering in the play. So the batter's out, runners return.

[NFUA_44]

Brian,

Again, based on OBR this is what I have (emphasis mine):

6.06© A batter is out for illegal action when he interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference. If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball

dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

If, however, the catcher makes a play and a runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out, not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case, play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher

has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

Both the JEA and Wendelstedt Manuals (MLBUM Interp.) are in agreement, still haven't checked FED or NCAA.

Tom

[NFUA_44]

Over on the ABUA site, JM has posted an answer in correlation to Brian's.

Interesting. I'll have to check that out, very curious to see the difference in outlooks, especially from some reliable sources :question1:

[mazzamouth]

alright got some good reply's here already..LOL

remember if the Catcher "Initial" throw does not retire a runner then runners return...... think about it, I gave a hint..LOL

[NFUA_44]

The wording is a bit as you would expect on a test. And I can definitely see the logic in the B answer. Blow it dead and return everyone. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the play as I look at it.

The initial throw doesn't retire anyone, but in the question, for me anyway, when I get to the

but instead throws to 2B in an attempt to retire R1.

that sounds like it's all part of the same play. If there was a noticeable delay from that "initial" throw, I can definitely see blowing it dead.

Good question, but has a HTBT undertone to it.

Tom

Edited January 16, 2010 by NFUA_44
Listed wrong Letter for test question

[widac]

S 2 "Throw"

Merriam-Webster "Propel"

Does that leave anyone else wondering if a "pump fake" is considered a throw?

Seems to me, as long as the catcher's arm was moving forward in the direction of 3B, the answer is B.

You sound like Bill Clinton parsing the meaning of "Is".

[BrianC14]

You guys are getting overtechnical.

Look at Mazz's "hint" - (as he posted above) - if the batter has interfered on the initial attempt by F2 in retiring R2, the batter has interfered, you're going to kill the play right there. Sure, F2 might go ahead and throw down to get R1, but that isn't going be a legal play, because you've already (and appropriately) killed the play on the batter's INT. Why would you wait to see what happens at second base?

Here's a twist on things: R2 gets into 3rd easily (thanks to the batter's INT) and then he sees F2 throw down to second, so R2 scores on that play at second. Are you going to let that happen? I know I'm not. Batter's out on the INT and runners return. No advantage given.

Edited January 16, 2010 by BrianC14

[BrianC14]

You sound like Bill Clinton parsing the meaning of "Is".

ROFLMAO

Great minds thinking alike...

Guys: there doesn't have to be a throw - if the batter prevents the throw (in this case, it's an attempted throw to 3B) then you have all the information you need: kill it, call the batter out, and move the runners back.

I'll expound a bit more on the 'why'.... this situaton could easily be set up by the offense to get themselves a cheap run:

Same sitch, R2, R1, double steal. Batter interferes with an attempt to retire R2 at third; R1 has instructions to stop halfway, and this draws a throw to 2B; R1 then gets in a rundown (planned) as R2 scores. Would you let that happen? Me either. :a500posts:

Edited January 16, 2010 by BrianC14

[NFUA_44]

Yup, I didn't see it that way originally, but I have seen the light!!!!! LOL.

Besides I have the luxury of being overly technical, It's January and I'm stuck inside!!!!

Tom

[mazzamouth]

ROFLMAO

Great minds thinking alike...

Guys: there doesn't have to be a throw - if the batter prevents the throw (in this case, it's an attempted throw to 3B) then you have all the information you need: kill it, call the batter out, and move the runners back.

I'll expound a bit more on the 'why'.... this situaton could easily be set up by the offense to get themselves a cheap run:

Same sitch, R2, R1, double steal. Batter interferes with an attempt to retire R2 at third; R1 has instructions to stop halfway, and this draws a throw to 2B; R1 then gets in a rundown (planned) as R2 scores. Would you let that happen? Me either.

In this play Brian as soon as his Initial throw doesnt retire a runner "time that's interference, batter your out, R2 back to 2nd, R1 back to 1st" so to me as soon as they got in a rundown, Im killing the play.

[mazzamouth]

Ok so the Correct answer is

B

thanks for playing...

[BrianC14]

In this play Brian as soon as his Initial throw doesnt retire a runner "time that's interference, batter your out, R2 back to 2nd, R1 back to 1st" so to me as soon as they got in a rundown, Im killing the play.

Yes, I know - I brought that up as a way to show that R2 might be able to score, and why would anyone let all that happen when the right thing to do would be to kill the play as soon as F2 was prevented from throwing to third. :question1:

[mazzamouth]

Yes, I know - I brought that up as a way to show that R2 might be able to score, and why would anyone let all that happen when the right thing to do would be to kill the play as soon as F2 was prevented from throwing to third.

I know you knew it..LOL it the thin air of CO makes you smarter...

[NFUA_44]

Same sitch, R2, R1, double steal. Batter interferes with an attempt to retire R2 at third; R1 has instructions to stop halfway, and this draws a throw to 2B; R1 then gets in a rundown (planned) as R2 scores. Would you let that happen? Me either.

Capice, I'm with ya. Good brain exercise though. I'm digging through what is left of the old memory banks trying to find this play, and the closest I can come up with is a game in Fall of 08, but it was with 2 out so I just had to straighten out the HC about his batter being the one that was out and not the runner who "appeared" to be out. I remember wondering why in the world he would call for a double steal with two out , then I remembered it was a Daddy Coach who had worked his way into the local Babe Ruth Prep level.

Tom

[BrianC14]

I know you knew it..LOL it the thin air of CO makes you smarter...

No, no, no.... the thin air here just means that our brains are spread out farther.... which isn't always a good thing. ;)

[Ducks on a pond]

I will actually have to say that the answer given the sit is A. F2's initial throw was to second base, not to third. He attempted to third, but his initial throw was the second base. Did his initial throw retire a runner? yes..then disregard the interference. R1 is out and R2 is at third and the batter is still up to bat.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

umpirepdx...I think you better go back and read the entire thread. You may want to change your answer

[mazzamouth]

I will actually have to say that the answer given the sit is A. F2's initial throw was to second base, not to third. He attempted to third, but his initial throw was the second base. Did his initial throw retire a runner? yes..then disregard the interference. R1 is out and R2 is at third and the batter is still up to bat.

dude you just contradicted yourself in your post....LOL

in his attempt to 3rd that didnt happen as the result of interference, then F2 decides to throw to 2nd.. that was the 2nd attempt..

[BrianC14]

I will actually have to say that the answer given the sit is A. F2's initial throw was to second base, not to third. He attempted to third, but his initial throw was the second base. Did his initial throw retire a runner? yes..then disregard the interference. R1 is out and R2 is at third and the batter is still up to bat.

If you're calling this play correctly, there isn't going to be a throw to second base. :Horse:

[Don]

If you're calling this play correctly, there isn't going to be a throw to second base.

There might BE a throw to 2B, but it is going to be irrelevant.

[mstaylor]

R1, R2, one out, 1-1 count. On a double steal, the batter swings and misses and interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw to 3B to retire R2. Because of the interference, the catcher does not continue his throwing motion to third, but instead throws to 2B in an attempt to retire R1. His throw is successful and R1 is retired. In the meantime, R2 is standing on third.

your choices are

A. R1 is out at second. R3 remains at third. The batter has a 1-2 count.

B. The batter is out for interference. R1 and R2 must return to their bases at the TOP.

C. The batter is out for interference. R1 returns to first but R2 remains at third since he acquired third prior to the interference.

D. R1 is out, R2 returns to second and the batter remains at bat with a 1-2 count.

yes I have the answer..just wondered what you all think.. plus it will keep your noodle involved..LOL

I have been short timing the board the last couple of days so I am just seeing this thread. Before freading any responses I am giving my answer, then I will go back and read the thread.

I have B, the ball is dead as soon as the play on the R3 was unsuccessful or aborted. The batter is called out and both runners return. If the play is properly killed then the play at second never happens.

I will now read the rest of the posts to see if I missed something.

[BrianC14]

I posed the original scenario to several 'big dogs' in my association. I think that the consensus among them would have been for answer "A".

Then I posed the question to the NCAA rules interpreter, and he responded with the following:

MLB and the NCAA agree in their interpretations. Call the batter out for interference as soon as the catcher is unable to throw to third in his attempt to retire R2. When you do this, you prevent the rest of the scenario from happening. R1 and R2 return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch. This interpretation has been covered in both Dallas and Atlanta.

Not surprisingly, the answer is indeed "B".

[ump81]

My take, batter out runners return, Logic being the catcher's initial play was to 3B, it seems clear he wanted to throw there for his initial play. If we go to any other ruling we are rewarding the offense for an act of interference, its not about rule quoting, dictionary research or any other splitting hair definitions. The rules exist to provide a reasonable, fair framewotk for an offensive-defense balance. If we allow R2 to stay on third the offense has gained a base by an act of interference, clearly not what the rules award. I agree that its a bit of a "you had to see it", if we rule at the time by our "seat of the pants" feeling I think we could all agree the best call available is batter out runners return. We cartainly are not going to get a runner for a batters act at either 1b or 2b or 3b, how can we send him up to bat again after interfering? We need to think of the "spirit" of the rules sometimes, not the literal word written in a book somewhere.