Jump to content

Test question Batter INT


Recommended Posts

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

Mazz the problem:

F2 NEVER threw the ball in your example therefore, we have NO initial throw to begin with.

IMO the answer comes down to this.

Did F2 make a Play on R2? Simply faking a throw etc. according to JR is NOT considered a play. Perhaps F2 thought he had no chance of retiring R2 and changed his mind.

Also, the ACTUAL wording of the rule says NOTHING about an INITIAL throw simply stated it says if F2 retires a runner then play proceeds wihout interference.

FWIW I will ask Rick your sitch and if he responds I will post his answer.

Pete Booth

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mazz the problem:

F2 NEVER threw the ball in your example therefore, we have NO initial throw to begin with.

IMO the answer comes down to this.

Did F2 make a Play on R2? Simply faking a throw etc. according to JR is NOT considered a play. Perhaps F2 thought he had no chance of retiring R2 and changed his mind.

Also, the ACTUAL wording of the rule says NOTHING about an INITIAL throw simply stated it says if F2 retires a runner then play proceeds wihout interference.

FWIW I will ask Rick your sitch and if he responds I will post his answer.

Pete Booth

You mean the explanation provided by the NCAA's rule interpreter isn't enough? :smachhead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say its a judgement call of the PU. If he deems the interference to have prevented F2 from throwing, that's all that's needed.

Yes, it will always be the umpire's judgment on the particular play.

However, the quiz question is written this way:

...the batter swings and misses and interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw to 3B to retire R2.

So as a quiz question, there's no need to involve judgment - it's presented as INT in the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the explanation provided by the NCAA's rule interpreter isn't enough? :smachhead:

Brian the OP

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.

Mazz did NOT say "what was the NCAA rule".

if that's what the NCAA interpreter said then that is the RULE interp for NCAA.

I was talking OBR and IMO Rick is as good as any as far as an authoritative source for OBR. I e-mailed Rick this EXACT OP to get his view. If in fact Rick responds to me I will post it.

Remember as with many of these type OP's there is different interps depending upon which Rule Code you use.

If Mazz had said NCAA rules and THEN posted his OP I most likely would not have answered since I do not umpire at the collegiate level other then a summer Collegiate Wood Bat League which uses OBR. The CBL league uses the NCAA Collision / Slide rules but everything else is OBR.

Tonight after work I will look at the FED rule/case Book to see what the FED ruling would be.

Pete Booth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian the OP

Mazz did NOT say "what was the NCAA rule".

if that's what the NCAA interpreter said then that is the RULE interp for NCAA.

I was talking OBR and IMO Rick is as good as any as far as an authoritative source for OBR. I e-mailed Rick this EXACT OP to get his view. If in fact Rick responds to me I will post it.

Remember as with many of these type OP's there is different interps depending upon which Rule Code you use.

If Mazz had said NCAA rules and THEN posted his OP I most likely would not have answered since I do not umpire at the collegiate level other then a summer Collegiate Wood Bat League which uses OBR. The CBL league uses the NCAA Collision / Slide rules but everything else is OBR.

Tonight after work I will look at the FED rule/case Book to see what the FED ruling would be.

Pete Booth

your right i never said it was strictly a NCAA question.I wanted to see answer for all rule codes.. and the NCAA rule and OBR rule are almost exactly the same....I did use the words "Initial throw" only cause some guy named Jim Evans said this is the interp.

In the OP the catcher couldnt throw because of INT, therefore the answer is "B"....

Link to post
Share on other sites

your right i never said it was strictly a NCAA question.I wanted to see answer for all rule codes.. and the NCAA rule and OBR rule are almost exactly the same....I did use the words "Initial throw" only cause some guy named Jim Evans said this is the interp.

In the OP the catcher couldnt throw because of INT, therefore the answer is "B"....

Mazz I agree for FED but NOT OBR or even NCAA if in fact NCAA follows the OBR rule because of the following:

OBR 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.

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.

Notice the phrase If ANY runner attempting to advance is put out.

Hopefully Rick will respond but for now I am sticking with A. I agree B for FED.

Pete Booth

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll weigh in here with my opinion...

Here is the way I would rationalize it to the manager when he comes out to question the play. You have to ask yourself,who screwed up in this situation.?The offence did when the batter interfered with the catcher. Since there is interference, should the offence still benefit by having a guy on third? IMHO I don't think so. So despite the fact the catcher was able to get the runner going into second, you cannot ignore the interference because the rules also say no runner should be able to avance on a play where there is interference. That;s why I will join the ransk of those who say the answer is the one where the batter is out and the runners return to where they were at the start of the play

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll weigh in here with my opinion...

Here is the way I would rationalize it to the manager when he comes out to question the play. You have to ask yourself,who screwed up in this situation.?The offence did when the batter interfered with the catcher. Since there is interference, should the offence still benefit by having a guy on third? IMHO I don't think so. So despite the fact the catcher was able to get the runner going into second, you cannot ignore the interference because the rules also say no runner should be able to avance on a play where there is interference. That;s why I will join the ransk of those who say the answer is the one where the batter is out and the runners return to where they were at the start of the play

Here is the Counter argument

if F2 made the play then how was F2 interfered with in the first place. That's why the rule says if F2 retires ANY runner then the interference is ignored.

I realize the answer posted for NCAA but according to the way the OBR rule is written (which I quoted above), whenever F2 retires ANY runner the interference is ignored.

FED is different and in FED answer B is correct.

Pete Booth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian the OP

Mazz did NOT say "what was the NCAA rule".

if that's what the NCAA interpreter said then that is the RULE interp for NCAA.

I was talking OBR and IMO Rick is as good as any as far as an authoritative source for OBR. I e-mailed Rick this EXACT OP to get his view. If in fact Rick responds to me I will post it.

Remember as with many of these type OP's there is different interps depending upon which Rule Code you use.

If Mazz had said NCAA rules and THEN posted his OP I most likely would not have answered since I do not umpire at the collegiate level other then a summer Collegiate Wood Bat League which uses OBR. The CBL league uses the NCAA Collision / Slide rules but everything else is OBR.

Tonight after work I will look at the FED rule/case Book to see what the FED ruling would be.

Pete Booth

Pete: Note that the NCAA interpreter stated that the ruling would be the same in both MLB and NCAA.

If I saw the same thing in FED, I'd call it the same was as interpreted in NCAA or pro. I'm not going to let the play carry on to where runner(s) might have to be "unscored"; that's letting things go too far, and you end up grabbing the dirty end of the stick. There was INT on the batter during the attempt to retire R2, then I'm going to kill the play right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete,

From J/R (under the heading "Batter Interference Penalization"):

A/1: ...If the catcher has attempted to throw, but is unable to do so, or his throw does not immediately retire the runner being played against ... the ball is dead. The batter is out for his interference, and all runners must return to their TOP base.

JM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to let the play carry on to where runner(s) might have to be "unscored"; that's letting things go too far, and you end up grabbing the dirty end of the stick. There was INT on the batter during the attempt to retire R2, then I'm going to kill the play right there.

Brian how are you grabbing the dirty end of the stick?

Let's add a "twist" to the OP

There are 2 outs in the OP

Now F2 fires to second and gets R1 for out number 3. Now you say "wait a minute" play is dead and put runners back at 1st / 2nd. B1 proceeds to hit a dinger on the next pitch.

Talk about getting the dirty end of the stick. Like I said if Rick answers me and I am wrong I am wrong (it will not be the first time) but I am going by the wording in OBR 6.06 which says that if F2 retires ANY runner play proceeds as if there was no interference.

Pete Booth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete,

From J/R (under the heading "Batter Interference Penalization"):

JM

JM I bielieve the quote is referring to a play in which NO runner was retired. In the OP we had a runner who was retired. As I already quoted several times Rule 6.06 says if ANY runner is retired the play proceeds as if there was no interference.

I E-mailed Rick and if he responds i will post his answer.

If in fact answer B is correct then once again we have found another error in the OBR rule book. To me Rule 6.06 is SPECIFIC in it's wording.

Pete Booth

Link to post
Share on other sites

JM I bielieve the quote is referring to a play in which NO runner was retired. In the OP we had a runner who was retired. As I already quoted several times Rule 6.06 says if ANY runner is retired the play proceeds as if there was no interference.

I E-mailed Rick and if he responds i will post his answer.

If in fact answer B is correct then once again we have found another error in the OBR rule book. To me Rule 6.06 is SPECIFIC in it's wording.

Pete Booth

I have told you that even Jim Evans says" if the initial throw retires any runner" and since the catcher could not complete the "initial throw cause of INT" the play is dead runner return and batter is out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian how are you grabbing the dirty end of the stick?

Let's add a "twist" to the OP

There are 2 outs in the OP

Now F2 fires to second and gets R1 for out number 3. Now you say "wait a minute" play is dead and put runners back at 1st / 2nd. B1 proceeds to hit a dinger on the next pitch.

Talk about getting the dirty end of the stick. Like I said if Rick answers me and I am wrong I am wrong (it will not be the first time) but I am going by the wording in OBR 6.06 which says that if F2 retires ANY runner play proceeds as if there was no interference.

Pete Booth

Your 'twist' is already corrected by NovaScotiaBlue.

Pete, that's the thing - you DON'T wait. As referenced in J/R, the ball is dead IMMEDIATELY if F2's attempted throw doesn't retire R2 at third. You kill the play right there - you don't wait.

Want another "twist"? Suppose F2 doesn't retire R1 at second, and R3 "scores" on that play at second.

NOW you've got to grab the dirty end of the stick because the only possible outcome is that you've (belatedly) called the INT, and you have to put the runners back and call the batter out. You're going get a SH*#storm from the offensive team because you let the play get that far along, and "just because they didn't get an out, NOW you're calling everyone back and calling INT on the batter? WTF?" when it should have been killed on the initial INT - there is where you avoid the dirty end of the stick.

Edited by BrianC14
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree with you Pete. I am interested in Rick's answer but I believe you will find it will match the answers given.

Remember back to all the discussions with PapaC and others about the out not getting the R1 at second but goes to a rundown. As soon as the initial throw or attempt doesn't get the runner being played on, kill it. You don't wait for the rundown result because the BI has happened. One prime example given was first and third, R1 goes, catcher throws and the batter interferes. The SS steps in short, cuts the ball and throws back home. As soon as the SS catches the ball, kill it. It can be interesting if you aren't heard and they get R3 and it's not the third out. You call the batter out and return runners to first and third.

Edited by mstaylor
Added second paragraph
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree with you Pete. I am interested in Rick's answer but I believe you will find it will match the answers given.

Remember back to all the discussions with PapaC and others about the out not getting the R1 at second but goes to a rundown. As soon as the initial throw or attempt doesn't get the runner being played on, kill it. You don't wait for the rundown result because the BI has happened. One prime example given was first and third, R1 goes, catcher throws and the batter interferes. The SS steps in short, cuts the ball and throws back home. As soon as the SS catches the ball, kill it. It can be interesting if you aren't heard and they get R3 and it's not the third out. You call the batter out and return runners to first and third.

That's a good example, Mike, when F6 cuts off the throw - we've all seen that 'planned' play happen .

Pete: you know full well that the rules of baseball have all sorts of problems with them, and I think this may be one of them. Sure, the book says "ANY" runner, but the reality is that you wouldn't let a play get so convoluted (the rundown scenario, for example, while R3 scores) to allow that to happen, because the INTENT of the rule is to make sure that the offense doesn't gain an advantage while violating the rules. Again, I go back to the scenario where R2 could end up scoring on such a play: Batter interferes, R2 makes it safely to 3B in spite of F2's attempt on retiring him there; meanwhile, R1 is caught going to 2B, but during that play, R2 (now at 3B) scores. The offense gets to score a run in spite of the batter interfering? No way you let that go. And let's add an even bigger twist: suppose that run wins the game? If that were allowed, every offensive team would try it. You HAVE to kill that play as soon as F2 cannot retire R2 going into 3B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JM I bielieve the quote is referring to a play in which NO runner was retired. In the OP we had a runner who was retired. As I already quoted several times Rule 6.06 says if ANY runner is retired the play proceeds as if there was no interference.

I E-mailed Rick and if he responds i will post his answer.

If in fact answer B is correct then once again we have found another error in the OBR rule book. To me Rule 6.06 is SPECIFIC in it's wording.

Pete Booth

The quote that JM made is the correct one for this situation. It says:

If the catcher has attempted to throw, but is unable to do so, or his throw does not immediately retire the runner being played against (causes a rundown or goes wild, or the runner being played upon is safe), the ball is dead. The batter is out for his interference, and all runners must return to their TOP base.

J/R says that if the attempted throw is unable to be completed, then the batter is out. In this case F2 attempted to throw to F5, but was unable to do so. The ball is dead when F2 abandons his attempt to throw to F5 and the batter is out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...