Yet another INT question

[Paperipper17]

15U game, Babe Ruth rules, 2 out, R3. I'm PU. Runner breaks for home, F1 legally steps off and throws to F2. Batter swings and smashes the ball into left field. I call time, signal an out for batter INT. HC comes screaming out of the dugout yelling that it's a balk, it's a balk, he threw to an unoccupied base, . I say, no, because A. he threw home with the intention of making a play, and B. he legally stepped off the rubber, making him an infielder, which means he can throw wherever he wants.

"Yeah, well, whatever. You just need to check your rulebook when you get home, because you missed a balk."

"That's enough, coach. He stepped off. No balk. That's three outs."

He walks away shaking his head. So of course all the rules experts in the stands and on the bench who wouldn't know the book if it fell on their head start jawing B).

Here's my question: I got together with my partner between innings and we both thought that the out went to the runner and the batter resumes his AB next half, of course with a fresh count. Was that correct? I figured his INT took away an out at the plate, so that's what we awarded.

[Jboval]

With two outs and batter interference, you are supposed to call the batter out. Less than two outs, the runner.

[jnazz]

Batter is out with 2 out. Think of it this way, you don't want to see the batter who interfered as the first batter next inning, so call him out.

[Umpire in Chief]

Good call on the BI. IMO that's the tougher of the two decisions, but the batter is the one to be called out.

[Dragon29]

Good call on BI & yes, the batter s/b out, not the runner.

But . . .

I got together with my partner between innings . . .

I wouldn't do this unless it was 2 or 3 innings later. If you get together with your partner between innings after a 'controversial' call, everyone (players, coaches, spectators) knows you're talking about that call, (even if you're not) raising doubt in their minds about whether or not you think you got it right.

Wait a few innings or till the end of the game to have this conversation with your partner.

[DirtyDawg]

Good call on BI & yes, the batter s/b out, not the runner.

But . . .

I wouldn't do this unless it was 2 or 3 innings later. If you get together with your partner between innings after a 'controversial' call, everyone (players, coaches, spectators) knows you're talking about that call, (even if you're not) raising doubt in their minds about whether or not you think you got it right.

Wait a few innings or till the end of the game to have this conversation with your partner.

This sounds like a call that needed to be discussed then and there, being that it was about whom was to bat next time that team came up.

[Mike Prince]

Plus they are discussing the result of the call, not the basis of the call itself. I would have gotten together right there and then, made the proper decision and then notified the scorekeeper and dugouts of who the out was on. That way it is all above board and there's no confusion.

[Dragon29]

This sounds like a call that needed to be discussed then and there, being that it was about whom was to bat next time that team came up.

You're right - of course. doh!

I reacted only to the 'between innings' part w/o considering the situation. :2cents: