Wendelstedt quiz

[rth54]

This situation comes from the new Wendelstedt site. Very nice site now. Note that thay are planning to offer a two week training option as well as the 5 week pro school.

What think ye?

R1 stealing, R3, one out, 2-2 count. The batter swings and misses the next pitch for strike three. As the catcher comes up to throw to second base, the batter who has just been put out steps across home plate and interferes with the catcher's throw. The throw goes through and retires R1. R3 scores on the play. Play stands. True or False?

[grayhawk]

Since R1 was put out, you ignore the interference. It's now a time play. If R3 scored before R1 was put out for the third out, then the run scores.

[UmpTTS43]

I concur

[Haid D' Salaami]

I think the new site looks awesome.. i see that even add a 2 week course, and more instructors

[mrumpiresir]

I agree with Grayhawk

[kylejt]

Hmmm. You'd think that INT was an immediate dead ball.

[Rich Ives]

Hmmm. You'd think that INT was an immediate dead ball.

But you'd be wrong on this play.

6.06(c ) comment - second paragraph.

[UmpTTS43]

Hmmm. You'd think that INT was an immediate dead ball.

Baseball rules myth.

[Haid D' Salaami]

Hmmm. You'd think that INT was an immediate dead ball.

Baseball rules myth.

and since the catchers initial throw retired a runner the Interference is disregarded ..hence the run scoring.

[grayhawk]

This is a strange play because the defense would have been better off NOT getting the out on R1. If R1 is safe, then interference is enforced and R1 is out (because the batter is already out). Since R3 cannot advance on interference, his run would not score.

[SAB_UIC_TX]

Concur, batter out on strike three then it becomes a time play. If R3 crosses the plate before the put out then "Score that run, Score that run, that run scores".

So let's twist this situation a little; Two outs R1 stealing R3 on third breaks for the plate when catcher comes up to throw, batter swings at strike two and interferes with F2 throw to second. F6 cuts the throw and fires the ball home and retires R3 for the third out, inning over. True or False? Explain your answer.

[ukce1861]

Hmmm. You'd think that INT was an immediate dead ball.

Baseball rules myth.

Perpetuated by the part of the rules that says, "On any interference the ball is dead." Except when it's not - which seems to be most of the time...

[grayhawk]

Concur, batter out on strike three then it becomes a time play. If R3 crosses the plate before the put out then "Score that run, Score that run, that run scores".

So let's twist this situation a little; Two outs R1 stealing R3 on third breaks for the plate when catcher comes up to throw, batter swings at strike two and interferes with F2 throw to second. F6 cuts the throw and fires the ball home and retires R3 for the third out, inning over. True or False? Explain your answer.

Play stands. There is an exception in 6.06 ( c ) that if ANY runner attempting to advance is put out, then the batter is not out for interference.

[JaxRolo]

Concur, batter out on strike three then it becomes a time play. If R3 crosses the plate before the put out then "Score that run, Score that run, that run scores".

So let's twist this situation a little; Two outs R1 stealing R3 on third breaks for the plate when catcher comes up to throw, batter swings at strike two and interferes with F2 throw to second. F6 cuts the throw and fires the ball home and retires R3 for the third out, inning over. True or False? Explain your answer.

Play stands. There is an exception in 6.06 ( c ) that if ANY runner attempting to advance is put out, then the batter is not out for interference.

But if he was safe then you call INT and Batter is out.

[SAB_UIC_TX]

Correct Jax, since the runner was safe on the first play from the catcher interference is called and the batter is out.

[grayhawk]

Correct Jax, since the runner was safe on the first play from the catcher interference is called and the batter is out.

Please address 6.06 ( c ) Exception

[mstaylor]

Concur, batter out on strike three then it becomes a time play. If R3 crosses the plate before the put out then "Score that run, Score that run, that run scores".

So let's twist this situation a little; Two outs R1 stealing R3 on third breaks for the plate when catcher comes up to throw, batter swings at strike two and interferes with F2 throw to second. F6 cuts the throw and fires the ball home and retires R3 for the third out, inning over. True or False? Explain your answer.

As soon as the initial throw doesn't get the stealing runner out, kill it and call the batter out. The run will not score, if it had been less than two outs the runners would return.

[SAB_UIC_TX]

Correct Jax, since the runner was safe on the first play from the catcher interference is called and the batter is out.

Please address 6.06 ( c ) Exception

Look at the intent of the rule, it's to penalize the batter for interfering with the catcher making a play on an advancing runner. If the PU deems the batter interfered with the catcher's throw then there is interference. When F6 cuts the ball the play on the advancing runner the catcher was making a play on is over and no out resulted from that initial play hence the interference stands, batter out R3 back to third if less than two outs. Jim Evans talked specifically about this situation at a clinic in October. The intent of the rule is the initial throw/play, not subsequent plays.

[grayhawk]

Correct Jax, since the runner was safe on the first play from the catcher interference is called and the batter is out.

Please address 6.06 ( c ) Exception

Look at the intent of the rule, it's to penalize the batter for interfering with the catcher making a play on an advancing runner. If the PU deems the batter interfered with the catcher's throw then there is interference. When F6 cuts the ball the play on the advancing runner the catcher was making a play on is over and no out resulted from that initial play hence the interference stands, batter out R3 back to third if less than two outs. Jim Evans talked specifically about this situation at a clinic in October. The intent of the rule is the initial throw/play, not subsequent plays.

What if the "play" in your scenario was to get R3 by throwing to F6 and then catching R3 off the base or trying to advance to home? In that case, they retired the runner they were trying to make a play on (R3). With this scenario and nobody out, you can bet that the DM is going to say the interference should be ignored because the play they were making resulted in an out.

Is the intent of the rule to only allow one throw? I think I have read an interpretation somewhere (BRD perhaps) that says that if the "initial" throw retires the runner, then you ignore the interference. Seems to me that if the defense had a specific play on that would take two throws to get the out, why not allow them to complete that play?

[Haid D' Salaami]

Correct Jax, since the runner was safe on the first play from the catcher interference is called and the batter is out.

Correction, the runner can't be safe.. once the catcher's Initial throw doesn't directly retire the runner "Time " is called and the batter will be called out. So no runs would be allowed to score.

[Mr Umpire]

Correct Jax, since the runner was safe on the first play from the catcher interference is called and the batter is out.

Please address 6.06 ( c ) Exception

Look at the intent of the rule, it's to penalize the batter for interfering with the catcher making a play on an advancing runner. If the PU deems the batter interfered with the catcher's throw then there is interference. When F6 cuts the ball the play on the advancing runner the catcher was making a play on is over and no out resulted from that initial play hence the interference stands, batter out R3 back to third if less than two outs. Jim Evans talked specifically about this situation at a clinic in October. The intent of the rule is the initial throw/play, not subsequent plays.

What if the "play" in your scenario was to get R3 by throwing to F6 and then catching R3 off the base or trying to advance to home? In that case, they retired the runner they were trying to make a play on (R3). With this scenario and nobody out, you can bet that the DM is going to say the interference should be ignored because the play they were making resulted in an out.

Is the intent of the rule to only allow one throw? I think I have read an interpretation somewhere (BRD perhaps) that says that if the "initial" throw retires the runner, then you ignore the interference. Seems to me that if the defense had a specific play on that would take two throws to get the out, why not allow them to complete that play?

The initial play is by the catcher only. It doesn't matter what the play was or if you knew it was to get R3. It has to be from the catcher's initial throw in which a runner is retired. Once F6 cut it and made a second throw, initial play is now over.

For the record, I would agree to wait for all plays to end and see how it results. Then, all the defense to choose the final result. But, that's not how the rules are.

[grayhawk]

The initial play is by the catcher only. It doesn't matter what the play was or if you knew it was to get R3. It has to be from the catcher's initial throw in which a runner is retired. Once F6 cut it and made a second throw, initial play is now over.

For the record, I would agree to wait for all plays to end and see how it results. Then, all the defense to choose the final result. But, that's not how the rules are.

Thanks - works for me! I can certainly imagine that if multiple throws were allowed that things could get out of hand.

[umpschool]

Hey all,

What a lively debate. These are the type of discussions that get me excited for the season. This question was posed not to create a knotty situation, but rather, to identify the difference between a batter, a runner, and a batter or runner who has just been put out.

Most of you answered that since the throw retired the runner, we would disregard the interference. That would be the correct call with a 2-1 count, and 6.06 © Comment would prevail. However, when the batter struck out, he was no longer a batter. He was a batter who was just put out. The ball should be dead immediately, R1 should be called out, and R3 should return to third. 7.09 (d) would be the rule enforced. In practice, most professional umpires would not immediately distinguish the two strike count from any other when this play occurs. But, whenever they do, they should call time and enforce the interference. Allowing this run to score would be giving the offense a run they do not deserve.

In a similar scenario, if the pitch made for ball four, there would be no interference unless intentional since the batter had become a runner. See next week's question for a shoot off of this play. Thank you again for all those who participated. The point of off-season rules reviews is to get umpires in the rulebook, and discuss the plays in preparation for the upcoming season.

P.S. BTW, thank you all for the compliments on the new site design. It's been a long time coming. As for the new instructors, we just added another MLB umpire, and 4 new Minor League prospects! Stay tuned for more information.

[mstaylor]

Concur, batter out on strike three then it becomes a time play. If R3 crosses the plate before the put out then "Score that run, Score that run, that run scores".

So let's twist this situation a little; Two outs R1 stealing R3 on third breaks for the plate when catcher comes up to throw, batter swings at strike two and interferes with F2 throw to second. F6 cuts the throw and fires the ball home and retires R3 for the third out, inning over. True or False? Explain your answer.

As soon as the initial throw doesn't get the stealing runner out, kill it and call the batter out. The run will not score, if it had been less than two outs the runners would return.

Wow, I screwed that up. I wasn't thinking about it being two strikes. Because the batter is already out then obviously he can't be out again. :shrug:

[Haid D' Salaami]

Holy crap, I didnt read how many strikes there were...LOL...

After I consulted the rest of my crew... We fixed the initial ruling, and took the run off...LOL