Cluster "You Know What" on throw down to First

[Jboval]

So, I have a R1 with a batter at the plate. R1 has been taking big leads and they have been trying to get him on a pick off move. Batter takes Ball Four, I say Ball Four, catcher for some reason tries to throw down to First in what I assume is an attempt to pick off R1, even though it's now a walk. Batter has stepped out of the box and the throw from the catcher hits his bat, deflecting to the backstop. I had nothing but a live ball, and just watched what the fun unfold. Nobody really seemed to realize that R1 could of kept running since I had not given a dead ball sign. My only thought afterward was this: The batter had vacated the box and was not moving towards first yet. Is there any argument whatsoever for Int on the batter? What if R1 had kept running, would you have stopped him since his teammate had been partially responsible for causing the deflection of the ball? What if somehow that ball deflected from the bat and went in to dead ball territory?

[scrounge]

Interference with what? There was no valid play. No way I'd call interference on that, short of the batter intentionally waving the bat or otherwise trying to hit the silly throw.

[noumpere]

keep it live and play the bounce

[D62 blue]

I have nothing on this , it is well documented that the batter is now a BR . As long as he did nothing other than what a runner would be doing talking his walk to 1st .

marc

[Jocko]

Ball in DBT gets base awards. No INT.

[johnnyg08]

Let's talk base awards for a moment:

Yep, goes into dugout, 2 bases Time of Throw or 2 bases Time of Pitch? or neither of the above?

Does that count as the first play by an infielder before the BR reaches 1B? If so, then it's probably TOP.

[carolinablue]

I'll take a stab at it, I'm thinking since there was no play, it could not be first play by an infielder. Does that only apply to batted balls BTW? I think TOT on the award which would make no difference unless R1 was stealing and had aquired 2B at the TOT.

[Jboval]

As far as the base awards: you could argue that he was wanting to throw down to first so the first baseman could put a tag on the runner should he run through the bag, that is something I have seen happen from time to time. However, being there it was easy to tell that this catcher was thinking that he was making a play on R1, trying to catch him in a large leadoff and just had a brain fart about it being ball 4. Does this make any difference in either situation? In response to CarolinaBlue's post: Shouldn't R1 be placed at 3rd and BR be placed at second should the ball go out of play? It's two bases either way, and I am assuming that R1 had not acquired 2nd base yet.

[carolinablue]

That's what I have.

[umpire_scott]

A play very similar to this happened against my ASU Sun Devils in a Super Regional 2 years ago at Texas. Runner on first and he breaks for second on the pitch. The pitch is ball four, but the catch throws down to second anyway. Throw goes wide of second and into CF. Runner makes it to third. So we have 1st and 3rd no outs, right? Wrong. PU called interference on the BR for walking to first base and getting in the way of the catcher which caused the errant throw. BR is out for interference and runner is made to return to first base.

[noumpere]

I obviously dont know that specific play but a play much like it has been on the NCAA videos and I think even the test this year and the correct ruling is "nothing" assuming that all the batter was doing was advancing to first.

[umpire_scott]

The announcers doing the game, one of which was Nomar Garciaparra were both saying that the PU blew the call. The PU seemed to be explaining that once he called interference, and it created the situation of the errant throw with the runner getting to third, that the BR had to be called out.

[noumpere]

If it was interference then the PU got it right. The question is whether it was interference. I didnt see it so I wont comment.

[umpire_scott]

If it was interference then the PU got it right. The question is whether it was interference. I didnt see it so I wont comment.

So you can interfere with a throw on an runner that is not in danger of being put out? The runner was already entitled to 2nd base due to the walk to the BR. All the BR was doing was walking to first base, like any other batter that was just issued ball 4 would do. First off on replays it's even questionable had it not been ball four whether there was enough there to call interference. The FED defintion stipulates "any fielder attempting to make a play". Since the runner is already awarded second base on the walk what is the "play" that the catcher is attempting to make?

[noumpere]

Is it possible? yes. Was it in the case you mentioned and as described? Maybe (probably) not. Maybe thats why it was on the NCAA quiz as I mentioned before.

[Haid D' Salaami]

If it was interference then the PU got it right. The question is whether it was interference. I didnt see it so I wont comment.

It has to be intentional INT on the BR who just was awarded ball 4... the NCAA was very adimit about that this year.

[Haid D' Salaami]

If it was interference then the PU got it right. The question is whether it was interference. I didnt see it so I wont comment.

So you can interfere with a throw on an runner that is not in danger of being put out?

But it has to be Intentional..and very intenional at that.. the 2nd BU umpire in that NCAA Super regional I work with.. we had a really got discussion about that play...LOL

[Haid D' Salaami]

Let's talk base awards for a moment:

Yep, goes into dugout, 2 bases Time of Throw or 2 bases Time of Pitch? or neither of the above?

Does that count as the first play by an infielder before the BR reaches 1B? If so, then it's probably TOP.

2 bases time of throw.

[umpire_scott]

If it was interference then the PU got it right. The question is whether it was interference. I didnt see it so I wont comment.

So you can interfere with a throw on an runner that is not in danger of being put out?

But it has to be Intentional..and very intenional at that.. the 2nd BU umpire in that NCAA Super regional I work with.. we had a really got discussion about that play...LOL

So my take on that play was that when the PU called interference he was not thinking about the fact that the runner was not in danger. He just saw a throw and saw the BR walk in front and called interference. I remember that Augie Garrido then came out and talked to the PU. Then the umpires met and discussed it. Then they decided that the BR was out for interference. I assumed that the rationale was that once interference was called there had to be an out. Interestingly Garrido was interviewed after the game and he said that he was only arguing to have the runner sent back to second base, not to have an out declared.

[noumpere]

It has to be intentional INT on the BR who just was awarded ball 4... the NCAA was very adimit about that this year.

But it has to be Intentional..and very intenional at that.. the 2nd BU umpire in that NCAA Super regional I work with.. we had a really got discussion about that play...LOL

Agreed and agreed.

Still didn't see the play. But, I hope Scott has enough info to decide now what he would of done in that situation. Maybe the umpires kicked it. It happens. Maybe there was something else. shrug

[UmpJM]

I believe this is the play being referenced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuQOpomBWXo

I happened to be watching the game when it occurred and made the following post on a different board, pretty much in the spirit of "how COULD this have been the correct call?" My personal opinion is that they "kicked it" due to poor timing (not waiting to see if the batter had become a runner). But, of course, they're working the NCAA DI World Series tournament and I've never worked a "real" DI game n my life, so what do I know.

Tony,

Well if you're going to try to have an intelligent conversation about this sitch instead of getting into pissing contests with other people....

Heck, why not?!

I happened to be watching the game when it happened. My initial reaction was WTF!?!? The TV coverage was abysmal and I was quite surprised that Esmay didn't make more of an argument.

I have read the relevant rules and the available interps, though NCAA-specific interps are rare.

Based on the rules, I believe the batter had become a runner before the action occurred which resulted in an infraction being called.

Therefore, I believe that, by rule, the umpire must have judged intentional interference in order to have a "rules supported" call of interference.

There is also the question of was there a "play" and is it proper to call an out for interference if there was no "play" to be interfered with. I lean to ward the camp that would say there was no "play" (because there was no runner in "jeopardy" at the time of throw), and, generally, unless there is an out to be had, the interference does not result in an out. (a la return toss interference).

However, I could see a case for calling an out if the offense were judged to have intentionally interfered in order to create an unintended advantage (e.g., force a bad throw to allow a runner to advance an extra base).

So, if the umpire were convinced that the batter-runner deliberately timed his initial advance to 1B to hinder the catcher, AND the catcher was, in fact, hindered, I suppose you could make a case for the call.

That's the best I can come up with for "making sense" of the call.

I do not believe I would have called what he did, but I've made mistaken calls myself, so I might be wrong.

JM

BTW, I couldn't tell from the video or any of the accounts what they did with the R1 (who might have ended up at 3B?). Does anyone know?

[umpire_scott]

It has to be intentional INT on the BR who just was awarded ball 4... the NCAA was very adimit about that this year.

But it has to be Intentional..and very intenional at that.. the 2nd BU umpire in that NCAA Super regional I work with.. we had a really got discussion about that play...LOL

Agreed and agreed.

Still didn't see the play. But, I hope Scott has enough info to decide now what he would of done in that situation. Maybe the umpires kicked it. It happens. Maybe there was something else. shrug

Well I do think that the PU clearly kicked it. I wouldn't have called interference on it if it were ball 3. But that is a judgment call, whether the batter interfered. The bigger question is once he called it, can he reverse it? Let's assume he didn't realize it was ball four, he just reacted to the BR moving towards the catcher as the throw was being made. He has now told the entire stadium that he feels that the BR caused the errant throw. I'm sure there is no "rule" that says he can just bring the runner back to second. So his choices are to reverse his interference call and there are runners on 1st and 3rd, or call interference which results in the batter being put out and the runner returning. If all was done over I would presume the PU would just ignore the supposed interference. I think the NCAA being adamant about it this year is probably to avoid them making a judgment call like that again.

[umpire_scott]

Yes that is the play. As you can see the judgment of interference in the first place looks abysmal as the throw looks to have already been made before the BR starts to go towards first base.

[umpire_scott]

I believe this is the play being referenced.

I happened to be watching the game when it occurred and made the following post on a different board, pretty much in the spirit of "how COULD this have been the correct call?" My personal opinion is that they "kicked it" due to poor timing (not waiting to see if the batter had become a runner). But, of course, they're working the NCAA DI World Series tournament and I've never worked a "real" DI game n my life, so what do I know.

Tony,

Well if you're going to try to have an intelligent conversation about this sitch instead of getting into pissing contests with other people....

Heck, why not?!

I happened to be watching the game when it happened. My initial reaction was WTF!?!? The TV coverage was abysmal and I was quite surprised that Esmay didn't make more of an argument.

I have read the relevant rules and the available interps, though NCAA-specific interps are rare.

Based on the rules, I believe the batter had become a runner before the action occurred which resulted in an infraction being called.

Therefore, I believe that, by rule, the umpire must have judged intentional interference in order to have a "rules supported" call of interference.

There is also the question of was there a "play" and is it proper to call an out for interference if there was no "play" to be interfered with. I lean to ward the camp that would say there was no "play" (because there was no runner in "jeopardy" at the time of throw), and, generally, unless there is an out to be had, the interference does not result in an out. (a la return toss interference).

However, I could see a case for calling an out if the offense were judged to have intentionally interfered in order to create an unintended advantage (e.g., force a bad throw to allow a runner to advance an extra base).

So, if the umpire were convinced that the batter-runner deliberately timed his initial advance to 1B to hinder the catcher, AND the catcher was, in fact, hindered, I suppose you could make a case for the call.

That's the best I can come up with for "making sense" of the call.

I do not believe I would have called what he did, but I've made mistaken calls myself, so I might be wrong.

JM

BTW, I couldn't tell from the video or any of the accounts what they did with the R1 (who might have ended up at 3B?). Does anyone know?

R1 was returned to first base.