Another umpire interference .........

[Haid D' Salaami]

Interesting. I thought you were supposed to wait to see the result of the play. If the runner it out, no interference. If he's not out, then call interference. But, you say to call interference right away, then waive it off it it's unnecessary. Is that the standard procedure?

You are supposed to let everything play out to see if your interference affects the play. To add to that, if in your judgment the base would've been easily stolen, you don't have to return the runner.

No, no , no.. you call it as soon as it happens...the rule says, if the umpires interferes with F2's attempt to retire a runner, the runners return, if the throw retires the runner the out stands as if interference never happened...

there is no judgment.

[Haid D' Salaami]

To add to that, if in your judgment the base would've been easily stolen, you don't have to return the runner.

Not that I don't believe you but I've never heard this before, do you have a citation?

Jeff, a runner is never out on umpire's interference.

Yes he can be..

[Haid D' Salaami]

To add to that, if in your judgment the base would've been easily stolen, you don't have to return the runner.

Not that I don't believe you but I've never heard this before, do you have a citation?

Jeff, a runner is never out on umpire's interference.

a runner is not out BECAUSE of UI, but if they are put out anyway, you ignore the UI. and after rereading the rule, I handled it correctly. The runner can be put out, the UI is ignored. The runner may not advance, the UI is enforced. Let it play out just like OBS and then do what it takes to negate the UI

AGAIN ...that's fine, but with a catcher trying to pick R1 at first .... and the catchers arm hits your mask .....what are the options of outcomes?

you the umpire judge UI, then you call it..if the runner is retired then he is out..

[Jocko]

To add to that, if in your judgment the base would've been easily stolen, you don't have to return the runner.

Not that I don't believe you but I've never heard this before, do you have a citation?

Jeff, a runner is never out on umpire's interference.

Yes he can be..

If the runner is put out, the UI is ignored. You're right. as for the judgement, I don't have OBR in front of me, but Fed clearly allows for judgement.

[Haid D' Salaami]

To add to that, if in your judgment the base would've been easily stolen, you don't have to return the runner.

Not that I don't believe you but I've never heard this before, do you have a citation?

Jeff, a runner is never out on umpire's interference.

Yes he can be..

If the runner is put out, the UI is ignored. You're right. as for the judgement, I don't have OBR in front of me, but Fed clearly allows for judgement.

I really do not know the fed rules.. but in OBR and NCAA the rule is the same, as soon as it happens call it.. if runner is out, then UI is ingnored.. if runner is safe, please return runner.

[Jocko]

I concur. Quite sure I would never allow a runner to advance if I contacted F2 during a throw. The Fed case I cited is the only place I could find the word "judgement."

[noumpere]

I concur. Quite sure I would never allow a runner to advance if I contacted F2 during a throw. The Fed case I cited is the only place I could find the word "judgement."

I notice in the case play that the catcher is returning the ball to the pitcher. So I think the case play is trying to say that if the runner is stealing and the catcher doesnt make a play on the runner but just throws the ball back to the pitcher you can leave the runner at third -- the interference didnt contribute to the advance. In any other situation just treat it as in the other codes.

And I cant find in a quick look the rule that deals with this in FED. I notice the definition, and its in the dead ball table but the reference seems to be wrong.

[Jocko]

I concur. Quite sure I would never allow a runner to advance if I contacted F2 during a throw. The Fed case I cited is the only place I could find the word "judgement."

I notice in the case play that the catcher is returning the ball to the pitcher. So I think the case play is trying to say that if the runner is stealing and the catcher doesnt make a play on the runner but just throws the ball back to the pitcher you can leave the runner at third -- the interference didnt contribute to the advance. In any other situation just treat it as in the other codes.

And I cant find in a quick look the rule that deals with this in FED. I notice the definition, and its in the dead ball table but the reference seems to be wrong.

we all know case isn't all-encompassing. F2 may have started to throw to F5, felt the UI, and decided he had no chance at R2 because he had to pump fake because of UI, so he just returnes it to F1. There's alot to digest in a split second. Maybe I DID cause R2 to safely advance. Hence the judgement allowance. Again, I don't have OBR handy, but I did glance at the PBUC manual. No coverage.