Live Ball..?

[Tredders]

Hey Guys,

 

I'm currently in my second season of umpiring and loving it! (well besides the 4 hour, 49 run marathon I just had!) Anyway  I had a situation in my game yesterday, Runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out 2-1 count on the batter. The batter swings and misses and the ball sails past the catcher and to the backstop. R3 comes home, and 3rd Base coach (who is also the manager) sends his batter running to first as he claimed he thought it was strike 3, therefore dropped third strike. On the throw to first, R2 has come around and scored. I had a very angry manager come out at me claiming that he cannot do that, and because the batter has to return to bat, R2 should only advance to 3rd base. My response was this "R2 scores because the ball is still live, batter comes back with a 2-2 count". Obviously the manager was still very unhappy, but walked away (eventually). Was I correct in saying the ball was live? Should have I given the third base coach a consequence for his error in sending the batter? The final score was 28-21 in favour of the team who was fielding at the time of the incident, so therefore this (thankfully) made this play irrelevant. Also, for those who are curious, the grade was Under 15 Div 2 and it was the Semi Final (as the season is unfortunately coming to a close here in Australia). And I was a solo umpire at the game, and therefore could not ask for help from a partner.

 

Thanks and Regards,

Tredders

[scrounge]

I might say "that's only strike 2" softly to the catcher.

If they're under 10 yrs old, that is. Otherwise, unless you accidentally said "2-2" before that pitch (and even then, why didn't they correct you?), too freakin' bad. They should pay attention next time.

[Jocko]

The rat may not have 'accidentally' sent his runner. We often see kids taught to run at the wrong time intentionally. It draws a throw and scores an easy run. Fact is, they (both teams) are responsible for being abreast of the situation. F2 should have known the count. Unless of course you rang the kid up on K2???

[Richvee]

We had a rat do this in our district LL tourney past year. I didn't have the game, but we discussed it at a meeting. The crew doing the game said they were absolutely  convinced the rat did it on purpose to score a run. R3, 1-1 count, swing and miss, PB, batter took off for 1st. The crew called R3 out... interference on batter  (play at home with less than 2 out)...saying he deliberately and intentionally confused and hindered the defense from making a play on R3. Personally I'm not sure I agree with the ruling, but they got very little lip from the rat OC, and he didn't  try it again the rest of the tourney. 

[basejester]

The way I've always seen this called is the defense is responsible for knowing the situation, but I have no beef with the logic behind an interference call.

[Replacematt]

The way I've always seen this called is the defense is responsible for knowing the situation, but I have no beef with the logic behind an interference call.

 

There is no rules support for it.

[basejester]

There is no rules support for it.

Of course there is.

INTERFERENCE

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with,

obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

[BretMan]

What "play" did the batter interfere with?

 

The batter did not obstruct, impede, hinder or confuse the defense's attempt to retire a viable runner who was in jeopardy of being put out. Being confused and making an unnecessay throw is not the same thing as attempting to make a play.

 

It is the defense's responsibility to know the situation and act accordingly. Chalk this one up as a DMC (Dumb Move by the Catcher).

[Replacematt]

There is no rules support for it.

Of course there is.

INTERFERENCE

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with,

obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

 

That does not state what constitutes interference. Note that it does not say "any act." Using only this rule, a squeeze is interference.

[basejester]

That does not state what constitutes interference. Note that it does not say "any act." Using only this rule, a squeeze is interference.

Suppose the batter squares to bunt, takes a pitch, grabs a handful of dirt and throws it in the eyes of a charging infielder. Are you going to call something there, or say, "There's nothing in 6.06 that specifically prohibits throwing dirt in people's faces if they aren't making a play." ?

I'm not saying interference is the right call here, but it's certainly not without basis.

I have to admit I'd like to see the defense get the batter under 6.02(a) or ©. I don't like to see the offense delaying the game and creating chaos without the possibility of something bad happening to them.

[basejester]

Under FED, are there circumstances you would get the batter for delaying the game under Section 3, article 1? If the batter swings (as in richvee's example), he's allowed to the leave the box, but surely running to first base isn't within the spirit of the exception.

[Replacematt]

That does not state what constitutes interference. Note that it does not say "any act." Using only this rule, a squeeze is interference.

Suppose the batter squares to bunt, takes a pitch, grabs a handful of dirt and throws it in the eyes of a charging infielder. Are you going to call something there, or say, "There's nothing in 6.06 that specifically prohibits throwing dirt in people's faces if they aren't making a play." ?

That's UC, not interference.

I'm not saying interference is the right call here, but it's certainly not without basis.

Yes, it is.

[Replacematt]

Under FED, are there circumstances you would get the batter for delaying the game under Section 3, article 1? If the batter swings (as in richvee's example), he's allowed to the leave the box, but surely running to first base isn't within the spirit of the exception.

There are multiple reasons he's allowed to leave the box--he swung, catcher didn't catch the pitch, and there's a play.

You need to look at the whole rulebook. Interference can only be called for the types of actions that are defined in various areas. You can't call something interference just because you don't like it.

[basejester]

What "play" did the batter interfere with?

I think you're making a legitimate point here. Are you saying that if the runner from third headed toward home, the catcher started to make a play (running down the third base line, or started a throwing motion) and THEN the batter took off; you WOULD have interference due to confusion?

[Replacematt]

What "play" did the batter interfere with?

I think you're making a legitimate point here. Are you saying that if the runner from third headed toward home, the catcher started to make a play (running down the third base line, or started a throwing motion) and THEN the batter took off; you WOULD have interference due to confusion?

Find a rule that makes this play illegal.

[basejester]

Find a rule that makes this play illegal.

6.06 c ?

[Replacematt]

How?

[sdix00]

I am going to offer two things.

 

1. This is a common play among the rats.

2. There is no case play at any level, even the rat's nest that is youth ball, that covers this.

 

If anyone thought it was illegal, then a case play or a rule change would have addressed it.

 

--

 

It isn't interference, IMO.   But it is unsportsmanlike.   If I feel strongly that it was intentional, then I would deal with it in the context of sportsmanship and punish it accordingly.

[Richvee]

On the big diamond, I'm all for the defense needing to be aware of the situation and no call is warranted. As for the littler guys on the small fields, playing D3K for the 1st time, my feelings change a little. It's unsportsmanlike at the very least.

 

I'm not 100% sure you can't make an argument for INT. It IS an ACT by the OFFENSE to CONFUSE the defense who is attempting to make a play at the plate. .I also agree with Sdix that if this were, in fact, illegal, there would be a caseplay somewhere. 

 

One thing that is 100% true in the case I mentioned, the Rat bought it as illegal, lost his R3 and didn't try it again.   

[Tredders]

Thanks for the responses, I should have ended up tossing the Rat for calling the other HC a "wanker" loudly from his dugout, I gave him a very stern warning, but didn't pull the old "I don't want to hear another word from you". But if he came out again for anything but a pitching change he was going to be making Tony Hawk jealous of how much air time he got on his way to the car park.

 

Just to clarify, the age group was U/15's so it would have been between 12-14 year olds. I did say the correct count before the pitch "2-1", I didn't ring the batter up and It was a past ball, R3 was safe at home before OC RAT sent the runner, catcher saw this and made the obvious throw to first, as soon as the catcher had thrown the ball R2 who was at 3B got sent home. While there may be some argument on this forum about it, if I have another play like this again there will definitely be an interference call as the BR has caused F2 confusion while making a play. 

 

Thanks guys!

[basejester]

The middle ground, which may be most appropriate for players around 12, is to announce the count emphatically after the batter takes off.

[Richvee]

The middle ground, which may be most appropriate for players around 12, is to announce the count emphatically after the batter takes off.

Not a bad idea on the small diamond for 1st time D3K kids. 

[Jocko]

Do not call this INT. ESPECIALLY if you JUST GAVE THE COUNT!!! Everyone in the park knew and if F2 is dumb enough to throw the ball he deserves the E2. Calling INT is making up rules. Remember, if it's not illegal, it's legal. And saying they confused, after you gave the cont, is a ludicrous argument. Don't do it.

[Tredders]

Do not call this INT. ESPECIALLY if you JUST GAVE THE COUNT!!! Everyone in the park knew and if F2 is dumb enough to throw the ball he deserves the E2. Calling INT is making up rules. Remember, if it's not illegal, it's legal. And saying they confused, after you gave the cont, is a ludicrous argument. Don't do it.

 

Hmm, okay, fair enough then, I shall follow your advice and not give interference if something similar to this happens again. I do feel bad for the Defensive team as the OC rat screwed them over on this one. None the less the catcher probably should have been smart enough not to throw to first considering there was a runner on 3rd. Cheers Jocko

[Jocko]

Giving the count mechanic and verbal after the PB if batter takes off for 1B is appropriate. Same as if 1B were occupied with less than 2 outs, you announce again that the batter is out, right?

[Tredders]

Giving the count mechanic and verbal after the PB if batter takes off for 1B is appropriate. Same as if 1B were occupied with less than 2 outs, you announce again that the batter is out, right?

 I gave the count mechanic and verbal before the pitch, but said nothing after the pitch had passed F2 (I would have done a standard strike mechanic, but without verbal as it was a swinging strike as instructed previously by UIC of my association). Perhaps I should have verbalised as soon as I saw the Batter run. While it may be too late now to change anything it is good to now know what I did was (almost) correct. Thank you for all of the advice!