How bad did I mess this up??

[RingEmUp918]

USSSA tourney game, I'm in the field.  Close game, with some emotions flying on both sides.

 

1 out, runners on 1st and 3rd.

 

Batter hits grounder to the 2nd baseman who tries to get r3 at home, runner slides in and is obviously safe and the catcher drops the ball on the play.   Here's where it gets interesting... the runner who slid into home somehow ends up on top of the baseball and as hes getting up he picks up the ball in his hand, takes cpl steps then realizes what he did and drops the ball.  r1 advances to 2nd on the play. PU calls time....(at this point im thinking oh s*#$, here we go), both team's coaches erupt and partner and I meet up in middle of the field to discuss....

 

Partner dosent have much experience so he really didnt have a clue what to do here... and neither did I for that matter.  The best I could come up with was that the run counts, interference on the play for picking up a live ball therefore I called the batter out. r1 stays at 2nd.   Defensive team was ok with that, however offensive HC throws a fit and his 1b coach (who had been pain entire game) decided to re-enact the play there for he got to go home early for demonstration.

 

So, how bad the blow this call?     After thinking about it I should have either a) run counts, nobody is out as the intereference did not have direct affect on the outcome of the play, or b) run counts, r1 is out and batter stays at first

 

thoughts?

 

 

[maven]

1. Good EJ. Always take care of business!

2. You had INT by a retired/scored runner. His run counts, so you can't call him out. By rule, you should call out the runner who would likely have been played on. If you're in doubt, call out the runner closest to home (R1).

3. This kind of INT need not be intentional.

 

The OBR reference for this kind of INT is 7.11.

 

Overall grade: A–, with a couple points off for possibly calling out the wrong guy.

[Thunderheads]

Why is the batter out though?

[RingEmUp918]

In a situation of INT by a retired/scored runner must you ALWAYS call an out? 

[JaxRolo]

1. Good EJ. Always take care of business!

2. You had INT by a retired/scored runner. His run counts, so you can't call him out. By rule, you should call out the runner who would likely have been played on. If you're in doubt, call out the runner closest to home (R1).

3. This kind of INT need not be intentional.

 

The OBR reference for this kind of INT is 7.11.

 

Overall grade: A–, with a couple points off for possibly calling out the wrong guy.

Concur! Well said!

[RingEmUp918]

Why is the batter out though?

 

Ya, this is what I questioned the most. 

[JaxRolo]

In a situation of INT by a retired/scored runner must you ALWAYS call an out? 

yes. Like Maven said if in doubt who then call the runner closest to home out. Not BR unless he is the only runner.

[Thunderheads]

 

Why is the batter out though?

 

Ya, this is what I questioned the most. 

 

I'm wondering the same thing.  The play was made on the runner at 3rd, so don't  you have to assume BR safe at first?  Sorry for the ignorance but ....

[JaxRolo]

 

 

Why is the batter out though?

 

Ya, this is what I questioned the most. 

 

Sorry for the ignorance but ....

 

Thats ok we are used to it!

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

Why is the batter out though?

 

Ya, this is what I questioned the most. 

 

Sorry for the ignorance but ....

 

Thats ok we are used to it!

 

NICELY DONE!!! CLEAN!!! AND ........well deserved!      

[maven]

In a situation of INT by a retired/scored runner must you ALWAYS call an out? 

 

Yes.

 

That said, there is room in the rule for judgment: it could be the case that retired runner barely touches the ball. If, in your judgment, his actions do not hinder the defense, then he has not interfered. In your situation, with runners advancing, I think you called it correctly. Unintentional and dumb is still dumb.

 

But once you rule this kind of INT, the ball is dead, and the penalty is an out.

[blue23ll]

Think of it this way. Why leave a runner in scoring position? The offense committed an illegal act, so the most punitive action must be taken, runner closes to home is out! AND no other runners are allowed to advance.  I bet they won't be  picking up a live ball anytime soon.

[HeadHunterLA]

Think of it this way. Why leave a runner in scoring position? The offense committed an illegal act, so the most punitive action must be taken, runner closes to home is out! AND no other runners are allowed to advance.  I bet they won't be  picking up a live ball anytime soon.

 

This.

[carolinablue]

OC gets mad at the umpires because his player picked up a live ball with runners advancing. What a rat.

[Jocko]

Name an INT where there ISN'T an out...

[JaxRolo]

Name an INT where there ISN'T an out...

Umpire's INT?

[Mike Prince]

Spectator INT.

[maven]

Name an INT where there ISN'T an out...

 

Weak/backswing INT.

[bam]

Catchers Interference. 

 

You're getting murdered on this one....

[maven]

That said, there is room in the rule for judgment: it could be the case that retired runner barely touches the ball. If, in your judgment, his actions do not hinder the defense, then he has not interfered.

Apologies for quoting myself, but I wanted to post a case to illustrate this possibility. Play at the plate with other runners moving. Runner, catcher, ball all arrive at the same time. The runner slides past the catcher, who has fallen down trying to get the ball.

 

After scoring, the runner is up first, and the ball is rolling away from the plate area. The scored runner picks it up and tosses it to F2, who has just stood up and catches the ball. The runners retreat when they see F2 with the ball.

 

No INT: the scored runner did not hinder (but rather helped) the defense. You might have the DC in your ear about the runner picking up the ball, which was indeed dumb. But dumb is not illegal, in this case did not constitute INT. And you could tell him that the scored runner prevented the other runners from advancing.

 

ALL the benefit of the doubt to the defense here, though.

[Jocko]

Should have been more specific. Forgot how nitpicky you folks are. :smachhead: