Jump to content
  • 0
Ax3bL4d3

Ump Interference question

Question

Big question. LL Rules. Is Umpire interference limited to interference with a throw?

 

Situation: R3, 1 out, Pitch in the dirt, Catcher and Umpire go same direction and catcher's movement essentially trips the ump, who reaches out to keep his balance and basically knocks the catcher down on the ground, impeding his scramble to the ball so the catcher cannot make a play on R3 scoring from third base. Umpire rules ump interference and puts runner back on third.  Long story, short, a big discussion ensues and the ump is overruled cuz apparently they read the rules and figured out that Ump interference only applies to a throw from the catcher. Can Blue invoke 9.01© in this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

They were right to fix it. PU INT is limited to hindering F2 throwing to retire a runner who is stealing or on a pickoff.

 

No, 9.01(c ) does not apply, since this is NOT a "point not covered in the rules." PU INT is covered. Remember the paradigm example of 9.01(c ): a pitch hits a bird. You have to have a crazy, once in a lifetime situation to invoke 9.01(c ).

 

Like a thrown ball hitting the BU, this contact is just part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I was just curious as to who over ruled in this case. And yes PU interference is reserved for throws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

a pitch hits a bird. You have to have a crazy, once in a lifetime situation to invoke 9.01(c ).

Actually this is a point covered now. For sure it is addressed in the MLBUM and PBUC manuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

a pitch hits a bird. You have to have a crazy, once in a lifetime situation to invoke 9.01(c ).

Actually this is a point covered now. For sure it is addressed in the MLBUM and PBUC manuals.

 

 

It's addressed all over the place, including my post.

 

However, 9.01(c ) states: "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules."

 

IOW, you might find yourself needing to invoke 9.01(c ). A manual might provide guidance for what to do in such a situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Who overruled the umpire in this situation?

Just to answer, the President of the League, who's son was on the scoring team, called the District President and they made the ruling then and there, after looking at the green book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

Who overruled the umpire in this situation?

Just to answer, the President of the League, who's son was on the scoring team, called the District President and they made the ruling then and there, after looking at the green book.

 

 

I don't like the procedure, but the outcome seems to be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Who overruled the umpire in this situation?

Just to answer, the President of the League, who's son was on the scoring team, called the District President and they made the ruling then and there, after looking at the green book.

 

I don't like the procedure, but the outcome seems to be correct.

Seems like they would be contacting the Head District Umpire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

They were right to fix it. PU INT is limited to hindering F2 throwing to retire a runner who is stealing or on a pickoff.

 

No, 9.01(c ) does not apply, since this is NOT a "point not covered in the rules." PU INT is covered. Remember the paradigm example of 9.01(c ): a pitch hits a bird. You have to have a crazy, once in a lifetime situation to invoke 9.01(c ).

 

Like a thrown ball hitting the BU, this contact is just part of the game.

I agree with you Maven, but am going to play devil's advocate here because I can hear this coming from a coach as I write this.....In a situation where this happens and nothing is called I can see the DC coming out and saying, ..''Wouldn't the PU be interfering with the catchers throw to the pitcher covering the plate, thus ump INT should be called?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And I would tell him, no, the INT occurs only with a throw, not an attempt to retrieve a WP or PB as in the OP.

maven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By MR20
      Hi all, the end result of this play was called Interference. Is that the correct call?
      With the bases loaded and one out, the batter hit a grounder to 3B. The runner from 3B scored. The third basemen fielded the ball and tug 3B for the force out on the runner from 2B (for the 2nd out) and threw the ball to 1B hoping for a double play. However, the throw to 1B was errant and the batter was safe. The runner from 1B went all the way to 3B during this time.
      Here is where it gets crazy. The runner who was forced out at 3B thought he was safe and ran towards home on the errant throw. The defensive team threw home and the runner was called out (again) for the final out of the inning. The defense left the field. The offensive team realized what happened and argued that the runner couldn't be called out twice. Their stance was that the play should be ruled dead and the batter, who had gone to 2B when the defense threw home, should be returned to 1B and there should still be 2 outs.
      After a long discussion, the umpires ruled that the runner wasn't out because he was tagged out at home (the second time he'd been called out) but he was out because of interference. That was the final out and end of the inning.
      Was that the correct call? I had never seen anything like it before.
      Thank you,
      Mike
    • By johnnyg08
      R2 (stealing), R3 (not stealing)
      Batter squares to bunt and hits the catcher's mitt while trying to bunt the pitch. The plate umpire correctly calls interference on the catcher. The pitch is fouled off out of play. The umpire begins to enforce the penalty.
      Without wondering why R3 isn't stealing, but R2 is stealing state the proper enforcement below. Feel free to cite any applicable case plays, rule citations, etc...
       
       
    • By basejester
      Little League Major Softball tournament.  Ball is dead.  Defense wishes to appeal a runner missed home.  Coaches are yelling instructions regarding the appeal process across the field.  Offensive coach tells his batter to swing if it's a strike.  Pitcher toes the rubber.  Home plate umpire puts the ball in play.
        Pitcher steps off and then moves about 3' to her left of the rubber and throws the ball overhand toward home.  (None of the players speak during the play.) The catcher moves forward toward the pitcher.  The ball comes in near the outside corner of the plate.   The batter swings at the ball and hits the catcher's mitt and hand.  The catcher is unable to catch the ball.  No runners attempt to advance.  Home plate umpire calls time for injured catcher.   What's your ruling?
    • By jms1425
      Stumbled across this video that was posted 11 years ago (YouTube is that old??).... My initial thought was that F1 is no longer protected after the ball hit him and bounced away by more than "a step and a reach", thus this would be obstruction on F1, so BR gets 1st.
      Thoughts?
       
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...