How would you rule on this?

[Umpire in Chief]

A friend and I were talking this weekend about a play he saw in the game before his.

 

Situation - Competitive collegiate wooden bat league, R1, no outs.

 

R1 breaks to second on the pitch, batter steps back out of the box (away from catcher). 

 

F2 misplays the catch and the ball bounces back toward the batter. 

 

The batter for whatever reason taps the rolling ball back to the catcher with his bat. 

 

PU calls the batter out for interference and returns the runner.

 

The excrement hits the rotary device and the offensive manager argues.

....

 

My friend and I both agreed that within the letter of the rules this is probably interference; but there was not a chance to put out the runner once the ball rolled that far away and common sense should have dictated a no call.

 

We thought this was grabbing the dirty end of the stick and not a word would have been said with a no call. 

 

Thoughts?

[treydawgmt]

I probably would agree that I would not make a call if there was no play.

I'm addition, doesn't the definition of interference usually involve some hinderance of the defensive player caused by am offensive player's action? In your case the batter sounds like assisted the catcher on top of it all.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[umpire_scott]

i would have no problem ruling either way.  I think I would have ruled nothing and explained to the DC that in my opinion his teams chance to "make a play" had passed so there was no longer anything to interfere with.  But I would have to be 100% certain that even Yadier Molina would not have been able to throw that runner out.

 

I think the rules leave enough open to individual umpire interpretation that either call can be justified by both rule and common sense.

[treydawgmt]

Oh. I forgot to add a reminder that the ball is live and not to touch it in the future or risk being called out.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Stan W.]

from the details of the OP....................I'm heavily leaning towards no call.............and a quiet warning to the batter not to touch a live ball

[maven]

Depends entirely on the timing. As I'm envisioning the case, R1 is standing on 2B when the batter taps the ball back to F2 — saving him a few steps. To me, that sounds like helping rather than hindering, and would not constitute INT. The ball being live isn't sufficient to make it INT.

 

Now, maybe I'm reading it wrong or maybe it went differently, and F2 had a shot at the runner. Then the INT might be justified: certainly any benefit of the doubt to the defense here.

[Oldcrow]

Depends entirely on the timing. As I'm envisioning the case, R1 is standing on 2B when the batter taps the ball back to F2 — saving him a few steps. To me, that sounds like helping rather than hindering, and would not constitute INT. The ball being live isn't sufficient to make it INT.

 

Now, maybe I'm reading it wrong or maybe it went differently, and F2 had a shot at the runner. Then the INT might be justified: certainly any benefit of the doubt to the defense here.

 

Agree....Another one of those circumstances I would want to see unfold. It sounds like interference, but then again, I almost hate to reward the Defense when they misplayed the catch

[HeadHunterLA]

I'd have no call with a firm reminder not to touch a ball in play.

[BigUmpire]

Batter is out, runner stays at second.

Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

[catsbackr]

Return the runner, instruct the batter not to touch a live ball, play on.

[maven]

Batter is out, runner stays at second.

Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

 

~

[Dragon29]

Batter is out, runner stays at second.

Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

OK - I'll bite.

 

Why?

[BigUmpire]

 

Batter is out, runner stays at second.

Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

OK - I'll bite.

 

Why?

 

"The batter for whatever reason taps the rolling ball back to the catcher with his bat." SURE he did!

 

The batter interfered with a live ball.

 

Bet the batter will not do that anymore!

 

I will live with this all day long.

[Dragon29]

Well, you're certainly not wrong.  Technically, the batter can be called out by rule.

 

HTBT, but I'm not sure I'd make that call based upon the OP.

 

Of course, as I write this, I'm thinking I should probably judge this based upon age level, intent, expected level of knowledge, etc...  -  and then I remember this is college.  He should know better.  Again, I might not call the out here, but would have no problem w/those who would.

[MB_Ump]

Batter is out, runner stays at second.

Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

If you are calling the Interference, then the ball is dead...wouldn't the runner have to go back to first?

[maven]

Batter is out, runner stays at second. Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

If you are calling the Interference, then the ball is dead...wouldn't the runner have to go back to first? Depends where he is at TOI.

[noumpere]

 

Batter is out, runner stays at second. Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

If you are calling the Interference, then the ball is dead...wouldn't the runner have to go back to first? Depends where he is at TOI.

 

True but interference is defined as something like "prevents a play" and if the runner was already at second then there wasn't a play do it probably want interference.

 

The options seem to be keep the runner at second (and talk to the batter of course) or call the interference and return the runner.

 

You could have a play slightly different of course where you had the interference and left the runner at second but not in the play as descried, I don't think.

[BigUmpire]

 

Batter is out, runner stays at second. Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

If you are calling the Interference, then the ball is dead...wouldn't the runner have to go back to first? Depends where he is at TOI.

 

True but interference is defined as something like "prevents a play" and if the runner was already at second then there wasn't a play do it probably want interference.

 

The options seem to be keep the runner at second (and talk to the batter of course) or call the interference and return the runner.

 

You could have a play slightly different of course where you had the interference and left the runner at second but not in the play as descried, I don't think.

 

• “Never pass up an opportunity to get an outâ€.- Umpire in Chief 

[Celerion]

Oh. I forgot to add a reminder that the ball is live and not to touch it in the future or risk being called out.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Batter is out, runner stays at second.

Has to be some punishment for messing with a live ball.

 

I think that the interference needs to be called because it was a live ball and the batter did interfere with the live ball.

A friendly warning and brief explanation about the call to the player I feel is appreciated also.     I'm not against explaining why the play happened for the younger kids who I know are newer to the game.  It can be a learning experience when asked, and willing to talk to coaches outside of the game as long as the discussion is initiated right and it is at an appropriate time.

 

At the time of the play thou, the call does need to be played imo, and an explanation if asked can be given after the fact when it doesn't impede the progress of the game.

[flastyle727]

What about the batter stepping out of the box during the pitch?

 

Anything on that?

[Forest Ump]

The defense screwed up. The offense screwed up. Something has to be done. I would treat it like back swing interference. Nobody is out. Put the runner back on first. Take care of business.  Play ball.

[sdix00]

If this play materialized in a typical fashion, then once F2 misplayed the pitch, the play on a stealing R1 is pretty much over.   There is no evidence that the batter interfered with any play.   

 

 

Touching a live thrown or pitched ball is not automatically interference (unlike a batted ball).  There has to be intent to interfere.

[flastyle727]

Can someone assist on my question? In the OP it was stated that the Batter stepped out of the box; assuming it was during the pitch what do we rule on that? Did he force the bad throw to F2 by stepping out? Do we grab a strike? Do we send everyone back and grab a strike? Or do we ignore? Thanks for the help!

[BigUmp56]

If he steps out during the pitch I'm going to wait and see where the pitch ends up in the zone. If it's in the area code of the plate I'm getting a strike and telling the batter not to step out again after the pitcher has begun his motion to pitch. But if I see F1 try to hesitate and misfire the ball because of the batter's movement, I'm calling time and re-setting them.

 

Tim.

[noumpere]

Can someone assist on my question? In the OP it was stated that the Batter stepped out of the box; assuming it was during the pitch what do we rule on that? Did he force the bad throw to F2 by stepping out? Do we grab a strike? Do we send everyone back and grab a strike? Or do we ignore? Thanks for the help!

It was a "competitive collegiate wood bat league" so they use either NCAA or OPR rules.  No penalty just for stepping out of the box during the pitch.  Call the pitch and then rule on what else happens (or doesn't happen).