Batter interference on strike 3, runner going, <2 outs, MLB rules

[jbucks]

Hi everyone,

 

Can someone please clarify the MLB rule for batter interference with the catcher after strike three and runner going? Is it a judgment call on the part of the umpire as to whether to call the runner out or send him back to his base at time of pitch?

 

In NFHS I believe it is a judgment call on the part of the umpire as to whether the runner could have been retired.

 

Thanks.

[noumpere]

If there is INT, then the runner is out.

[ALStripes17]

Hi everyone,

Can someone please clarify the MLB rule for batter interference with the catcher after strike three and runner going? Is it a judgment call on the part of the umpire as to whether to call the runner out or send him back to his base at time of pitch?

In NFHS I believe it is a judgment call on the part of the umpire as to whether the runner could have been retired.

Thanks.

In FED, the umpire is given the option of either calling the runner out or sending him back to 1B. It's umpire discretion whether he believed the runner could have been retired.

[BalkHawk]

OBR:

After strike 3, the batter is out and cannot be called out (again) for his interference. Thus, the runner being played upon is out, all other runners return to t.o.p. base. (6.06c)

FED:

7.3.5 penalty (via 8.4.2.g) includes

[maven]

In FED, the umpire is given the option of either calling the runner out or sending him back to 1B. It's umpire discretion whether he believed the runner could have been retired.

Well, I was all set to correct this claim, when I found 7.3.5C:

 

7.3.5 SITUATION C:

With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1.

RULING: B3 has struck out. If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base.

That's a steaming pile, IMHO. There is no basis in the rules for returning R1. If the batter interferes, somebody is out for it (and it can't be the batter here, who just struck out).

[JaxRolo]

 

In FED, the umpire is given the option of either calling the runner out or sending him back to 1B. It's umpire discretion whether he believed the runner could have been retired.

Well, I was all set to correct this claim, when I found 7.3.5C:

 

7.3.5 SITUATION C:

With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1.

RULING: B3 has struck out. If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base.

That's a steaming pile, IMHO. There is no basis in the rules for returning R1. If the batter interferes, somebody is out for it (and it can't be the batter here, who just struck out).

 

Agree!

 

In my opinion F2 always has a chance to throw out the runner!

[ALStripes17]

In FED, the umpire is given the option of either calling the runner out or sending him back to 1B. It's umpire discretion whether he believed the runner could have been retired.

Well, I was all set to correct this claim, when I found 7.3.5C:

7.3.5 SITUATION C:

With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1.

RULING: B3 has struck out. If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base.

That's a steaming pile, IMHO. There is no basis in the rules for returning R1. If the batter interferes, somebody is out for it (and it can't be the batter here, who just struck out).

Agree!

In my opinion F2 always has a chance to throw out the runner!

I was wondering if someone was going to try to refute it. You know we all have those 2 or 3 specific rules that we know inside and out without question? This one is mine haha

We had an hour long discussion in our association meeting on this because our assignor said "we call the runner out." Mr. 2nd year here did not agree with that teaching method at all and discussion ensued in order to make sure umpires actually understood the rule.

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it :)

[maven]

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it

You're not interpreting a rule, because there is no rule that permits an umpire to return a runner after BI.

 

You're merely applying a bad case play. It's bad precisely because it creates a ruling out of nothing. If you want to hang your hat on that case play, you're welcome to it. Nobody can protest the call or otherwise say you're wrong.

 

I would never make that call: it's nothing or INT + an out.

[ALStripes17]

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it

You're not interpreting a rule, because there is no rule that permits an umpire to return a runner after BI.

You're merely applying a bad case play. It's bad precisely because it creates a ruling out of nothing. If you want to hang your hat on that case play, you're welcome to it. Nobody can protest the call or otherwise say you're wrong.

I would never make that call: it's nothing or INT + an out.

So R1 gets huge jump, strike 3 on batter as he falls over plate, F2 comes up firing to 2B anyway but you believe there is no possibility of retiring R1. You have nothing?

Add to that, bc of the BI, F2's throw goes into OF and R1 gets 3B. Still nothing?

As stated, I don't necessarily agree with the rule but the condescending attitude towards me is unnecessary.

Sidenote: interpretation is defined as "the action of explaining the meaning of something," which is exactly what the FED CB does

[maven]

Your play: if it's BI and strike 3, then the runner is out. Simple, really. The "possibility of retiring R1" is already properly factored into the penalty for BI and needs no help from bogus case plays.

 

Attitude: I think you might be misreading my feelings about the case play as implying an attitude about you. You posted with pride about being able to haul out this case play to justify a certain ruling. Good that you know the book, and even better that you have qualms about this ruling. Nothing I wrote is condescending toward you. You have lukewarm endorsement of the caseplay, and I condemn it. We disagree. No big deal.

 

Interpretation: You can't interpret a rule that doesn't exist.

 

The case play writer mistakenly extended the general provision about INT and double plays to BI. So now, instead of getting an out for BI, we are supposed to determine whether an out was "possible," as when we look at a collision between F4 and R1 on a slow roller. That's a mistake because it mashes together runner INT with batter INT, which are quite different and need to be penalized differently. I get how it happened.

 

Fortunately, since the ruling widens rather than narrows the way we can call BI, we're all free to ignore this provision and rule on it properly.

[Replacematt]

 

 

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it

You're not interpreting a rule, because there is no rule that permits an umpire to return a runner after BI.

You're merely applying a bad case play. It's bad precisely because it creates a ruling out of nothing. If you want to hang your hat on that case play, you're welcome to it. Nobody can protest the call or otherwise say you're wrong.

I would never make that call: it's nothing or INT + an out.

 

So R1 gets huge jump, strike 3 on batter as he falls over plate, F2 comes up firing to 2B anyway but you believe there is no possibility of retiring R1. You have nothing?

Add to that, bc of the BI, F2's throw goes into OF and R1 gets 3B. Still nothing?

As stated, I don't necessarily agree with the rule but the condescending attitude towards me is unnecessary.

Sidenote: interpretation is defined as "the action of explaining the meaning of something," which is exactly what the FED CB does

 

 

How many different posters are you going to accuse of being condescending? This is at least the third.

 

Here's a hint--maybe it's not them.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it

You're not interpreting a rule, because there is no rule that permits an umpire to return a runner after BI.

You're merely applying a bad case play. It's bad precisely because it creates a ruling out of nothing. If you want to hang your hat on that case play, you're welcome to it. Nobody can protest the call or otherwise say you're wrong.

I would never make that call: it's nothing or INT + an out.

 

So R1 gets huge jump, strike 3 on batter as he falls over plate, F2 comes up firing to 2B anyway but you believe there is no possibility of retiring R1. You have nothing?

Add to that, bc of the BI, F2's throw goes into OF and R1 gets 3B. Still nothing?

As stated, I don't necessarily agree with the rule but the condescending attitude towards me is unnecessary.

Sidenote: interpretation is defined as "the action of explaining the meaning of something," which is exactly what the FED CB does

 

I agree w/ Matt ....

THERE IS NOTHING condescending in maven's post.... nothing

[ALStripes17]

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it

You're not interpreting a rule, because there is no rule that permits an umpire to return a runner after BI.

You're merely applying a bad case play. It's bad precisely because it creates a ruling out of nothing. If you want to hang your hat on that case play, you're welcome to it. Nobody can protest the call or otherwise say you're wrong.

I would never make that call: it's nothing or INT + an out.

So R1 gets huge jump, strike 3 on batter as he falls over plate, F2 comes up firing to 2B anyway but you believe there is no possibility of retiring R1. You have nothing?

Add to that, bc of the BI, F2's throw goes into OF and R1 gets 3B. Still nothing?

As stated, I don't necessarily agree with the rule but the condescending attitude towards me is unnecessary.

Sidenote: interpretation is defined as "the action of explaining the meaning of something," which is exactly what the FED CB does

How many different posters are you going to accuse of being condescending? This is at least the third.

Here's a hint--maybe it's not them.

I am a huge fan of this forum and have learned a lot in very little time; however, the arrogance is daunting at times (confidence and arrogance being interchangeable at times as they can be very close to their respective sides of the fence. Just because I am one of the few to address it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

In this case, there is no reason to belittle anything. We can disagree with rules and/or case plays, but we are still to rule on them accordingly.

I displayed some excitement at the idea that I was prepared with an interp (Case Play) in my association meeting that garnered some respect. No reason to diminish a conversation or discussion over the fact that one may disagree with the interp or case play.

[ALStripes17]

@maven, I appreciate your inputs as you have some great insights. My issue with this is more towards why you want to disregard half of this particular case play. It's as if you will not even consider the option of returning the runner which has been allowed under an approved interpretation, using the idea that the writer(s) must have been mistaken.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

 

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it

You're not interpreting a rule, because there is no rule that permits an umpire to return a runner after BI.

You're merely applying a bad case play. It's bad precisely because it creates a ruling out of nothing. If you want to hang your hat on that case play, you're welcome to it. Nobody can protest the call or otherwise say you're wrong.

I would never make that call: it's nothing or INT + an out.

 

So R1 gets huge jump, strike 3 on batter as he falls over plate, F2 comes up firing to 2B anyway but you believe there is no possibility of retiring R1. You have nothing?

Add to that, bc of the BI, F2's throw goes into OF and R1 gets 3B. Still nothing?

As stated, I don't necessarily agree with the rule but the condescending attitude towards me is unnecessary.

Sidenote: interpretation is defined as "the action of explaining the meaning of something," which is exactly what the FED CB does

 

How many different posters are you going to accuse of being condescending? This is at least the third.

Here's a hint--maybe it's not them.

 

I am a huge fan of this forum and have learned a lot in very little time; however, the arrogance is daunting at times (confidence and arrogance being interchangeable at times as they can be very close to their respective sides of the fence. Just because I am one of the few to address it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

In this case, there is no reason to belittle anything. We can disagree with rules and/or case plays, but we are still to rule on them accordingly.

I displayed some excitement at the idea that I was prepared with an interp (Case Play) in my association meeting that garnered some respect. No reason to diminish a conversation or discussion over the fact that one may disagree with the interp or case play.

 

 

No one belittled anything. I can tell you that in two of the three times you have accused someone of condescension (that I have seen,) there was nothing there. The other time, there was a snide comment that I wouldn't have called condescending, but whatevs. 

 

The case play is horseSH*#, to be frank. FED has a history of making glaring errors in its caseplays, sometimes by not editing them as rules change, others by straight-up being in direct conflict of what is in the rulebook. That's why a lot of us do not hold it in high regard. 

 

What you are missing is that maven is not saying that he is doing anything contrary to the case play. It's either INT, or it isn't. If it is, he's getting the runner. If not, it's nothing. The possibility of returning the runner doesn't exist to him (and to me, for that matter) because there's no INT if the runner wasn't going to be put out. We aren't calling it in a situation where the case play would tell us to return the runner, because there's nothing to call.

[maven]

@maven, I appreciate your inputs as you have some great insights. My issue with this is more towards why you want to disregard half of this particular case play. It's as if you will not even consider the option of returning the runner which has been allowed under an approved interpretation, using the idea that the writer(s) must have been mistaken.

 

Ah, I think I see the problem. I did consider the option of returning the runner, and I rejected it. And then I composed my post, so perhaps you didn't notice me considering it.

 

I think I've already said it, but here it is in brief: by rule, the penalty for BI is an out. If the batter is out on strike 3, we call somebody else out. There is no provision in the rules of baseball to return a runner as the sole penalty for BI.

 

Now, if you want to change the BI rules, we could talk about that. The penalties for various infractions have evolved over decades, and I for one am leery about making a major change to BI (which is already a complicated rule). The rule balances concern for both offense and defense, and returning a runner in lieu of calling him out is a pretty major plus for the offense.

 

I don't think the author of the caseplay thought about balancing offense and defense. As I say, I think he mistakenly extended the "get an out if a DP is possible" principle from runner INT over into BI, where it doesn't belong. Another possibility is someone obsessed with OBR's "backswing INT" provision is trying to sneak it into the FED book somehow. THAT rule involves returning a runner...

[ALStripes17]

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it

You're not interpreting a rule, because there is no rule that permits an umpire to return a runner after BI.

You're merely applying a bad case play. It's bad precisely because it creates a ruling out of nothing. If you want to hang your hat on that case play, you're welcome to it. Nobody can protest the call or otherwise say you're wrong.

I would never make that call: it's nothing or INT + an out.

So R1 gets huge jump, strike 3 on batter as he falls over plate, F2 comes up firing to 2B anyway but you believe there is no possibility of retiring R1. You have nothing?

Add to that, bc of the BI, F2's throw goes into OF and R1 gets 3B. Still nothing?

As stated, I don't necessarily agree with the rule but the condescending attitude towards me is unnecessary.

Sidenote: interpretation is defined as "the action of explaining the meaning of something," which is exactly what the FED CB does

How many different posters are you going to accuse of being condescending? This is at least the third.

Here's a hint--maybe it's not them.

I am a huge fan of this forum and have learned a lot in very little time; however, the arrogance is daunting at times (confidence and arrogance being interchangeable at times as they can be very close to their respective sides of the fence. Just because I am one of the few to address it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

In this case, there is no reason to belittle anything. We can disagree with rules and/or case plays, but we are still to rule on them accordingly.

I displayed some excitement at the idea that I was prepared with an interp (Case Play) in my association meeting that garnered some respect. No reason to diminish a conversation or discussion over the fact that one may disagree with the interp or case play.

No one belittled anything. I can tell you that in two of the three times you have accused someone of condescension (that I have seen,) there was nothing there. The other time, there was a snide comment that I wouldn't have called condescending, but whatevs.

The case play is horseSH*#, to be frank. FED has a history of making glaring errors in its caseplays, sometimes by not editing them as rules change, others by straight-up being in direct conflict of what is in the rulebook. That's why a lot of us do not hold it in high regard.

What you are missing is that maven is not saying that he is doing anything contrary to the case play. It's either INT, or it isn't. If it is, he's getting the runner. If not, it's nothing. The possibility of returning the runner doesn't exist to him (and to me, for that matter) because there's no INT if the runner wasn't going to be put out. We aren't calling it in a situation where the case play would tell us to return the runner, because there's nothing to call.

Ok, I now ask to refer to the addl situations I posed. If F2 continues a throw to 2B on a runner that would have been easily safe anyway, and the throw gets away and allows the runner to advance even further, you either severely punish the defense by not calling anything on the batter, or you severely punish the offense for calling the runner out. I don't see how you can eliminate the middle ground.

OBR returns runners for backswing INT (I know FED does not distinguish bw the 2), so why would that not be a viable option in a albeit rare case where someone has to be 'penalized' in some minor way?

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surprisingly gained a lot of respect in that particular meeting for my knowledge and interpretation of that rule.

Not saying I agree with it

You're not interpreting a rule, because there is no rule that permits an umpire to return a runner after BI.

You're merely applying a bad case play. It's bad precisely because it creates a ruling out of nothing. If you want to hang your hat on that case play, you're welcome to it. Nobody can protest the call or otherwise say you're wrong.

I would never make that call: it's nothing or INT + an out.

 

So R1 gets huge jump, strike 3 on batter as he falls over plate, F2 comes up firing to 2B anyway but you believe there is no possibility of retiring R1. You have nothing?

Add to that, bc of the BI, F2's throw goes into OF and R1 gets 3B. Still nothing?

As stated, I don't necessarily agree with the rule but the condescending attitude towards me is unnecessary.

Sidenote: interpretation is defined as "the action of explaining the meaning of something," which is exactly what the FED CB does

 

How many different posters are you going to accuse of being condescending? This is at least the third.

Here's a hint--maybe it's not them.

 

I am a huge fan of this forum and have learned a lot in very little time; however, the arrogance is daunting at times (confidence and arrogance being interchangeable at times as they can be very close to their respective sides of the fence. Just because I am one of the few to address it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

In this case, there is no reason to belittle anything. We can disagree with rules and/or case plays, but we are still to rule on them accordingly.

I displayed some excitement at the idea that I was prepared with an interp (Case Play) in my association meeting that garnered some respect. No reason to diminish a conversation or discussion over the fact that one may disagree with the interp or case play.

 

No one belittled anything. I can tell you that in two of the three times you have accused someone of condescension (that I have seen,) there was nothing there. The other time, there was a snide comment that I wouldn't have called condescending, but whatevs.

The case play is horseSH*#, to be frank. FED has a history of making glaring errors in its caseplays, sometimes by not editing them as rules change, others by straight-up being in direct conflict of what is in the rulebook. That's why a lot of us do not hold it in high regard.

What you are missing is that maven is not saying that he is doing anything contrary to the case play. It's either INT, or it isn't. If it is, he's getting the runner. If not, it's nothing. The possibility of returning the runner doesn't exist to him (and to me, for that matter) because there's no INT if the runner wasn't going to be put out. We aren't calling it in a situation where the case play would tell us to return the runner, because there's nothing to call.

 

Ok, I now ask to refer to the addl situations I posed. If F2 continues a throw to 2B on a runner that would have been easily safe anyway, and the throw gets away and allows the runner to advance even further, you either severely punish the defense by not calling anything on the batter, or you severely punish the offense for calling the runner out. I don't see how you can eliminate the middle ground.

OBR returns runners for backswing INT (I know FED does not distinguish bw the 2), so why would that not be a viable option in a albeit rare case where someone has to be 'penalized' in some minor way?

 

 

I don't punish anyone. If the runner was so obviously going to be safe that I don't have BI (keep in mind, I'm giving the defense the benefit of the doubt,) then F2 has no business throwing that ball. It's on him for that ball ending up in the OF.

[Jocko]

Plain and simple....if I call INT, I'm getting an out for it. Batter is already out. Kinda narrows it down.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

In my opinion F2 always has a chance to throw out the runner!

 

 

No matter how small. 

 

So we take a .30 probability and turn it into a 1.00 actual?  I think you have to use some judgement based on the particular event.

[JaxRolo]

Not likely. Like others have said - got to get an out on the int.

[Dash Riprock]

Your play: if it's BI and strike 3, then the runner is out. Simple, really. The "possibility of retiring R1" is already properly factored into the penalty for BI and needs no help from bogus case plays.

 

Attitude: I think you might be misreading my feelings about the case play as implying an attitude about you. You posted with pride about being able to haul out this case play to justify a certain ruling. Good that you know the book, and even better that you have qualms about this ruling. Nothing I wrote is condescending toward you. You have lukewarm endorsement of the caseplay, and I condemn it. We disagree. No big deal.

 

Interpretation: You can't interpret a rule that doesn't exist.

 

The case play writer mistakenly extended the general provision about INT and double plays to BI. So now, instead of getting an out for BI, we are supposed to determine whether an out was "possible," as when we look at a collision between F4 and R1 on a slow roller. That's a mistake because it mashes together runner INT with batter INT, which are quite different and need to be penalized differently. I get how it happened.

 

Fortunately, since the ruling widens rather than narrows the way we can call BI, we're all free to ignore this provision and rule on it properly.

Like it or not, the FED rule says the out for BI is not automatic when the batter strikes out.  The umpire is required to make a judgment - was a double play possible?  Failing to make this judgment and automatically calling the runner out is misapplying the rules.  It is no different from automatically getting two outs when F4 and R1 collide on the slow roller in the example you gave above.

[Replacematt]

 

Your play: if it's BI and strike 3, then the runner is out. Simple, really. The "possibility of retiring R1" is already properly factored into the penalty for BI and needs no help from bogus case plays.

 

Attitude: I think you might be misreading my feelings about the case play as implying an attitude about you. You posted with pride about being able to haul out this case play to justify a certain ruling. Good that you know the book, and even better that you have qualms about this ruling. Nothing I wrote is condescending toward you. You have lukewarm endorsement of the caseplay, and I condemn it. We disagree. No big deal.

 

Interpretation: You can't interpret a rule that doesn't exist.

 

The case play writer mistakenly extended the general provision about INT and double plays to BI. So now, instead of getting an out for BI, we are supposed to determine whether an out was "possible," as when we look at a collision between F4 and R1 on a slow roller. That's a mistake because it mashes together runner INT with batter INT, which are quite different and need to be penalized differently. I get how it happened.

 

Fortunately, since the ruling widens rather than narrows the way we can call BI, we're all free to ignore this provision and rule on it properly.

Like it or not, the FED rule says the out for BI is not automatic when the batter strikes out.  The umpire is required to make a judgment - was a double play possible?  Failing to make this judgment and automatically calling the runner out is misapplying the rules.  It is no different from automatically getting two outs when F4 and R1 collide on the slow roller in the example you gave above.

 

 

You're not getting what we're saying. 

[Richvee]

That base stealer needs to be standing on 2nd or sliding into 2nd when F2 tries to throw and is interfered with for me NOT to get the out on the runner. In such a situation I understand how one would be inclined not to call BI since F2 would have no business at that point even attempting a throw, but FED doesn't see it that way. You need to send him back in that sitch under FED.  

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

Your play: if it's BI and strike 3, then the runner is out. Simple, really. The "possibility of retiring R1" is already properly factored into the penalty for BI and needs no help from bogus case plays.

 

Attitude: I think you might be misreading my feelings about the case play as implying an attitude about you. You posted with pride about being able to haul out this case play to justify a certain ruling. Good that you know the book, and even better that you have qualms about this ruling. Nothing I wrote is condescending toward you. You have lukewarm endorsement of the caseplay, and I condemn it. We disagree. No big deal.

 

Interpretation: You can't interpret a rule that doesn't exist.

 

The case play writer mistakenly extended the general provision about INT and double plays to BI. So now, instead of getting an out for BI, we are supposed to determine whether an out was "possible," as when we look at a collision between F4 and R1 on a slow roller. That's a mistake because it mashes together runner INT with batter INT, which are quite different and need to be penalized differently. I get how it happened.

 

Fortunately, since the ruling widens rather than narrows the way we can call BI, we're all free to ignore this provision and rule on it properly.

Like it or not, the FED rule says the out for BI is not automatic when the batter strikes out.  The umpire is required to make a judgment - was a double play possible?  Failing to make this judgment and automatically calling the runner out is misapplying the rules.  It is no different from automatically getting two outs when F4 and R1 collide on the slow roller in the example you gave above.

 

 

You're not getting what we're saying. 

 

Yes I am.  The rule is black and white - the 2nd out is not automatic (per both 7-3-5c PENALTY and 8-4-2g).  The Case Book (which is part of the rules), says the runner is returned if not called out.

 

From the 2011 FED Interpretations:  SITUATION 5: With one out, R2 gets a great jump at first base and is just a couple of feet from second base when B3 strikes out. B3’s follow-through interferes with the catcher, who drops the ball and cannot throw to second base. RULING: The ball is declared dead when play is no longer possible. B3 is out on strikes for out No. 2. Since the catcher had no possible play on R2 (being so close to second base at the time of the interference), R2 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)