Crazy Play

[Guest Matt]

Doubt you'll ever see it, but an interesting situation to be sure. Maybe you can help settle an argument amongst friends.

 

OBR

 

Bases loaded, one out...

 

Pitcher balks and pitches the ball... Catcher's interference occurs on the swing, and the ball is popped to right field, and caught. R2 and R3 legally tag. R1 is off on contact. R1 is obstructed by F3 en route to 2nd, and subsequently misses 2nd, though not as a result of the obstruction. The ball is thrown back into first to attempt to double up R1, but the ball is overthrown out of play.

 

My opinion: Award the overthrow. R2 and R3 to score. R1 to score unless he goes back to legally tag, in which case the award is changed to 3rd. After awarding the overthrown, award the CI... BR to 1st, R1 to 2nd, R2 to 3rd, R3 to score... Manager may then take the results of the play, in which case BR is out, R2 and R3 scores, and R1 is awarded 3rd or to score. If R1 never tagged or didn't touch 2nd on his last time by, he may be appealed for the 3rd out, but two runs score.

 

Friends opinion: Call time as soon as the ball is caught because of the balk. Then enforce the balk. R3 to score, R2 to 3rd, R1 to 2nd. Then, because not all runners including the BR advanced one base, award the BR 1st on the CI.

 

What is your opinion, and if at all possible, what is your rule support?

 

TIA!

[johnnyg08]

Enforce the balk when the batter and all runners have not advanced at least one base.  

[maven]

The balk happened first. Enforce it first. Once the BR was out on the catch, nothing else mattered.

[afaber12]

The balk happened first. Enforce it first. Once the BR was out on the catch, nothing else mattered.

But there was a CI as well. With the bases loaded, the runners would all be forced to advance on that. Doesn't that mean the ball would be ignored?

My question is whether or not the ball would mean that the option for the manager under the CI would be a choice between everyone moving up one base, or just the runners moving up and the batter staying put at the plate?

[maven]

No. Enforce the balk. Keep it simple: nothing else happened once the BR was put out on the catch.

[afaber12]

No. Enforce the balk. Keep it simple: nothing else happened once the BR was put out on the catch.

 

Generally speaking I'm in favour of keeping things simple (though some of my posts here might suggest otherwise). But the balk rule says you ignore it if the batter-runner and all other runners advance at least one base each: because of the CI the batter-runner is entitled to first base, and since the bases were loaded each of the runners would be forced to advance to the next base as well. Ignoring for the moment the possibility of the manager's option on the play, you'd have to enforce the CI thereby ignoring the balk.

 

I can accept that because of the combination of the balk, the CI and the caught flyball, that the OC doesn't get to choose the full outcome of the play including the award for the ball going out of play, but only gets to choose between either the balk being enforced (1 run scores, now with R2 & R3, same BR with same count as before the play) or the CI being enforced (1 run scores, bases loaded but with the next batter due up). It feels to me like the defense gets away with avoiding too big a penalty because of the combination of mistakes they've made, but absent an authoritative interpretation that seems to be how the various rules involved would be applied. I'd want to allow the OC to be able to choose the full result of the play - the catch, runs scoring, R1 at risk of appeals for not retouching 1st and for missing 2nd if those mistakes weren't corrected - but at the moment I don't have a rule or interp cite to back me up on that.

[Replacematt]

Determine (in your head) what the outcome of the play is. In this case, you have a balk with BR out, which means that nothing else matters on the play and you'll have each runner advance one base and the same batter at bat with the same count.

Because the conditions for superseding the CI penalty do not come into play, enforce the penalty. Award the batter first; all runners advance (due to force.)

If OC wants the play (R3 scores, R1 and R2 advance,) he can elect to take it at this time.

[noumpere]

This play (but maybe without the OBS /overthrow additions) has been around for a while.  It all comes down to whether you enforce from the first to the last, or from the last to the first since the infractions all carry "delayed" penalties (or options to ignore).

 

Those two opinions are well represented by maven and johnnyg08 (for the first to last choice), and Matt (for the last to first choice).

 

FWIW, I agree with Matt.

[Rich Ives]

Determine (in your head) what the outcome of the play is. In this case, you have a balk with BR out, which means that nothing else matters on the play and you'll have each runner advance one base and the same batter at bat with the same count.

Because the conditions for superseding the CI penalty do not come into play, enforce the penalty. Award the batter first; all runners advance (due to force.)

If OC wants the play (R3 scores, R1 and R2 advance,) he can elect to take it at this time.

 

If you enforce the balk the CI never happened.

[johnnyg08]

There's a conceptually similar question on this year's NCAA test about a thrown bat by a batter.  

 

Once the bat hits the fielder making a play on the ball, it's interference and a dead ball.  What happens after is irrelevant b/c the play stops there.

 

The same is true in this case.  Enforce the balk.  The rest is moot.  

 

I stand corrected below.  I learn something everyday.

Edited January 27, 2015 by johnnyg08
I stand corrected below. I learn something everyday.

[jjb]

Is it raining? Does it look like it might rain?

 

There you go.....

[Stretch]

There was a similar thread on this topic.
From page 2 of "Balk with catcher's interference" topic in Rules:
Posted by umpschool:

"If I could chime in:

We teach that you enforce penalties as the provisions provide for. For instance, in order for a balk to be nullified, all runners including the batter must advance one base safely. However, if it is followed by a catcher's interference, you must first enforce the catcher's interference (if necessary) to see if all runners, including the BR advance. And that requires that you let the entire play end. Take the following play:

Bases loaded, no one out. Pitcher balks, followed by catcher's interference. The batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop in the hole, who throws to first to retire the BR. However, on the play, R2 rounds third and heads for home. He is called safe on a close play at the plate. At the end of the play, R3 and R2 have scored. R1 advanced to second base, and the BR was thrown out at first.

It seems that out of all the answers on here, none (that I have quickly glanced over) would have been correct. I've seen two camps of explanation in this thread. Let me show you how each is in error.

The first camp says that you should enforce the balk as soon as the BR was put out because they all didn't advance one base safely. This is not appropriate because the catcher's interference (listed as "or otherwise" in the balk penalty) has not been enforced. Enforcing only the balk would create this situation -- R3 scores, R2 is awarded third base, R1 is awarded second base, and the BR is returned to bat with the previous count.

The second camp insists that you enforce the catcher's interference (they're right, BTW), but that you should also kill the play right away (they're wrong, BTW). Enforcing it this way would create this situation -- The BR is awarded first base, R1 is awarded second base, R2 is awarded third base, and R3 is awarded to score. Now that all runners, including the BR, have advanced one base safely, the balk is nullified. If the offensive manager wanted to elect to take the results of the play (because he's greedy), he has the right to do so. Problem is, there are no results under this interpretation because you killed it right away.

Now let's say you leave it in play and R2 is called safe. Since they did not all advance a base safely, you enforce the catcher's interference. But now the manager comes out and says, "I want R2 to score. I elect to take the results of the play."
You would then rule on that election. R3 would score, R2 would score, R1 would be awarded second base, and the BR would be called out.
After all the runners then reach their awarded bases, all runners, including the BR, have now NOT advanced a base safely. You would then enforce the balk penalty after all. Enforcing the balk would create this situation -- R3 scores, R2 is awarded third base, R1 is awarded second base, and the BR is returned to bat with the previous count.

Once they ask for it, they can't go back. Yes, they still only have one run score, but the BR isn't standing on first base. Instead, he'll be batting again, and first base is empty. They're required to know the rules too."

[johnnyg08]

There was a similar thread on this topic.

From page 2 of "Balk with catcher's interference" topic in Rules:

Posted by umpschool:

"If I could chime in:

We teach that you enforce penalties as the provisions provide for. For instance, in order for a balk to be nullified, all runners including the batter must advance one base safely. However, if it is followed by a catcher's interference, you must first enforce the catcher's interference (if necessary) to see if all runners, including the BR advance. And that requires that you let the entire play end. Take the following play:

Bases loaded, no one out. Pitcher balks, followed by catcher's interference. The batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop in the hole, who throws to first to retire the BR. However, on the play, R2 rounds third and heads for home. He is called safe on a close play at the plate. At the end of the play, R3 and R2 have scored. R1 advanced to second base, and the BR was thrown out at first.

It seems that out of all the answers on here, none (that I have quickly glanced over) would have been correct. I've seen two camps of explanation in this thread. Let me show you how each is in error.

The first camp says that you should enforce the balk as soon as the BR was put out because they all didn't advance one base safely. This is not appropriate because the catcher's interference (listed as "or otherwise" in the balk penalty) has not been enforced. Enforcing only the balk would create this situation -- R3 scores, R2 is awarded third base, R1 is awarded second base, and the BR is returned to bat with the previous count.

The second camp insists that you enforce the catcher's interference (they're right, BTW), but that you should also kill the play right away (they're wrong, BTW). Enforcing it this way would create this situation -- The BR is awarded first base, R1 is awarded second base, R2 is awarded third base, and R3 is awarded to score. Now that all runners, including the BR, have advanced one base safely, the balk is nullified. If the offensive manager wanted to elect to take the results of the play (because he's greedy), he has the right to do so. Problem is, there are no results under this interpretation because you killed it right away.

Now let's say you leave it in play and R2 is called safe. Since they did not all advance a base safely, you enforce the catcher's interference. But now the manager comes out and says, "I want R2 to score. I elect to take the results of the play."

You would then rule on that election. R3 would score, R2 would score, R1 would be awarded second base, and the BR would be called out.

After all the runners then reach their awarded bases, all runners, including the BR, have now NOT advanced a base safely. You would then enforce the balk penalty after all. Enforcing the balk would create this situation -- R3 scores, R2 is awarded third base, R1 is awarded second base, and the BR is returned to bat with the previous count.

Once they ask for it, they can't go back. Yes, they still only have one run score, but the BR isn't standing on first base. Instead, he'll be batting again, and first base is empty. They're required to know the rules too."

Wow, nice find! Thanks for reposting!!

[Rich Ives]

Because of the CI the ball wasn't legally put into play so kill it at that moment and enforce the balk.

[afaber12]

Because of the CI the ball wasn't legally put into play so kill it at that moment and enforce the balk.

Wait, what? You would only ever kill the play on a CI close to the moment of the CI when it's a swing and a miss, and even though then maybe not if its an I caught 3rd strike and the BR allowed to attempt to reach first.

You're going to call time on a CI when the ball's been hit and there's still the potential that the BR managed to hit safely, and enforce the lesser of the two penalties?

The balk rule specifically allows for ignoring the balk if the offence manages to meet or exceed what would have been the penalty enforced. (Just like CI as well.) Though there are situations where the CI penalty doesn't achieve that, with bases loaded it does.

I'd point out that in this situation it's entirely possible that a base umpire calls the balk and the plate umpire calls the CI and neither is aware of the other's call, or at least not certain of it. Given the OP, it'd probably be best to leave the ball in play until it was thrown out. Crew gets together, confirms what everyone had and be able to sort it all out. I'd also suggest from a game management perspective that - particularly at lower levels of competition - when talking to the OC you make sure they're aware it's a choice between the balk and the CI, and not everything else that happened. Might save some report writing after the game.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

 

Because of the CI the ball wasn't legally put into play so kill it at that moment and enforce the balk.

Wait, what? You would only ever kill the play on a CI close to the moment of the CI when it's a swing and a miss, and even though then maybe not if its an I caught 3rd strike and the BR allowed to attempt to reach first.

You're going to call time on a CI when the ball's been hit and there's still the potential that the BR managed to hit safely, and enforce the lesser of the two penalties?

The balk rule specifically allows for ignoring the balk if the offence manages to meet or exceed what would have been the penalty enforced. (Just like CI as well.) Though there are situations where the CI penalty doesn't achieve that, with bases loaded it does.

I'd point out that in this situation it's entirely possible that a base umpire calls the balk and the plate umpire calls the CI and neither is aware of the other's call, or at least not certain of it. Given the OP, it'd probably be best to leave the ball in play until it was thrown out. Crew gets together, confirms what everyone had and be able to sort it all out. I'd also suggest from a game management perspective that - particularly at lower levels of competition - when talking to the OC you make sure they're aware it's a choice between the balk and the CI, and not everything else that happened. Might save some report writing after the game.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

The balk happened. Then the CI violation. The result of the CI may be subject to a rule BUT it was interference - an illegal act - kill it and eliminate the Cluster *&%$.

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

 

Because of the CI the ball wasn't legally put into play so kill it at that moment and enforce the balk.

Wait, what? You would only ever kill the play on a CI close to the moment of the CI when it's a swing and a miss, and even though then maybe not if its an I caught 3rd strike and the BR allowed to attempt to reach first.

You're going to call time on a CI when the ball's been hit and there's still the potential that the BR managed to hit safely, and enforce the lesser of the two penalties?

The balk rule specifically allows for ignoring the balk if the offence manages to meet or exceed what would have been the penalty enforced. (Just like CI as well.) Though there are situations where the CI penalty doesn't achieve that, with bases loaded it does.

I'd point out that in this situation it's entirely possible that a base umpire calls the balk and the plate umpire calls the CI and neither is aware of the other's call, or at least not certain of it. Given the OP, it'd probably be best to leave the ball in play until it was thrown out. Crew gets together, confirms what everyone had and be able to sort it all out. I'd also suggest from a game management perspective that - particularly at lower levels of competition - when talking to the OC you make sure they're aware it's a choice between the balk and the CI, and not everything else that happened. Might save some report writing after the game.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

The balk happened. Then the CI violation. The result of the CI may be subject to a rule BUT it was interference - an illegal act - kill it and eliminate the Cluster *&%$.

 

No you can not do this.. you have to leave it live.. what if the ball drops and everyones advances a base... you killed and you were wrong... let it play out just like the post from Umpschool said.. then award the bases... 

And @ Rich.. CI is not a dead ball by rule.. it is a delayed dead ball.. if the batter and runners advance CI is ignored.

[Stretch]

If I understand Umpschool’s directions on how to handle a balk followed by a CI:

 

Let everything play out. Give the coach/manger his option (because of the CI) for the result of the play or CI penalty.

If the result of the play does not fulfill the requirements for a balk to be nullified (all runners including the batter-runner advancing one base safely) enforce the balk.

 

Now, if he wants the CI penalty, you put the batter on first and move runners that are forced to advance (keep in mind the runners stealing and squeeze play wrinkles).

Did this fulfill the requirements for a balk to be nullified?  If yes, ignore the balk.  If no, enforce the balk.

 

Haid, does that look correct?

 

Have good communication skills, because I am sure there will be a lot of puppy-dog eyes and head tilting.

[Replacematt]

If I understand Umpschool’s directions on how to handle a balk followed by a CI:

 

Let everything play out. Give the coach/manger his option (because of the CI) for the result of the play or CI penalty.

If the result of the play does not fulfill the requirements for a balk to be nullified (all runners including the batter-runner advancing one base safely) enforce the balk.

 

Now, if he wants the CI penalty, you put the batter on first and move runners that are forced to advance (keep in mind the runners stealing and squeeze play wrinkles).

Did this fulfill the requirements for a balk to be nullified?  If yes, ignore the balk.  If no, enforce the balk.

 

Haid, does that look correct?

 

Have good communication skills, because I am sure there will be a lot of puppy-dog eyes and head tilting.

Nope.

You enforce the CI. If the OC wants the play, he lets you know. If the results of the play do not override the balk enforcement, you enforce the balk.

You don't give the OC an option. It's up to him to ask about it or use it.

[Stretch]

Matt, point being the coach has an option because of the CI.  We agree on the enforcement/s.  In pro-ball, the mangers are supposed to know they have an option.

In lower level ball, I am expecting someone to come out and ask what just happened and if there is an option.  I didn't say I'm running over to the dugout and explaining this thing and saying "coach you have an option here".  So, I'm not sure what the "nope" is referring to.

[conbo61]

 

If I understand Umpschool’s directions on how to handle a balk followed by a CI:

 

Let everything play out. Give the coach/manger his option (because of the CI) for the result of the play or CI penalty.

If the result of the play does not fulfill the requirements for a balk to be nullified (all runners including the batter-runner advancing one base safely) enforce the balk.

 

Now, if he wants the CI penalty, you put the batter on first and move runners that are forced to advance (keep in mind the runners stealing and squeeze play wrinkles).

Did this fulfill the requirements for a balk to be nullified?  If yes, ignore the balk.  If no, enforce the balk.

 

Haid, does that look correct?

 

Have good communication skills, because I am sure there will be a lot of puppy-dog eyes and head tilting.

Nope.

You enforce the CI. If the OC wants the play, he lets you know. If the results of the play do not override the balk enforcement, you enforce the balk.

You don't give the OC an option. It's up to him to ask about it or use it.

 

 

So your discussion with the coach is limited to whether he wants the play or the CI?  No mention of how the balk will effect everything?

[basejester]

The balk happened first. Enforce it first. Once the BR was out on the catch, nothing else mattered.

The catcher's interference happened before the catch, so by that logic CI should be resolved before the catch.  That's not the way it works, however, the delayed dead ball goes on the stack and is resolved from last to first.

 

From a practical standpoint, the your enforcement motivates the catcher to tackle the batter on a no-stop balk.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

So your discussion with the coach is limited to whether he wants the play or the CI?  No mention of how the balk will effect everything?

 

 

Mine is, at least until they ask about it.

 

And, at HS and lower, I'm asking "Play or penalty?"

 

In summer college, I'm also asking.

[conbo61]

 

 

 

 

So your discussion with the coach is limited to whether he wants the play or the CI?  No mention of how the balk will effect everything?

 

 

Mine is, at least until they ask about it.

 

And, at HS and lower, I'm asking "Play or penalty?"

 

In summer college, I'm also asking.

 

 

For HS it won't matter because a balk is an immediate dead ball.

[Replacematt]

Matt, point being the coach has an option because of the CI.  We agree on the enforcement/s.  In pro-ball, the mangers are supposed to know they have an option.

In lower level ball, I am expecting someone to come out and ask what just happened and if there is an option.  I didn't say I'm running over to the dugout and explaining this thing and saying "coach you have an option here".  So, I'm not sure what the "nope" is referring to.

The post to which you were referencing WAS for pro ball. Thus, nope. The rest of your post is a matter of debate.

[Replacematt]

In summer college, I'm also asking.

I'm not.