Triple Play, With Interference

[Mudder]

R1, R2, none out, I am PU.  Batter hits a soft liner towards F6, who is playing in, F6 back peddles 4 or 5 steps and leaps backwards to attempt to make the catch and he makes contact with R2 who is directly behind him, both F6 and R2 hit the ground, and its a second or two before its evident that F6 made the catch.  I could see BU wanted to call the INT right away, but he waited, and then declares "thats a catch".  Both R1 and R2 are well on their way to their next base, certainly not expecting F6 to make the catch, so after throwing the ball around the infield a few times with overthrows, etc, (this is not very good rec ball).  the defence manage to throw to 2B to get R2 for not tagging and getting R1 at 1B for not tagging, for the triple play.

Question....should BU have called interference immediately on R2 and killed the play, which would have resulted in 1 out and send R1 and R2 back to their bases, or was it right to wait the extra second or 2 to see F6 makes the catch, then ignore the interference by R2, which in this case resulted in the triple play?

[noumpere]

Kill it.

[maven]

That's INT. The ball is dead, the runner is out, nothing else happened.

A fielder who overcomes hindrance to make a play was still hindered. Call it.

[Mudder]

That's INT. The ball is dead, the runner is out, nothing else happened.

A fielder who overcomes hindrance to make a play was still hindered. Call it.

​Ya, the BU and I discussed it between innings and we agreed he probably should have killed it, as its an immediate dead ball the second you see it, but on second thought are you not penalizing the defense unfairly for an infraction thats been committed against them?  Does this not open the door in a sitch with say R1, R2, ground ball to F6 and R2 "intentinally" interferes with F6 on a certain double play ball, resulting in 1 out instead of possibly 2, or is that just tough luck?

[maven]

First, let's be clear about the rule: if a DP is "possible" (FED) or the runner "willfully and deliberately" interferes (OBR) with the fielder fielding a batted ball, then you'll get 2 outs by rule anyway. Not 3, but that's pretty rare, and it doesn't make sense to ignore a rule just for a triple play.

As for "tough luck," I have a number of thoughts: (a) baseball is full of tough luck; (b) it's not luck, it's the rule; (c) if you ignore the rule, maybe the defense gets another out or 2, or maybe they throw it away and a run scores — now who's luck is tough?

[basejester]

​Ya, the BU and I discussed it between innings and we agreed he probably should have killed it, as its an immediate dead ball the second you see it, but on second thought are you not penalizing the defense unfairly for an infraction thats been committed against them?  Does this not open the door in a sitch with say R1, R2, ground ball to F6 and R2 "intentinally" interferes with F6 on a certain double play ball, resulting in 1 out instead of possibly 2, or is that just tough luck?

​7.09

(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

 

[Mudder]

First, let's be clear about the rule: if a DP is "possible" (FED) or the runner "willfully and deliberately" interferes (OBR) with the fielder fielding a batted ball, then you'll get 2 outs by rule anyway. Not 3, but that's pretty rare, and it doesn't make sense to ignore a rule just for a triple play.

As for "tough luck," I have a number of thoughts: (a) baseball is full of tough luck; (b) it's not luck, it's the rule; (c) if you ignore the rule, maybe the defense gets another out or 2, or maybe they throw it away and a run scores — now who's luck is tough?

A crafty player can make something "intentional" look "unintentional", so that could be a tough call.  

I hear what you're saying, but it can be a very tough sell to a coach when his defensive player recovers from interference by a runner to make a play that puts them in a better position than just having the offending runner called out for interference, after all its a rule that's supposed to protect the defense anyway.

[maven]

A crafty player can make something "intentional" look "unintentional", so that could be a tough call.  

I hear what you're saying, but it can be a very tough sell to a coach when his defensive player recovers from interference by a runner to make a play that puts them in a better position than just having the offending runner called out for interference, after all its a rule that's supposed to protect the defense anyway.

​A crafty player can try, but an experienced umpire can make the tough calls.

As for "selling" the coach, I don't work too hard at that. My ruling = rule + judgment. Here's the rule. Here's my judgment (with which he might disagree, which is fine). Let's play ball.

[noumpere]

Agree with Maven.  Plus, if you kill it confidently, loudly, and right away, there's no triple play to undo (or you can explain it was only a triple play because the runners stopped running)

[Dbellyflop]

So is just the runner out? Or is the batter out also for the catch?

[ZebraStripes]

I believe the catch doesn't happen since the ball is dead immediately for the interference.

[noumpere]

So is just the runner out? Or is the batter out also for the catch?

​Just the runner in OBR.  The INT wasn't "with obvious intent to prevent a double play"

 

The runner and the batter in FED (because without the INT, the likely play was catch and double up R2)

[ricka56]

How could anyone say a fielder was hindered if he got 3 outs on the play. Don't OO it.

[afaber12]

How could anyone say a fielder was hindered if he got 3 outs on the play. Don't OO it.

The OP's description seems to suggest the contact between F6 and R2 occurred either concurrently or at least in close proximity to the ball being caught, but this isn't always the case; sometimes the hindrance occurs when the ball's at the top of a very high arc, high enough that the fielder can recover and catch the ball. Interference on a fielder doesn't require that the play is prevented from occurring, only that the fielder was hindered in attempting to complete it. That the F6 fell to the ground suggests that he was hindered in making the play, as without the contact maybe he stays on his feet and is in a better position to attempt to double/triple off the other runners. The OP mentions that there were overthrows in trying to do that - though they made the plays eventually, perhaps the first would have been simpler without the contact, which in turn may have made the second easier.

On BI and CI there's specific provisions that if they are met result in ignoring the interference. Those forms of interference are delayed dead balls because there's the possibility that they'll be ignored. There's no such provision for a runner interfering with a fielder: the ball is dead when the interference occurs.

If you judge that the fielder wasn't hindered - which I suppose is theoretically possible but seems pretty darn unlikely - then don't call interference. If you judge that the fielder was hindered, call interference, don't wait to see and judge how hindered they were.

[ricka56]

 

​If you judge that the fielder wasn't hindered - which I suppose is theoretically possible but seems pretty darn unlikely - then don't call interference. If you judge that the fielder was hindered, call interference, don't wait to see and judge how hindered they were.

Generally, I would agree, but this sitch smelled of a triple play from the beginning. The umpire withheld an interference call for a second or two​ (good timing) and didn't muck up a triple play. I think the baseball gods would be pleased. 

[afaber12]

Generally, I would agree, but this sitch smelled of a triple play from the beginning. The umpire withheld an interference call for a second or two​ (good timing) and didn't muck up a triple play. I think the baseball gods would be pleased. 

​There are times when waiting to make a call are appropriate: fielder taking a tumble to attempt a catch, tag play at a base with a sliding runner, puff of dust and fielder on the ground, any time when the status of the ball is uncertain. You're ready to make a call, you're just waiting on that last bit of information to confirm or counter that call. Interference isn't one of those calls. If anything, the more uncertain the status of the ball is - was it caught or not in this case - the more likely there was interference.

Also I don't think from the description you can say that this "smelled of a triple play". Ignoring the technicalities of the dark arts that spring from the quasi-mythical Rule 10 that suggest even as it played out it wouldn't be a triple play, it seems just as likely that the hindrance caused F6 to fall, resulting in R1 & R2 being unsure (or at least less sure) whether the ball was caught. If that's the case, maybe both have enough time to get back to their respective bases ahead of the overthrows that were also mentioned. Sure there might have been a triple play without the interference, but the ball could have also been thrown out of play resulting in 1 out, 1 run scored and a runner on third.

Call the interference, call the double play if the ruleset and judgement allows. Don't wait and see.

[ricka56]

There are times when waiting to make a call are appropriate: fielder taking a tumble to attempt a catch, tag play at a base with a sliding runner, puff of dust and fielder on the ground, any time when the status of the ball is uncertain. You're ready to make a call, you're just waiting on that last bit of information to confirm or counter that call. Interference isn't one of those calls. I couldn't disagree more. Calling interference kills a play. You should do so judiciously...Timing, Timing, Timing.  If anything, the more uncertain the status of the ball is - was it caught or not in this case - the more likely there was interference. The catch/no catch was uncertain...it happens often when a fielder is on the ground. Runners aren't sure whether to advance or return...That's how Baseball Go.

 Also I don't think from the description you can say that this "smelled of a triple play". A flyball was caught and 2 runners were far enough off base to result in a gift triple play...I would have smelt it right away. Ignoring the technicalities of the dark arts that spring from the quasi-mythical Rule 10 What ??? There is a Rule 10 ??? I never heard of an umpire reading past rule 9. that suggest even as it played out it wouldn't be a triple play, I have no idea what that meant.  it seems just as likely that the hindrance caused F6 to fall, maybe instead, runner assistance caused F6 to catch the flyball...there's no rule against assistance. resulting in R1 & R2 being unsure (or at least less sure) whether the ball was caught. That's How Baseball Go. If that's the case, maybe both have enough time to get back to their respective bases ahead of the overthrows that were also mentioned. Sure there might have been a triple play without the interference, but the ball could have also been thrown out of play resulting in 1 out, 1 run scored and a runner on third. If the defense mucked up a gift triple play, that would be ENTIRELY on them. My compunction at saving the offense from a triple play would equal my compunction at saving the defense from throwing the ball away. Let the players decide the outcome.

Call the interference, call the double play if the ruleset and judgement allows. Don't wait and see. Why not...Don't be an OOO...Don't kill the potential triple play...timing, timing, timing.

[Mudder]

This all would have been avoided if this type of interference was a delayed dead ball, but I'm sure there are reasons why its not

[indianaumpire15]

In the OP, and with FED rule set both R2 (for interference) and BR are out because the interference did not allow for the catch by F6? R1 goes back.

and what is the call in OBR/NCAA?

what happens to the BR?

Edited May 30, 2015 by indianaumpire15

[indianaumpire15]

Ok so I was reading Jaksa/Roder and it seems in OBR/NCAA the ruling would be as follows:

R2 is out for interference. BR is awarded first and R1 is forced to 2nd.

If it was ajudged as intentional to stop a possible double play then R2 would be out for interference and BR because he was being played against. R1 must return to 1st.

Am I correct here?

[noumpere]

Ok so I was reading Jaksa/Roder and it seems in OBR/NCAA the ruling would be as follows:

R2 is out for interference. BR is awarded first and R1 is forced to 2nd.

If it was ajudged as intentional to stop a possible double play then R2 would be out for interference and BR because he was being played against. R1 must return to 1st.

Am I correct here?

​Seems correct -- the same as any INT.

[jkumpire]

Generally, I would agree, but this sitch smelled of a triple play from the beginning. The umpire withheld an interference call for a second or two​ (good timing) and didn't muck up a triple play. I think the baseball gods would be pleased. 

​There are no baseball gods, just like there is no crying in Baseball

If there were baseball gods:

Why do we have five minute replay reviews at MLB games?

Why do they play YMCA or the Macarana at baseball games?

Why do we have the DH in the AL and not the NL?

Why did we have BESR bats for so many years? 

Why is the LLWS a cash cow for ESPN the adults cheat in instead of a fun game for kids?

Why can't we get paid more for games?

Why are people crying for Pete Rose to get into the HoF and they are not saying the same thing about Shoeless Joe Jackson?

Why do I have to erase 'Made in China' off every baseball I use in a season?

Why is 'the wave' allowed in major league parks?

Why isn't baseball music played between innings?

Why haven't the Indians won a World Series since 1948?

Why do people actually think Football and Basketball are better games to watch? 

Edited June 3, 2015 by jkumpire
Missed one question I needed to add, thouigh I do have more of them

[ricka56]

​There are no baseball gods, just like there is no crying in Baseball

If there were baseball gods: Evidence of baseball gods, marked in red

Why do we have five minute replay reviews at MLB games? Baseball gods generously give us time to get a beer and/or to pee.

Why do they play YMCA or the Macarana at baseball games? Benevolent baseball gods are slow to anger.

Why do we have the DH in the AL and not the NL? Better question for the gods...why do we have DL in the AL?

Why did we have BESR bats for so many years? Fed baseball gods are less powerful than NCAA/MLB baseball gods.

Why is the LLWS a cash cow for ESPN the adults cheat in instead of a fun game for kids? Baseball gods have hell awaiting them in the after life where YMCA/Macarana are constantly played for eternity.

Why can't we get paid more for games? Baseball gods don't know why you need paid...working baseball is it's own reward.

Why are people crying for Pete Rose to get into the HoF This amuses the baseball gods very much  and they are not saying the same thing about Shoeless Joe Jackson? Only Shoeless Joe and the baseball gods know how involved he was in the Black Sox scandal.

Why do I have to erase 'Made in China' off every baseball I use in a season? Baseball gods see no earthly country boundaries...it's ALL baseball country to them.  

Why is 'the wave' allowed in major league parks? Years of lobbying by the football gods

Why isn't baseball music played between innings? Baseball gods only notice music when they play "When the saints go marching in".

Why haven't the Indians won a World Series since 1948? Baseball gods see no earthly country boundaries...it's ALL baseball country to them...except Cleveland.   

Why do people actually think Football and Basketball are better games to watch? Baseball gods give people a pass because they've never seen football/basketball with which to compare. 

​