Interference, Strike 'em out, throw 'em out = EJ

[Thunderheads]

WARNING:   Your ears may bleed from Harrelson who's is the biggest homer announcer, ever.   His partner clearly says "that's interference, yep" and Harrelson disagrees and just sounds like (once again) the biggest a-hole there is.........    Jesus Hawk, you played the game forever, and been around it longer, and you still have NO CONCEPT OF THE RULES ...none!  SMH  

embed not available w/ this video

http://m.mlb.com/video/v172197283/?query=umpire

[scrounge]

He's a dinosaur who should have been sent away years ago, I can't stand listening to him even when the team is winning.

And they're not. Steve Stone is excellent, but he's saddled with this blithering idiot and isn't allowed to disagree or correct him since Hawk had a big baby tantrum a couple years ago. What a buffoon.

[maven]

Marquez is unpopular (even for an umpire) among players and managers, and his every call is sometimes assumed to be wrong. This one is spot on, and a pretty easy batter INT. Instructive for newer umpires who assume, incorrectly, that there must be contact.

Harrelson is a former player who thinks like a player: back up your guy, back up your skipper, the umpire is always wrong (on calls that go against your team. That's what they pay him for, because their fans mostly think the same way. It doesn't make much sense to get bent out of shape about it: it's the show.

[UmpJeff]

Thanks for the heads up, Jeff.  I muted the sound before watching the video.  Classic batter INT.  Great call...and they got 2 on the play!!

[ElkOil]

I've long since exposed myself as the dumbest umpire on this forum, so I'll just perpetuate that image and ask this:

My understanding was that the batter is out and the runner is returned in this instance.  Where's the double play?

[maven]

I've long since exposed myself as the dumbest umpire on this forum, so I'll just perpetuate that image and ask this:

My understanding was that the batter is out and the runner is returned in this instance.  Where's the double play?

​Batter struck out. Runner is out for the batter's INT.

I don't think you're dumb, and I'd encourage you not to say so. You simply overlooked this bit of info. Your understanding of the rule is right as far as it goes.

[law_reb]

I've long since exposed myself as the dumbest umpire on this forum, so I'll just perpetuate that image and ask this:

My understanding was that the batter is out and the runner is returned in this instance.  Where's the double play?

​I can't watch the video on my computer at work, but my assumption would be that it was strike 3 on the batter's swing and there were less than 2 outs.  Batter is out for striking out and runner is out for the interference.

[renegadewolf]

​I can't watch the video on my computer at work, but my assumption would be that it was strike 3 on the batter's swing and there were less than 2 outs.  Batter is out for striking out and runner is out for the interference.

​Correct.  Batter stepped out in front of the plate of his strike 3 call.

96

[noumpere]

I've long since exposed myself as the dumbest umpire on this forum,

​Don't be so hard on yourself -- you're only tied.

[maven]

​Don't be so hard on yourself -- you're only tied.

​Smilies, noumpere, smilies!

[ElkOil]

​Batter struck out. Runner is out for the batter's INT.

I don't think you're dumb, and I'd encourage you not to say so. You simply overlooked this bit of info. Your understanding of the rule is right as far as it goes.

​So am I correct in thinking of this way:

When INT is committed, SOMEone is going to be called out for it.  The batter is first in line, but since he struck out, we're gonna pass that on along to the runner.

[maven]

​So am I correct in thinking of this way:

When INT is committed, SOMEone is going to be called out for it.  The batter is first in line, but since he struck out, we're gonna pass that on along to the runner.

​The penalty for batter INT is conditional, and applies only when the first throw does NOT retire a runner. In this play, had the throw retired the runner, the batter would be out on strikes, and the play at 2B would stand (the batter INT would be ignored by rule).

But yes, once you call batter INT, the result will be at least one out somewhere (though that's so vague it's not very helpful).

[noumpere]

​So am I correct in thinking of this way:

When INT is committed, SOMEone is going to be called out for it.  The batter is first in line, but since he struck out, we're gonna pass that on along to the runner.

​And, the batter isn't always first in line (R3 attempting to score, <2 outs)

Edited June 18, 2015 by noumpere

[Jimurray]

WARNING:   Your ears may bleed from Harrelson who's is the biggest homer announcer, ever.   His partner clearly says "that's interference, yep" and Harrelson disagrees and just sounds like (once again) the biggest a-hole there is.........    Jesus Hawk, you played the game forever, and been around it longer, and you still have NO CONCEPT OF THE RULES ...none!  SMH  

embed not available w/ this video

http://m.mlb.com/video/v172197283/?query=umpire

​Either that's his normal swing or the steal was on with the 3-1 count and R1 didn't go. He tried the same thing and you could see him look at the dugout with a smile. However, if that is his normal swing it does not protect him from an INT call. 

[lawump]

​The penalty for batter INT is conditional, and applies only when the first throw does NOT retire a runner. In this play, had the throw retired the runner, the batter would be out on strikes, and the play at 2B would stand (the batter INT would be ignored by rule).

But yes, once you call batter INT, the result will be at least one out somewhere (though that's so vague it's not very helpful).

​One needs to know the rule set applicable to the game being officiated.  In OBR/NCAA: yes the runner will be out for the batter's interference if the batter has struck out prior to interfering and F2's throw does not directly retire the runner.  In FED, the umpire may or may not call the runner out based upon the umpire's judgment of whether or not the defense could have retired the runner without the interference. 

With that said, in FED, in the real world (and not in a hypothetical case book play) call the runner out 99.99% of the time.

(With that said...I realize that we are in the "professional" section of this website.)

Edited June 18, 2015 by lawump

[maven]

​One needs to know the rule set applicable to the game being officiated.  In OBR/NCAA: yes the runner will be out for the batter's interference if the batter has struck out prior to interfering and F2's throw does not directly retire the runner.  In FED, the umpire may or may not call the runner out based upon the umpire's judgment of whether or not the defense could have retired the runner without the interference. 

With that said, in FED, in the real world (and not in a hypothetical case book play) call the runner out 99.99% of the time.

(With that said...I realize that we are in the "professional" section of this website.)

​Good point: FED has a case play where the batter is out on strikes, interferes, the first throw does not retire the runner (or there's no throw), and the runner REMAINS on 2B.

I think your characterization is exactly right: in the real world (as real as FED baseball can be), we officiate this consistent with OBR. That is, either the batter hindered F2 or he did not. If he did (and the first throw did not retire the runner), then somebody is out for that INT. If not, then there's no INT.

I would NEVER leave R1 at 2B after calling batter INT. (Yes, I mean 'never', as in, not once, not ever, under no circumstances.)

[indianaumpire15]

Poor Steve Stone, he's stuck there with Hawk, who is a punchline at this point.  As a Cubs fan I love Steve Stone and was sad they ran him to the south side because he blasted the ownership.  Especially because he was pretty much spot on.

[ricka56]

I've long since exposed myself...

​Glad you chose an appropriate avatar.

[ElkOil]

​Glad you chose an appropriate avatar.

​Well... I mean... modesty dictates, after all.

[KenBAZ]

Couple of months ago my partner had two of these K, runner out for BI calls against the same team in a single game. I was BU and thought both were obvious calls. OHC disagreed with some very inappropriate language and had to leave. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[maven]

I know a number of coaches who teach batter INT as a tactic to advance their runner, similar to a sacrifice. As more of our umpires are trained to recognize it, perhaps they'll reconsider its value.

Of course, they hate getting caught.