Rule quiz

[noumpere]

No, you don't.

If you enforce the CI penalty, then you don't enforce the balk. If you ignore the CI penalty, then you enforce the balk. The balk is the play, so it can be superseded by the CI penalty.

As a general statement, I agree, but in this specific play, I don't.

If CI is enforced, it's BR to first, R3 remains at third.  Not all runners advanced, so enforce the balk.  R3 scores, BR returns to the plate.

If CI is not enforced ("take the play"), then R2 is out and R3 remains a third.  Again, not all runners advanced, so enforce the balk.  R3 scores, BR returns to the plate.

 

 (And the topic of balk followed by CI has been debated and there's a slightly different play where the results vary.  Do we "take what happened first" or do we "unravel from the end backwards?"

[Replacematt]

Yes. The balk is a delayed dead ball. If the batter and all runners don't advance 1 base then the ball is dead, and the balk is enforced. Hence the CI never happened.

So a catcher can deliberately cause CI to avoid allowing the balk to be superseded by a hit? No.

Just because an incident results in a delayed dead ball does not mean that what happens after that doesn't occur. You enforce in the order they occurred. The play results in the enforcement of the balk in this case, and because the penalty for the balk does not meet the criteria for ignoring the CI penalty, then the offense has the choice of the play or the penalty.

[Replacematt]

As a general statement, I agree, but in this specific play, I don't.

If CI is enforced, it's BR to first, R3 remains at third.  Not all runners advanced, so enforce the balk.  R3 scores, BR returns to the plate.

If CI is not enforced ("take the play"), then R2 is out and R3 remains a third.  Again, not all runners advanced, so enforce the balk.  R3 scores, BR returns to the plate.

 

 (And the topic of balk followed by CI has been debated and there's a slightly different play where the results vary.  Do we "take what happened first" or do we "unravel from the end backwards?"

This logic I can understand. I don't agree, but I understand, and I don't agree because of the savvy catcher I mentioned above. If you enforce it this way, the catcher has every incentive to prevent the batter from hitting the ball in situations without a runner on first.

[grozzly]

As the balk was the first "infraction", and since all runners did not advance, i would enforce the balk.

[Rich Ives]

So a catcher can deliberately cause CI to avoid allowing the balk to be superseded by a hit? No.

Just because an incident results in a delayed dead ball does not mean that what happens after that doesn't occur. You enforce in the order they occurred. The play results in the enforcement of the balk in this case, and because the penalty for the balk does not meet the criteria for ignoring the CI penalty, then the offense has the choice of the play or the penalty.

I'm not deliberately sticking my hand into the path of a swinging bat.

And grabbing the batter is a sure fight and ejection.

[jpperez14]

This did not actually happen, just came to mind and was curious of the responses I would get.

[Replacematt]

I'm not deliberately sticking my hand into the path of a swinging bat.

And grabbing the batter is a sure fight and ejection.

So, you're just going to dodge the question instead of offering a substantive answer.

[Rich Ives]

So, you're just going to dodge the question instead of offering a substantive answer.

It isn't going to happen. No answer required.

But if in your strange little world of Calvinball it did happen: Enforce the balk. Let the coaches break up the fight. Eject F2 and maybe the batter.

[Tksjewelry]

This did not actually happen, just came to mind and was curious of the responses I would get.

It's an interesting scenario from which I learned. Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Replacematt]

It isn't going to happen. No answer required.

But if in your strange little world of Calvinball it did happen: Enforce the balk. Let the coaches break up the fight. Eject F2 and maybe the batter.

It happened to me in a college scrimmage. Try again.

[Dbellyflop]

So if this happened in a game for you. What did you rule? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

It happened to me in a college scrimmage. Try again.

You are saying that the catcher intentionally interfered because a balk was called?  What did he do to leave no doubt in your mind that it was intentional?

[Replacematt]

You are saying that the catcher intentionally interfered because a balk was called?  What did he do to leave no doubt in your mind that it was intentional?

He told me. "Dang, I was hoping to keep him from hitting that." This was one of the smarter catchers I've ever worked with, and the only one with heart and/or talent on that team. He'd put the whole game on his shoulders.

So if this happened in a game for you. What did you rule? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was irrelevant, because the situation was different. R2, LHP, big jump and F1 doesn't stop in his delivery. F2 lunges forward to get the ball, batter gets glove and ball and an infield hit because the defense let up thinking it was a dead ball. 

[grayhawk]

He told me. "Dang, I was hoping to keep him from hitting that." This was one of the smarter catchers I've ever worked with, and the only one with heart and/or talent on that team. He'd put the whole game on his shoulders.

Still sounds like a third world play type of situation to me, even though you experienced it.  I'm enforcing the balk and suspect that's the cleanest way of handling it, and easily defendable as a call.

[jpperez14]

 In my question, the answer I would have is to enforce the balk, because R3 did not advance on the hit. Had R3 advanced, the out call @2nd would stand, due to meeting the criteria to have it ignored, when the BR reaches first and all runners advance at least 1 base. 6.08 (c)

I like the answer @grayhawk gave and I underdtand this would be a headache in an actual game. But I like it because it made me think.

Edited October 2, 2015 by jpperez14

[Rich Ives]

It happened to me in a college scrimmage. Try again.

I included the response. Try reading the whole post.

[jpperez14]

Conditions do not exist to ignore the balk so you have to enforce it.

 

Conditions do not exist either to ignore the CI, but I would also say conditions weren't met either. I think the proper ruling is to enforce the balk because it would reward the offense for the defensive error.

Does that make any sense? Trying to type it is completely different than speaking in person and I don't want to come off as debating.

[ricka56]

I remember arguing about this TWP on the first umpire web site that I joined many years ago...what I can't remember is which side of the argument I was on.

[Mizzou2016]

Ok scenario pitched at the KC clinic last weekend:

0 out, R2, R1. Better hits an infield fly to F3. R1, in retreating to 1st, interferes with the first baseman trying to make the play.

Make the call in:

a) ball is not caught, and rolls foul in front of the bag.

b) ball is not caught and stays fair. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[jpperez14]

Ok scenario pitched at the KC clinic last weekend:

0 out, R2, R1. Better hits an infield fly to F3. R1, in retreating to 1st, interferes with the first baseman trying to make the play.

Make the call in:

a) ball is not caught, and rolls foul in front of the bag.

b) ball is not caught and stays fair. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

a) Interference, R1 is out, Batter returns to bat. (also, if the ball is caught in foul territory, the batter still returns to bat)
b) Interference, R1 is out and Batter is out. (OBR, Definition of Terms, Infield fly, last paragraph in comments)

Edited October 3, 2015 by jpperez14
Originially ruled if fair, R1 out and Batter awards 1st. After reading OBR, found i was incorrect.

[noumpere]

I agree with jpperez

[Mizzou2016]

That's pretty good that you got the part about it being caught in foul territory..

Did they talk about that play at the 2 man camp too?

[maven]

a) Interference, R1 is out, Batter returns to bat. (also, if the ball is caught in foul territory, the batter still returns to bat)
b) Interference, R1 is out and Batter is out. (OBR, Definition of Terms, Infield fly, last paragraph in comments)

For full marks, remember to delay killing it for INT until the fair/foul status is determined.

[jpperez14]

Thats pretty good that you got the part about it being caught in foul territory..

Did they talk about that play at the 2 man camp too?

no, we talked about the SS settled under a pop fly in left field with runners on 1st and 2nd.

 

i also just remember that situation in the MIA vs LAD a couple of years ago, I remember there was a ruling placed in the book, but at first thought I would have been wrong. I also didnt know about it being caught even foul still resulted in batter returning to the plate.

 

[johnnyg08]

The batter would be out b/c of the infield fly if the batted ball remained fair.