Interference?

[maven]

SITUATION: no score, top 7, 2 outs, R1, R2. The batter singles to RF, scoring R2. Excited by finally getting a run, some of the visiting team leave their dugout to celebrate. F9 throws the ball to 3B to play on R1 advancing there, but the ball gets away from F5. It rolls toward and contacts some of the visiting team players on the field.

RULING: ??

[noumpere]

uh oh.  Why is maven asking this? (insert emoji of other shoe dropping)

 

R2 scores, R1 is out.  Inning over.

 

 

[FleasOf1000Camels]

In FED; R2 scores, R1 is out, Inning over, AND issue TEAM warning for violation of 3-3-1a "leaving the dugout during a live ball for an unauthorized purpose."  Next player(s), or other team personnel to violate would be ejected.

[ElkOil]

Assuming FED, I'd cite 5-1-1e for interference. Dead ball, BR out, score R2.

[ALStripes17]

Assuming FED, I'd cite 5-1-1e for interference. Dead ball, BR out, score R2.

How does 5-1-1e fit here? A combo of 3-2-3 and 8-4-2g makes it seem like the 'other players' have to actually interfere with the play in some way. This sounds like a judgment call on whether or not a play could be made on a runner at this point or if the ball was headed for dead ball territory.

This was to your post Elk as well as previous replies.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ricka56]

I think more info is needed. The ball could have been prevented from going into DBT by hitting an OT member. There is a penalty for interference, but not one for assistance.

[Welpe]

3 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

 This sounds like a judgment call on whether or not a play could be made on a runner at this point or if the ball was headed for dead ball territory.

I agree with this thought process. The only rule I can find referencing interference by the offensive team personnel is 3-2-3 and that specifically enumerates a few cases of interference:

No offensive team personnel, other than the base coach:

1) Shall be near a base...so that a fielder may be confused

2) Nor be on or near the baseline to draw a throw

3) Nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner.

Part 3 of the rule is the closest for this situation so the question becomes, did they interfere with an attempt to put out a batter or runner? That is unclear but I'm inclined towards saying no since this was an overthrow.

I think in this case, the best move is to call time once the ball hits them and absent interference with a play, leave things as they are. 

[grayhawk]

20 hours ago, maven said:

SITUATION: no score, top 7, 2 outs, R1, R2. The batter singles to RF, scoring R2. Excited by finally getting a run, some of the visiting team leave their dugout to celebrate. F9 throws the ball to 3B to play on R1 advancing there, but the ball gets away from F5. It rolls toward and contacts some of the visiting team players on the field.

RULING: ??

We have R1 safe at third.  There is no mention of what the BR is doing.  For me, the bottom line is whether either runner was attempting to advance when the ball contacted the offensive team members in live ball territory, and whether or not the contact hindered the defense.  Any benefit of the doubt goes to the defense here, of course.  I do not think the rules mandate that interference be called unless there was an actual hinderance.  

In Fed, I would issue a team warning for leaving the dugout during a live ball.

[ElkOil]

4 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

How does 5-1-1e fit here? A combo of 3-2-3 and 8-4-2g makes it seem like the 'other players' have to actually interfere with the play in some way. This sounds like a judgment call on whether or not a play could be made on a runner at this point or if the ball was headed for dead ball territory.

This was to your post Elk as well as previous replies.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

5-1-1e states:  Ball becomes dead immediately when there is interference by any person (3-2-3).

Since 5-1-1e is referencing your citation of 3-2-3, they're very similar. To your point of the judgement as to whether the ball would have playable, or dead had it been allowed to continue, I agree, so there's certainly a component of needing to see the play in real life.

[ALStripes17]

5-1-1e states:  Ball becomes dead immediately when there is interference by any person (3-2-3).

Since 5-1-1e is referencing your citation of 3-2-3, they're very similar. To your point of the judgement as to whether the ball would have playable, or dead had it been allowed to continue, I agree, so there's certainly a component of needing to see the play in real life.

My point was 5-1-1e references 3-2-3 for the 'any other person' reference.

Under 3-2-3's direction, I did not think it fit what the OP described. But I also gave other cites in order to continue through the web of rule cites that pertain to 'other personnel' interference.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

17 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

5-1-1e states:  Ball becomes dead immediately when there is interference by any person (3-2-3).

That's a dead ball rule: it tells us when the ball becomes dead. And it does become dead when we rule offensive INT.

The question of the thread, which 5-1-1 alone cannot answer, is whether we should rule INT on this play.

[maven]

So where did we end up on this play? Some folks thought it was obvious INT and an out. Others seem to think we kill it and stop the runners, but call nobody out. Others think that we need to judge whether the players improperly on the field actually hindered the defense in making a play.

No consensus?

[noumpere]

26 minutes ago, maven said:

So where did we end up on this play? Some folks thought it was obvious INT and an out. Others seem to think we kill it and stop the runners, but call nobody out. Others think that we need to judge whether the players improperly on the field actually hindered the defense in making a play.

No consensus?

I think your first paragraph is just about the definition of "no consensus."

[maven]

50 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I think your first paragraph is just about the definition of "no consensus."

True, though people don't always stick to their first thoughts.

[indianaumpire15]

3 hours ago, maven said:

So where did we end up on this play? Some folks thought it was obvious INT and an out. Others seem to think we kill it and stop the runners, but call nobody out. Others think that we need to judge whether the players improperly on the field actually hindered the defense in making a play.

No consensus?

I think in FED with would need to go with "members of team at bat" interfering with a fielder's attempt to put out a runner (if the fielder is attempting that), R1 is out, the run scores, and the inning is over.  If less than two outs, then return BR to base at time of interference.  As this is as close to anything the rule book says on it.

I also think you could be justified in killing it, and placing the runners at the base they had acquired at the time of the touch by the other team members.  Most likely, R1 at 2nd and BR at 1st.  But, I can see how this would maybe signal, to some, that you had some kind of hinderance, which you do.  My biggest issue being is the hinderance from making a play to put out a runner or just retrieving the ball as to stop their advance?  Is retrieving the ball to stop an advance making a play?

Obviously, I do not know the correct answer, just hoping to further the discussion.

On a related note, is there a place in the FED rule book that allows umpires to rule on anything not specifically covered in the rule book?  Much like old 9.01c.

[indianaumpire15]

Having read back through FED 8-4-2g, I think I would go with R1 out.

8-4-2g says, in part, "Any runner is out when he: or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2,3)".

As being out the dugout during a live ball is, in and of itself, an illegal act.  I believe we have to get the out on R1 that ends the inning.  With less than two outs, I'd be sending BR back to 1st unless he was on 2nd when the bench guys touched the ball.

[maven]

1 hour ago, indianaumpire15 said:

Having read back through FED 8-4-2g, I think I would go with R1 out.

8-4-2g says, in part, "Any runner is out when he: or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2,3)".

As being out the dugout during a live ball is, in and of itself, an illegal act.  I believe we have to get the out on R1 that ends the inning.  With less than two outs, I'd be sending BR back to 1st unless he was on 2nd when the bench guys touched the ball.

I deliberately omitted from the play any mention of hindrance, or preventing an out. The live ball touched a member of the offensive team: is that sufficient for INT? @noumpere seems to think so (I doubt that he's alone — I have instincts in that direction too).

I agree that being out of the dugout during a live ball is prohibited, but that doesn't make it INT, nor does it entail that the penalty is an out. @FleasOf1000Camels correctly points out that this action is a violation of 3-3-1a, for which the prescribed penalty is a team warning and, if it happens again, EJ of the offender. But that's still no basis to call anyone out.

An association member asked me about this play at a recent meeting. I said that we have to address 2 issues: the possible INT, and being out of the dugout. For the latter, the penalty is warn/EJ. For the former, we have to judge whether the ball contacting a player constitutes hindrance (no hindrance = no INT). If so, then the nearest runner not already scored should be ruled out for the INT (that's R1 in my play); if not, then I'd still kill it to prevent runners advancing. All benefit of any shred of doubt about hindrance to the defense.

I certainly would not entertain the suggestion on this play that the ball was headed out of play, so that runners should be awarded 2 bases. If coach wants that call, he can keep his players in the dugout and let the ball go there on its own.

[indianaumpire15]

25 minutes ago, maven said:

I deliberately omitted from the play any mention of hindrance, or preventing an out. The live ball touched a member of the offensive team: is that sufficient for INT? @noumpere seems to think so (I doubt that he's alone — I have instincts in that direction too).

I agree that being out of the dugout during a live ball is prohibited, but that doesn't make it INT, nor does it entail that the penalty is an out. @FleasOf1000Camels correctly points out that this action is a violation of 3-3-1a, for which the prescribed penalty is a team warning and, if it happens again, EJ of the offender. But that's still no basis to call anyone out.

An association member asked me about this play at a recent meeting. I said that we have to address 2 issues: the possible INT, and being out of the dugout. For the latter, the penalty is warn/EJ. For the former, we have to judge whether the ball contacting a player constitutes hindrance (no hindrance = no INT). If so, then the nearest runner not already scored should be ruled out for the INT (that's R1 in my play); if not, then I'd still kill it to prevent runners advancing. All benefit of any shred of doubt about hindrance to the defense.

I certainly would not entertain the suggestion on this play that the ball was headed out of play, so that runners should be awarded 2 bases. If coach wants that call, he can keep his players in the dugout and let the ball go there on its own.

So you are of the similar mind to the second point I made in my first post?  In that we kill it and move runners back to base acquired at time of touch?

Basically, in a HTBT there moment, one would most likely rule based on whether other team members hinder a fielder attempting to put out a runner by being out of the dugout.  If not, just kill the ball and place the runners without hinderance.  This of course would be a ruling made in the sense of fair play.

[noumpere]

3 hours ago, indianaumpire15 said:

On a related note, is there a place in the FED rule book that allows umpires to rule on anything not specifically covered in the rule book?  Much like old 9.01c.

Yes, there is.  Thanks for asking.

 

(If I were Carnac, I'd write "10-2-3g" on a piece of paper and place it in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls porch)

[indianaumpire15]

3 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Yes, there is.  Thanks for asking.

 

(If I were Carnac, I'd write "10-2-3g" on a piece of paper and place it in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls porch)

I ended up finding it later in the day.  Thanks though.

[Forest Ump]

This is one where you just have to umpire. I look at this play simply as who F*** up. The offense did. I'm killing the ball (bang) and placing runners at last legally aquired base. Yes the run scores but the offense gets no advantage from the overthrow. Also issuing warnings after the mess clears.

 

I just want to add that I would'nt be sitting here being an internet umpire if it wern't for all this rain we've had on the west coast. I can't remember having this many rain outs.