I know it's something

[ElkOil]

OBR.  R1, outs don't matter.

During the pitch, R1 takes off. F2 steps forward, onto the plate to receive the ball and throws down. R1 safe. B doesn't attempt a swing.

My conclusion: Since F2 was in the box at the TOP, this should be catcher obstruction and award B 1B and R1 2B on the force.

Is this correct?

[maven]

If F2 interferes before the pitcher starts his motion (you said TOP), then that's nothing. Kill it, send the runner back, reset.

I suspect you mean that F2 was over the plate before the pitch was delivered. That's CI: with no swing, you enforced it correctly.

FED is the same 8-3-1c.

[noumpere]

Agreed -- iirc, we had a long discussion on this a few years ago here, with some taking the position that "no swing" meant you couldn't "interfere with the batter's ability to hit the ball" (or whatever the specific rule wording is).  Even at some NCAA events there was discussion.  I think NCAA might have a case on this -- but I'm more certain it was on a relatively recent test with the proper answer being "INT"

[Rich Ives]

28 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Agreed -- iirc, we had a long discussion on this a few years ago here, with some taking the position that "no swing" meant you couldn't "interfere with the batter's ability to hit the ball" (or whatever the specific rule wording is).  Even at some NCAA events there was discussion.  I think NCAA might have a case on this -- but I'm more certain it was on a relatively recent test with the proper answer being "INT"

I guess if people think a swing is required we'll just have to tell out batters to swing anyhow and hit the catcher.

[ricka56]

49 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Even at some NCAA events there was discussion.  I think NCAA might have a case on this -- but I'm more certain it was on a relatively recent test with the proper answer being "INT"

I remember that NCAA play from a few years ago. No interference was called and the defense never argued for one. The majority of internet umpires (some doing D-1 ball) agreed that the no interference call was the right thing to do (not necessarily the correct thing to do). They argued, that at this level, the heat generated by an interference call would be career crippling for an umpire.

I just pray that the baseball gods keep me away from this sitch. 

[maven]

57 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Agreed -- iirc, we had a long discussion on this a few years ago here, with some taking the position that "no swing" meant you couldn't "interfere with the batter's ability to hit the ball" (or whatever the specific rule wording is).  Even at some NCAA events there was discussion.  I think NCAA might have a case on this -- but I'm more certain it was on a relatively recent test with the proper answer being "INT"

I can see a case for both rulings:

• INT: by rule, F2 may not be over or in front of the plate during the pitch. INT by rule.
• No INT: the offense has a "play" on, and the batter knows R3 is trying to steal, so he's not going to swing (sometimes they step out). Thus, F2's position cannot possibly hinder the batter's opportunity to swing, which he has yielded. No hindrance = no INT.

For NCAA, umpires are pretty good at getting the memo and applying it. If NCAA wants this called CI, I expect the next one — even at D1, in Omaha — will be ruled INT.

Such a diktat would not, of course, govern for FED. I expect the rules committee would regard a case play as superfluous: the rule is pretty clear. We can't go wrong applying black-letter rule.

Of course, if the batter steps out we could kill it, send R3 back, and call a penalty strike.

[ricka56]

2 hours ago, maven said:

We can't go wrong applying black-letter rule.

Not in my HS association. You can be rule book right, turn a game to crap and everyone will think you were wrong. We have two rules geek ninnies in our chapter that everyone cringes being partnered with, because they can turn my game to crap faster than my wife spends my game fee.

2 hours ago, maven said:

Of course, if the batter steps out we could kill it, send R3 back, and call a penalty strike.

I know that was a joke, but no one would be surprised if one our rule geek ninnies made that call. 

[Replacematt]

I've made this call. No grief from anyone.

I also had the "opposite" call that I still don't know if I got right...on a hit, the runner missed HP and the ball went out of play on the throw. Runner heads to the dugout. Pitcher gets new ball, next batter gets in, pitcher engages rubber and I put the ball in play. He steps off the rubber, states they're appealing the runner, batter isn't paying attention, and he hits what he thought was a meatball into the gap in right. I kill it and call the runner out. I'm racking my brain as to which rule to apply...(OBR, btw.)

[ElkOil]

2 hours ago, maven said:

I can see a case for both rulings:

• INT: by rule, F2 may not be over or in front of the plate during the pitch. INT by rule.
• No INT: the offense has a "play" on, and the batter knows R3 is trying to steal, so he's not going to swing (sometimes they step out). Thus, F2's position cannot possibly hinder the batter's opportunity to swing, which he has yielded. No hindrance = no INT.

For NCAA, umpires are pretty good at getting the memo and applying it. If NCAA wants this called CI, I expect the next one — even at D1, in Omaha — will be ruled INT.

Such a diktat would not, of course, govern for FED. I expect the rules committee would regard a case play as superfluous: the rule is pretty clear. We can't go wrong applying black-letter rule.

Of course, if the batter steps out we could kill it, send R3 back, and call a penalty strike.

Well, unless there's a hit-and-run or a bunt on. I'd side with your argument about not going wrong applying the letter of the rule... even though you can go wrong applying the letter of the rule in some instances. Still, I'd rather have something concrete.

[ALStripes17]

I've made this call. No grief from anyone.

I also had the "opposite" call that I still don't know if I got right...on a hit, the runner missed HP and the ball went out of play on the throw. Runner heads to the dugout. Pitcher gets new ball, next batter gets in, pitcher engages rubber and I put the ball in play. He steps off the rubber, states they're appealing the runner, batter isn't paying attention, and he hits what he thought was a meatball into the gap in right. I kill it and call the runner out. I'm racking my brain as to which rule to apply...(OBR, btw.)

Batter INT? ... Wow that's pretty crazy.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

He steps off the rubber, states they're appealing the runner, batter isn't paying attention, and he hits what he thought was a meatball into the gap in right. I kill it and call the runner out. I'm racking my brain as to which rule to apply...(OBR, btw.)

I'm guessing that your statement here is in the narrative present, and that in the actual present you know that this is an application of 6.03(a)(3), which prohibits the batter from "making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base."

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

I'm guessing that your statement here is in the narrative present, and that in the actual present you know that this is an application of 6.03(a)(3), which prohibits the batter from "making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base."

Here's the problem...what is the penalty for that one? (That is the rule I used, but not the outcome.)

[maven]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

Here's the problem...what is the penalty for that one? (That is the rule I used, but not the outcome.)

Hm. I forgot that OBR splits those provisions. Why not 6.01(a)(3)? The weirdness is that 6.03(a)(3) tells us that it's INT, but 6.01(a)(3) tells us to call the runner, not the batter, out.

[noumpere]

I think you could also use 6.01(d) (Intentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field)

[Replacematt]

On 3/22/2016 at 3:23 PM, maven said:

Hm. I forgot that OBR splits those provisions. Why not 6.01(a)(3)? The weirdness is that 6.03(a)(3) tells us that it's INT, but 6.01(a)(3) tells us to call the runner, not the batter, out.

Except that only applies to runners advancing from third to home. We could stretch it and maybe apply it, albeit retroactively?

On 3/23/2016 at 8:39 AM, noumpere said:

I think you could also use 6.01(d) (Intentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field)

That specifically excludes batters (among all other active game participants.)

[maven]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Except that only applies to runners advancing from third to home. We could stretch it and maybe apply it, albeit retroactively?

I interpret "runners advancing from third to home" to mean R3 — as opposed to R2 or R1 — not to refer to runners physically/spatially between 3B and HP.

The runner in your play started as R3, and the defense was attempting to appeal his missed base, HP. So he's still R3, until he scores or is put out.

I don't regard this as "stretching" the rule, but rather the only plausible interpretation of it when the defense appeals R3 missing HP.

I would also allow a subsequent appeal of R3 missing HP.

[Replacematt]

25 minutes ago, maven said:

I interpret "runners advancing from third to home" to mean R3 — as opposed to R2 or R1 — not to refer to runners physically/spatially between 3B and HP.

The runner in your play started as R3, and the defense was attempting to appeal his missed base, HP. So he's still R3, until he scores or is put out.

I don't regard this as "stretching" the rule, but rather the only plausible interpretation of it when the defense appeals R3 missing HP.

I would also allow a subsequent appeal of R3 missing HP.

Actually, being I didn't specify, the runner that missed home in my play started as R1.

[maven]

8 minutes ago, Matt said:

Actually, being I didn't specify, the runner that missed home in my play started as R1.

wow. I pictured this play differently.... I see the problem. Probably get the batter for his INT, and let the defense appeal again.

[Replacematt]

6 minutes ago, maven said:

wow. I pictured this play differently.... I see the problem. Probably get the batter for his INT, and let the defense appeal again.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking the more I thought about it. In real time, I got the (appealed) runner for the INT and let the batter stay.

[noumpere]

20 hours ago, Matt said:

Except that only applies to runners advancing from third to home. We could stretch it and maybe apply it, albeit retroactively?

That specifically excludes batters (among all other active game participants.)

I think the exclusion is only for the ruling on unintentional interference.