Interference?

[FleasOf1000Camels]

FED rules.  R1 is running on 1-2 pitch.  Batter swings and misses, awkwardly lunging out over plate.  As F2 steps to throw to 2nd, he gets tangled up with batter and throw goes wild.  R1 reaches 2nd safely and makes no attempt to advance further.  Plate umpire makes no call (other than 'strike three/out').  From my perspective in position B, the retired batter CERTAINLY interfered with F2's ability to throw.  My question is in THREE parts:

1. Would it have been proper for ME to make that interference call, or should I only offer my opinion if/when asked by partner?

2. If we HAD ruled interference what happens to the runner...is he OUT or sent back to 1st?

3. Is there any difference on either point if playing under OBR?

[noumpere]

1) No.

2) R1 is out.

3) Not on this play.

[sthomas13100]

2) Penalty under 7-3-5,  " .........  If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g)"

I believe you can have an out or you can send the runner back, umpire judgement.  If it close at all, get the out.

[ALStripes17]

2) Penalty under 7-3-5,  " .........  If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g)"

I believe you can have an out or you can send the runner back, umpire judgement.  If it close at all, get the out.

The discussions we have had on this topic have concluded with the general idea that we won't be sending the runner back (even though allowed by rule) because:

If you are calling BI, then that means there was a hindrance on making a play on the runner - if the runner is already there, then there should be no INT call.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[sthomas13100]

I do not agree with an automatic 2 outs, and if interference occurs, you call it.  Situation I can think of:

Runners at 1st and 3rd, less than 2 outs, count is 2-2.  Batter swings and misses and hinders the catchers throw to second base.  R1 had left early and gets to second base shortly after the ball reaches the catchers glove.  Catchers throw sails into CF.  I'm calling the interference. But, if I don't believe the catcher had any chance of getting the second out, then his penalty is; he's going back to 1st base.  Now, if I feel the batter made an intentional movement to hinder, then I'm getting the 2nd out regardless.

 

[maven]

25 minutes ago, sthomas13100 said:

Runners at 1st and 3rd, less than 2 outs, count is 2-2.  Batter swings and misses and hinders the catchers throw to second base.  R1 had left early and gets to second base shortly after the ball reaches the catchers glove.  Catchers throw sails into CF.  I'm calling the interference. But, if I don't believe the catcher had any chance of getting the second out, then his penalty is; he's going back to 1st base.  Now, if I feel the batter made an intentional movement to hinder, then I'm getting the 2nd out regardless.

If you judge that F2 had literally (or very nearly) ZERO chance of retiring the runner, then how exactly has the batter's action hindered him? Hindered him from doing what? You say throwing to 2B, but that's nothing unless it's a play on a runner, which by hypothesis it is not. The definition of INT: an act by the offense that hinders "a fielder attempting to make a play." 2-21-1

That's the problem with this ruling. No hindrance = no INT, and if no INT then there's no rationale for sending the runner back. OTOH, if there IS hindrance (don't need much), then we have batter INT, and by rule someone will be out for it (not the batter when he just struck out).

It's umpire judgment whether there is hindrance, but once we make that ruling, then either the play stands or there's INT and someone is out for it. There is no conceptual middle ground for "I don't like what that mean batter did, but I don't want to call the runner out for INT — he wasn't being mean, he's a nice guy — so I'll just send him back. And maybe scold the batter, too, for being mean." Steaming pile.

[ALStripes17]

I do not agree with an automatic 2 outs, and if interference occurs, you call it.  Situation I can think of:

Runners at 1st and 3rd, less than 2 outs, count is 2-2.  Batter swings and misses and hinders the catchers throw to second base.  R1 had left early and gets to second base shortly after the ball reaches the catchers glove.  Catchers throw sails into CF.  I'm calling the interference. But, if I don't believe the catcher had any chance of getting the second out, then his penalty is; he's going back to 1st base.  Now, if I feel the batter made an intentional movement to hinder, then I'm getting the 2nd out regardless.

 

It's not an automatic 2 outs. It's an out for the strikeout, which is earned by the defense... And an out for the hindrance, which is a prescribed penalty. This is the same ruling in every code other than FED (which 'allows' to just return the runner). Disclaimer: This previous statement is meant to separate from the 'weak' BI in NCAA and OBR.

Very similar concept at play with OBS at first. F3 may obstruct BR rounding 1B but it is possible that it doesn't alter the play so a good 'no-call' keeps people from thinking you're a moron.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[sthomas13100]

Maven, I understand you reasoning.  I understand the logic.  I believe you are one of the most knowledgeable guys on this site. So, I ask this with utmost respect and just want to be able to support this when I'm faced with it.   You say by rule someone will be out for it, however I do not read that in the rule (7-3-5).  In my scenario, the action did not prevent a possible double play, but it did cause a catcher to air-mail the ball into CF.  If interference is NOT called, then you have a potential play from R3 coming home.  You have to call the interference after the (failed) attempted play on R1.  Again, the rule in FED states, "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out." 

Would you treat follow-through interference the same as the batter crossing in front of home plate under FED rules?

Al Stripes, so are you agreeing with me that in FED, the umpire can just place the runner back?  Again, seems like the rule in FED does leave it to the umpires judgment.

 

[ALStripes17]

Maven, I understand you reasoning.  I understand the logic.  I believe you are one of the most knowledgeable guys on this site. So, I ask this with utmost respect and just want to be able to support this when I'm faced with it.   You say by rule someone will be out for it, however I do not read that in the rule (7-3-5).  In my scenario, the action did not prevent a possible double play, but it did cause a catcher to air-mail the ball into CF.  If interference is NOT called, then you have a potential play from R3 coming home.  You have to call the interference after the (failed) attempted play on R1.  Again, the rule in FED states, "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out." 

Would you treat follow-through interference the same as the batter crossing in front of home plate under FED rules?

Al Stripes, so are you agreeing with me that in FED, the umpire can just place the runner back?  Again, seems like the rule in FED does leave it to the umpires judgment.

 

I never disagreed that FED contained the caveat of 'option to call runner out or return him'.

My argument stems from the idea that if there is no possible play on the runner, then there is no INT (like maven has said).

If an F2 still attempts to make a throw to 2B on a stealing R1 that we know for a fact will be safe without question, then that onus is on the F2 for making a dumb play, batter in the way or not. I would not have BI in that instance. I would keep it live and tell any coach that there was no hindrance as there was no play to be made. I would liken that to calling BI if an F2 threw to 3B with only a runner on 1B. There's no play there, why throw it there?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[James88]

This is from the FED Case Book.  Whether it logically makes sense or not, it is umpire's judgment on whether or not to get the second out or to just send the runner's back..

 

8.4.2 SITUATION K: With R1 on third, R2 on first and no one out, R2 attempts to steal second base. The pitch to the batter is strike three. As F2 attempts to throw out R2, the batter interferes. The ball goes into the outfield and R1 scores. RULING:The batter is out because of strike three. R1 returns to third base because that is the base he occupied at the time of the interference. If the umpires judge R2 would have been out on the steal had the interference not occurred, R2 will be declared out. If the umpires judge he would not have been out had the interference not occurred, R2 will be returned to first base.

 

[FleasOf1000Camels]

50 minutes ago, James88 said:

This is from the FED Case Book.  Whether it logically makes sense or not, it is umpire's judgment on whether or not to get the second out or to just send the runner's back..

 

8.4.2 SITUATION K: With R1 on third, R2 on first and no one out, R2 attempts to steal second base. The pitch to the batter is strike three. As F2 attempts to throw out R2, the batter interferes. The ball goes into the outfield and R1 scores. RULING:The batter is out because of strike three. R1 returns to third base because that is the base he occupied at the time of the interference. If the umpires judge R2 would have been out on the steal had the interference not occurred, R2 will be declared out. If the umpires judge he would not have been out had the interference not occurred, R2 will be returned to first base.

 

This is right on point (other than there being another runner)...and I was wondering when somebody would cite this case. This case is just another example of FED BS.  How in hell are we expected to judge if a runner would or would not have been thrown out without INT?  Can we predict if F2 would have made a strong/accurate throw?  Can we predict if F4/F6 would handle that throw, make the tag and hold the ball?

My crystal ball is cloudy.  Unless the runner dropped dead on the way to 2nd, I'm just sending him back.

[ALStripes17]

This is right on point (other than there being another runner)...and I was wondering when somebody would cite this case. This case is just another example of FED BS.  How in hell are we expected to judge if a runner would or would not have been thrown out without INT?  Can we predict if F2 would have made a strong/accurate throw?  Can we predict if F4/F6 would handle that throw, make the tag and hold the ball?

My crystal ball is cloudy.  Unless the runner dropped dead on the way to 2nd, I'm just sending him back.

I'm just not calling INT...because there's no play

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

2 hours ago, sthomas13100 said:

 You say by rule someone will be out for it, however I do not read that in the rule (7-3-5).  In my scenario, the action did not prevent a possible double play, but it did cause a catcher to air-mail the ball into CF.  If interference is NOT called, then you have a potential play from R3 coming home.  You have to call the interference after the (failed) attempted play on R1.  Again, the rule in FED states, "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out." 

Would you treat follow-through interference the same as the batter crossing in front of home plate under FED rules?

Thanks for the props. I have a couple issues with the first paragraph.

First, nobody is telling you how to call it. For my part, I will NEVER apply the FED ruling (8.4.2K) that sends a runner back for batter INT without getting an out, because I will never see the (impossible) situation to which it applies. In every game I will ever umpire, there will either be hindrance (INT => someone is out) or no hindrance, and so no INT, live ball, play on.

Second, you're contradicting yourself when you say, "You have to call the interference after the (failed) attempted play on R1." If there's an attempted play, then that's the back end of the double play (batter + R1), and we're getting an out for the batter's INT. You keep repeating the penalty about a double play: this is the possible double play.

Third, you seem, at least here, to be umpiring to an outcome. You're calling INT, without an out, in order to kill it and prevent R3 from scoring? Why not just call time and tie your shoe? As an evaluator, I would have a major ding on any umpire who started making calls and applying rules in order to create a particular outcome. That's probably not what you had in mind, but it surely sounds like it.

Next question: FED's "follow-through" INT is just one kind of batter INT, and is penalized exactly the same. We don't really need a name for it, but there it is. The one that's different is FED's "backswing INT," which isn't really INT at all, as there is no play. So there's another name we don't need.