baserunner interference

[Guest Spectator in the rain]

Babe Ruth, 13 year old game.  Bases loaded no outs.  Batter hits a soft grounder to F4, who throws to F6 at second for the first out.  R1 does not make any attempt to clear out of the way, and is too far to slide.  Ump calls R1 out, and because R1 does not veer out of F6's way he calls B1 out at first although the popular opinion was that the batter would have beat the throw at first.  Offensive team calls time and appeals to the plate ump, who explained that he was watching R3 cross the plate and did not see the play in the middle infield.  After a short conference the plate and field ump both agree that the batter is out.  I understand that this is a judgement call, but if the plate ump was watching the runner cross home, and the ump in the field only saw the interference and not where the batter was, how can they judge that it interfered with the double play?  Was there a blown call?  who's call is this truly?  

[maven]

Last question first: any umpire who sees INT may call it. Since F6 did not throw the ball, the BU could well have had a great look at it.

Second, the timing of the BR touching 1B is irrelevant: the issue concerns the retired runner, R1, and his actions around 2B.

I believe Babe Ruth plays a modified version of pro rules (OBR). The pro rule (6.01(a)(5)) states that a retired runner is guilty of INT if he hinders the defense playing on another runner. The runner is not required to slide, but if he goes in standing he's liable to be called for INT. The proper penalty for his INT is to call out the other runner likely to be played on, in this case the BR.

We can't assess the umpire's judgment without video. But if R1 did alter the play of F6 — say, by making him choose between throwing into R1 or not throwing — then I would say the ruling was correct, and the penalty applied was also correct.

R2, R3 should have been returned to their bases due to their teammate's INT.

[noumpere]

28 minutes ago, maven said:

As I'm picturing the play, this is an obvious FPSR violation in FED.

 

There is the FED / interp where R1 is "less than halfway" to second and doesn't slide -- no INT.  Left unsaid, of course, is where exactly that obligation begins.

 

For most, it's wherever R1 would reasonably be expected to slide.  And, yest, that's going to vary by umpire and level - but if we take the OP at his / her word, then I have no INT (absent anything else).  But, the umpires were there and I wasn't, so all we can do is answer the rules issue.

[Rich Ives]

RTFM

Rule 6.01(a )(5) Comment (Rule 7.09(e) Comment): If the batter
or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out,
he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering
or impeding the fielders.

As described there was no interference.

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, Guest Spectator in the rain said:

Babe Ruth, 13 year old game.  Bases loaded no outs.  Batter hits a soft grounder to F4, who throws to F6 at second for the first out.  R1 does not make any attempt to clear out of the way, and is too far to slide.  Ump calls R1 out, and because R1 does not veer out of F6's way he calls B1 out at first although the popular opinion was that the batter would have beat the throw at first.  Offensive team calls time and appeals to the plate ump, who explained that he was watching R3 cross the plate and did not see the play in the middle infield.  After a short conference the plate and field ump both agree that the batter is out.  I understand that this is a judgement call, but if the plate ump was watching the runner cross home, and the ump in the field only saw the interference and not where the batter was, how can they judge that it interfered with the double play?  Was there a blown call?  who's call is this truly?  

Although I'm not familiar with Babe Ruth rules (someone will chime in and you'll get an answer) but ....  With a runner in scoring position, the plate umpire does indeed have to see the touch of home by the runner scoring.  That means, the field umpire should be able to get the interference (if there was any) on the play.   Now, ...IF THIS WAS a high -school game (FED RULES) ... interference on a double play attempt is automatic, regardless of where the runner is.  Again, not sure what ruleset Babe Ruth plays.

When there is interference on a double-play, it doesn't matter where the runner was, or if he would have beaten the throw at first.  That makes zero difference.

The conference wasn't necessarily asking the plate ump what he saw, but to get together to discuss what the field ump saw and review the ruling together to make sure they have it right.

Your description alone doesn't define interference .... this situation is a "had to be there" (HTBT) type thing .......

I hope that sheds some light, and remember,....  SOMEONE else will chime in with an answer as well......

 

[Guest Spectator in the rain]

Maven,

Since bases were loaded should R3 get home on the play as he was forced? R2 to third again forced, R1 out on the throw and batter out on the INT?

[maven]

1 minute ago, Guest Spectator in the rain said:

Maven,

Since bases were loaded should R3 get home on the play as he was forced? R2 to third again forced, R1 out on the throw and batter out on the INT?

Force is irrelevant. Part of the penalty for INT is returning runners, so that the offense does not benefit from their illegal action.

[Radwaste50]

4 minutes ago, Guest Spectator in the rain said:

Maven,

Since bases were loaded should R3 get home on the play as he was forced? R2 to third again forced, R1 out on the throw and batter out on the INT?

No because the batter runner is out there is no force and all runners return to last legally acquired base at the time of the interference in this case 2nd and 3rd

[noumpere]

52 minutes ago, Radwaste50 said:

No because the batter runner is out there is no force and all runners return to last legally acquired base at the time of the interference in this case 2nd and 3rd

IF it's the FED rule, then the runners return TOP -- it's certainly possible that R3 and R2 had advanced before the "interference"

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, maven said:

Last question first: any umpire who sees INT may call it. Since F6 did not throw the ball, the BU could well have had a great look at it.

Second, the timing of the BR touching 1B is irrelevant: the issue concerns the retired runner, R1, and his actions around 2B.

I believe Babe Ruth plays a modified version of pro rules (OBR). The pro rule (6.01(a)(5)) states that a retired runner is guilty of INT if he hinders the defense playing on another runner. The runner is not required to slide, but if he goes in standing he's liable to be called for INT. The proper penalty for his INT is to call out the other runner likely to be played on, in this case the BR.

We can't assess the umpire's judgment without video. But if R1 did alter the play of F6 — say, by making him choose between throwing into R1 or not throwing — then I would say the ruling was correct, and the penalty applied was also correct.

R2, R3 should have been returned to their bases due to their teammate's INT.

In OBR, absent intent, I believe the retired runner can go in standing up without penalty. "That act alone" would not considered to be impeding the defense. Wendelstedt allows normal baserunning for a retired runner.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Radwaste50 said:

No because the batter runner is out there is no force and all runners return to last legally acquired base at the time of the interference in this case 2nd and 3rd

in OBR when the B-R does not reach 1B all runners return TOP. 

[Jimurray]

With R1 too far to slide I don't think I would have INT in FED, NCAA or OBR. 

[maven]

With R1 too far to slide I don't think I would have INT in FED, NCAA or OBR. 

As I'm picturing the play, this is an obvious FPSR violation in FED.

Other codes, I'd have to see the play. Pro and college F6's are probably not on the base when they relay to 1B, so hindrance away from the base is going to be INT.

[Jimurray]

On June 7, 2016 at 2:03 PM, maven said:

Last question first: any umpire who sees INT may call it. Since F6 did not throw the ball, the BU could well have had a great look at it.

Second, the timing of the BR touching 1B is irrelevant: the issue concerns the retired runner, R1, and his actions around 2B.

I believe Babe Ruth plays a modified version of pro rules (OBR). The pro rule (6.01(a)(5)) states that a retired runner is guilty of INT if he hinders the defense playing on another runner. The runner is not required to slide, but if he goes in standing he's liable to be called for INT. The proper penalty for his INT is to call out the other runner likely to be played on, in this case the BR.

We can't assess the umpire's judgment without video. But if R1 did alter the play of F6 — say, by making him choose between throwing into R1 or not throwing — then I would say the ruling was correct, and the penalty applied was also correct.

R2, R3 should have been returned to their bases due to their teammate's INT.

Who put a check mark on this post and what does that mean. The post has some inaccuracies.

[maven]

10 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Who put a check mark on this post and what does that mean. The post has some inaccuracies.

Yeah, I misunderstood the point of "too far to slide" in the OP. I thought it meant, "too close to 2B to slide," when it likely means "too far from 2B to slide." My bad. My answer is based on play with a runner being near the action around 2B: that's why I thought it was an obvious FPSR violation, and possibly INT in OBR as well.

I agree that a runner who is too far from 2B to slide and merely advancing to 2B (does nothing with his hands or any other intentional act of hindrance) is not guilty of INT. The fielders have to play around him.