NCAA Super Regional 2014

[umpire_scott]

I replied to an "ask the umpire" post with this one, but thought I would put it here to get more feedback.  I thought I had posted it when it happened, but looked back and could not find any such post.  ASU was playing Texas in Austin.  R1, don't remember the outs.  R1 is running on the pitch, which is ball 4.  F2 comes up throwing and batter makes a slight lean towards first base.  You can see the lean in the video.  F2 throws ball into CF and R1 advances to third on the throw.  PU call INT on the batter for interfering and causing the errant throw.  Thus he calls the batter out and returns the runner to 1st base, even though it was ball 4 and R1 was entitled to second base so the throw meant nothing.

Did the umpires kick this one or do the rules actually support this?

 

[GoodCallBlue!]

yes he kicked it. it was ball 4. the catcher had zero chance to throw the runner out at 2b cuz hes entitled to 2b on the ball 4!

[Gfoley4]

I googled this and found this on a blog... https://www.umpirebible.com/blog/?p=460

 

Quote

• The batter interferes on ball four. Wendlestedt (p. 175) gives us the following: “If [batter’s interference] occurs on ball four, there is no penalty (because the batter is now a runner) unless there was intent, even if the batter-runner crosses over the plate and hinders the catcher. Be aware than on ched swing a ball four may be changed to a strike. If this occurs, you may have to call interference retroactively.” Wendlestedt cites case plays AD1-AD3.

 

[noumpere]

I'm pretty certain this was covered at a conference the next year --  it should have been "play on".  And, maybe the interp was even added to the rule book (but I don't have it handy right now).

[Haid D' Salaami]

the rule was added the nest season... Batter MUST INTENTIONALLY INTERFERE with ball 4.

[umpire_scott]

1 hour ago, Haid D' Salaami said:

the rule was added the nest season... Batter MUST INTENTIONALLY INTERFERE with ball 4.

That's interesting.  So basically if the batter intentionally interferes with ball 4 with R1 stealing second you could call the batter out for interference?  This doesn't make sense to me as there is no reason for a throw.  R1 is entitled to second base on the walk.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, umpire_scott said:

That's interesting.  So basically if the batter intentionally interferes with ball 4 with R1 stealing second you could call the batter out for interference?  This doesn't make sense to me as there is no reason for a throw.  R1 is entitled to second base on the walk.

Think about it this way...It's a runner intentionally interfering with a throw.

[maven]

9 hours ago, umpire_scott said:

R1 is entitled to second base on the walk.

This is correct; however, to follow up Matt's point, and to stick with the language of "entitlement," F2 is entitled to throw down to 2B as well. When the BR intentionally hinders that throw, that's INT.

Because this play has happened only twice in the entire history of baseball at all levels, I don't think we should lose much sleep over it.

[umpire_scott]

1 hour ago, maven said:

This is correct; however, to follow up Matt's point, and to stick with the language of "entitlement," F2 is entitled to throw down to 2B as well. When the BR intentionally hinders that throw, that's INT.

Because this play has happened only twice in the entire history of baseball at all levels, I don't think we should lose much sleep over it.

And so since that rule was changed to state "intentionally" the following year, then technically the crew in that game did not get it wrong?

I'm an ASU alum so I'm still losing sleep over it.

[Haid D' Salaami]

On 7/17/2016 at 10:19 PM, umpire_scott said:

That's interesting.  So basically if the batter intentionally interferes with ball 4 with R1 stealing second you could call the batter out for interference?  This doesn't make sense to me as there is no reason for a throw.  R1 is entitled to second base on the walk.

The throw is meaning less... yo cant expect the catcher to always remember the count right? He needs to be ready as well.