Only in NJ

[Jimurray]

56 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

 

I think it stems from "and breaks toward second base" in the case play. To me, that's an intentional act to confuse the defense and draw a throw, yet Fed seems to feel this doesn't rise to be interference. Perhaps it's akin to a legal deke by the defense, such as convincing a stealing R1 on a fly ball to the outfield that it was a grounder to short which causes R1 to slide into second.

 

@grayhawk I lost my WUM but I believe you have one and he espounces on the matter.

[umpstu]

9 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Because there are people that don't want to be wrong ever ever ever

Ever?

[maven]

10 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I think it stems from "and breaks toward second base" in the case play. To me, that's an intentional act to confuse the defense and draw a throw, yet Fed seems to feel this doesn't rise to be interference. Perhaps it's akin to a legal deke by the defense, such as convincing a stealing R1 on a fly ball to the outfield that it was a grounder to short which causes R1 to slide into second.

You might be right. For me, that's not enough to warrant a rules difference. In 8.3.3I, was the BR (retired runner) stopped, and then restarted when he realized that he had the opportunity to confuse the defense? Or does his "left turn" constitute a "break" toward 2B? That asks us to pick the fly shît out of the pepper.

For me, this all falls under OBR's "merely continues to advance" permission, and I don't care how a retired runner continues to advance. When he does something else, he's liable for INT if his action hinders the defense. In some situations (such as MC) we have no choice but to judge intent; I don't see that we are required to do so here.

Your analogy between a "legel deke" (which suggests a good band name) and a fake tag is apt. Another is distinguishing legal deception by a pitcher from a balk.

[BT_Blue]

Don't feel alone. Washington puts together it's own test too. I have seen both questions (as well as the unchanged "get it right" memo) here in Washington. 

[Kevin_K]

On 2/10/2017 at 10:33 PM, Richvee said:

NJ test question....Opinions welcome...Runner designations edited to protect our sanity.

 

With the bases loaded and one out, B1 grounds a ball to F6 who flips to F4 for a force out on R1 at second base. F4's throw to first base is wide and B1 is safe. F3 picks up the ball and throws home. F2 has R2 trapped in a rundown between home and third. He runs R2 back to third where R1 is standing. R1retreats and the defense tags R1 out between third and second. In the meantime, R2, who had gone back to third advanced toward home and scored. The offensive coach then points out the runner tagged out as R1who had been forced at second base. The umpire should rule:

 

• a.
  • Since R1 had previously been retired, he is not the third out of the inning and 2 runs score with B1 on 2nd base.

 

• b.
  • Since R1 was a retired runner and stayed involved in the play, he is guilty of interference.It is 3 outs and no runs score.

 

• c. R3 scores, R1 is guilty of interference. R2 cannot score as the ball became dead immediately when retired runner R1 interfered: the moment defense made a play on R1

 

• d.
  • None of the above.
• My thought is running the bases after being retired is not in and of itself reason for interference. Defense needs to know R1 was forced out at 2nd. Pretty sure that's how OBR would rule. I'm not sure how FED feels on this. I'm also wondering if running back to the base you were forced out at is considered "just running the bases", or a basis for INT if the defense is dumb enough to chase him.

 

 

•  

After a conversation w/ chapter interpreter......

When R1 retreats from 3B he alters the course of the play. As such, he is guilty of interference and the ball is dead. Since R2 was on 3B at the time of interference, he cannot advance, nor is there any opportunity to retire him. Answer C is the correct option.

I asked for a citation for the interpretation on R1 being guilty of interference and none could be specifically provided.

In cases like this, I have learned that whether or not there is support for a particular answer on a NJ baseball test, I will go with the answer that has been deemed to be correct and when something happens on the field I will proceed as I should. 

[maven]

50 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

After a conversation w/ chapter interpreter......

When R1 retreats from 3B he alters the course of the play. As such, he is guilty of interference and the ball is dead. Since R2 was on 3B at the time of interference, he cannot advance, nor is there any opportunity to retire him. Answer C is the correct option.

I asked for a citation for the interpretation on R1 being guilty of interference and none could be specifically provided.

In cases like this, I have learned that whether or not there is support for a particular answer on a NJ baseball test, I will go with the answer that has been deemed to be correct and when something happens on the field I will proceed as I should. 

Wow. That's awful, and there's a good reason that "interpreter" couldn't provide a citation.

Every time a runner moves, it generally alters the course of play. The defense naturally enough throws the ball where the runner is trying to go. If that were the test of INT, runners would be out every play.

That ruling should be ignored by everyone in the baseball universe outside NJ HS baseball, and maybe even inside.

I suppose I'm spoiled by having had Kyle as state interpreter for so long, and now that he has retired the bar has been set pretty high. We don't have to deal with idiotic crap like this.

[grayhawk]

Wow. That's awful, and there's a good reason that "interpreter" couldn't provide a citation.
Every time a runner moves, it generally alters the course of play. The defense naturally enough throws the ball where the runner is trying to go. If that were the test of INT, runners would be out every play.
That ruling should be ignored by everyone in the baseball universe outside NJ HS baseball, and maybe even inside.
I suppose I'm spoiled by having had Kyle as state interpreter for so long, and now that he has retired the bar has been set pretty high. We don't have to deal with idiotic crap like this.

I'm confused. Isn't this interpreter agreeing with you on this play?

[maven]

21 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I'm confused. Isn't this interpreter agreeing with you on this play?

I see what you mean, as we agree that this is INT.

But my rationale doesn't run through "alters the pattern of play," which I don't regard as sufficient for INT here. If the retired runner is merely advancing, the defense might have throw around him (think retired R1 as the defense turns a double play). That legally alters the pattern of play, yet it is not INT.

For me, when the retired runner retreats, he loses his "merely advancing" exemption from INT; when the defense subsequently plays on him, he has hindered play. INT.

Maybe the difference isn't as great as I was thinking. The key isn't altering the pattern of play, which retired runners MAY legally do; the key is retreating, which makes the subsequent alteration illegal.

[Stk004]

14 hours ago, grayhawk said:

 

I'm confused. Isn't this interpreter agreeing with you on this play?

 

Maven isn't as concerned with being right as he is with getting it right.

[Richvee]

On 02/11/2017 at 8:50 AM, ALStripes17 said:

Absolutely not. There was an interpretation on a batter-runner being retired on a caught fly ball and continuing to 2B, drawing a throw... That was ruled not INT and that there is nothing in the rules about a retired runner continuing to run the bases.

Answer is A. Results of the play stand.

 

On 02/11/2017 at 1:07 PM, grayhawk said:

8.3.3 Situation I

 

On 02/11/2017 at 1:47 PM, grayhawk said:

In both cases, the defense made a play on the retired runner who was still running the bases as if he was not out.  Isn't the defense's play on the retired runner the key part of the ruling?  If we aren't going to bail out the defense for failing to know who's out in the first case, why are we bailing them out in the second case?

 

On 02/11/2017 at 9:06 PM, grayhawk said:

Here's a BRD play that is very close to the OP:

Play 160-296: R1. B1 grounds to the shortstop. R1 is forced out at second, but the relay throw is not in time at first. Next, retired R1 gets into a rundown between second and third and is tagged “out” again as BR takes second. Ruling: In FED, BR remains at second. In NCAA / OBR, BR is out for R1’s interference. 

BRD caseplay notwithstanding, Here's the explanation I received tonight as to why this is INT (correct answer is "C" according to the test givers), and 8.3.3 sit i is legal.

In the test question, once the defense made a play on the retired runner, it altered the progression of the play. The retired runner is called for INT and R2 trying to score is declared out.

In the FED case play, we have R1, R3, and a caught fly ball by the outfield. R3 tags and scores. The throw comes into 2B to keep R1 from tagging up, not necessarily to make a play on the retired runner who breaks for 2B. IOW, one could say the progression of the play by the defense was not altered by the retired runner, since in all likelihood,  the throw would be to 2B anyway to hold R1 at 1B.

Food for thought, at least.

[ALStripes17]

BRD caseplay notwithstanding, Here's the explanation I received tonight as to why this is INT (correct answer is "C" according to the test givers), and 8.3.3 sit i is legal.
In the test question, once the defense made a play on the retired runner, it altered the progression of the play. The retired runner is called for INT and R2 trying to score is declared out.
In the FED case play, we have R1, R3, and a caught fly ball by the outfield. R3 tags and scores. The throw comes into 2B to keep R1 from tagging up, not necessarily to make a play on the retired runner who breaks for 2B. IOW, one could say the progression of the play by the defense was not altered by the retired runner, since in all likelihood,  the throw would be to 2B anyway to hold R1 at 1B.
Food for thought, at least.

I fail to see the purpose of the caseplay (8.3.3 Situation I) due to its absence of concurrent reasoning. Seeing as this case play is in the 'Baserunning Awards' section, was it originally put in because people didn't want to award 3B to the runner on 1B? Were they trying to say it was unfair for the defense to throw a ball into dead ball territory due to a retired runner? Seems fairly vague even for FED...

Point: What true purpose does that case play represent?

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

I fail to see the purpose of the caseplay (8.3.3 Situation I) due to its absence of concurrent reasoning. Seeing as this case play is in the 'Baserunning Awards' section, was it originally put in because people didn't want to award 3B to the runner on 1B? Were they trying to say it was unfair for the defense to throw a ball into dead ball territory due to a retired runner? Seems fairly vague even for FED...

Point: What true purpose does that case play represent?

Personally, I think it's NJ twisting the case play to make it unlike their example that they want called INT. This play is wide open to interpretation with no real authoritative answer.

NJ is saying in the case play, the throw goes to 2nd in spite of BR continuing to run. The throw is going there to stop R1 from advancing, so no INT. In their test play, the play by the defense is altered because of the retired runner running the bases

Simply continuing to run the bases after being retired in and of itself is not INT. When then, does that retired runner interfere? When he reverses direction on the base path? When the defense alters their play to make a play on said retired runner who continues to run? Never? According to our state, it looks like they're saying it's INT when the defense alters their pattern of play to make a play on the retired runner. Do I agree? I'm not sure, but I do understand their reasoning. Be it right or wrong..I'm not sure.....Not sure anyone is sure.

What I do know for sure is, if I'm on the bases and I see a retired runner continue to run, I'm pointing at him and reiterating "He's out! He's out" , hopefully avoiding the crazy aftermath of the defense trying to play on him again while other runners are advancing.