Out, return runner or other

[Guest Nick]

HS Fed Rules. Bases empty. Ball 4 is a WP to the back stop. F2 leisurely pursues escaped pitch and B/R notices. B/R sprints to 1b rounds and begins heading to 2b. F2 now gets in a hurry. Meanwhile on deck batter had begun his walk to batter’s box immediately after ball 4 called. On deck batter has one foot in box and is in line with F2 and 2b, causing F2 to alter his throw. Interference? If yes is B\R out or is B/R returned to 1b? Could on deck batter be called out?

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, Guest Nick said:

HS Fed Rules. Bases empty. Ball 4 is a WP to the back stop. F2 leisurely pursues escaped pitch and B/R notices. B/R sprints to 1b rounds and begins heading to 2b. F2 now gets in a hurry. Meanwhile on deck batter had begun his walk to batter’s box immediately after ball 4 called. On deck batter has one foot in box and is in line with F2 and 2b, causing F2 to alter his throw. Interference? If yes is B\R out or is B/R returned to 1b? Could on deck batter be called out?

This is a good one. I'll take a shot at it, then get Mavened. This may already be addressed as a case study for all I know.

By rule, when interference occurs, the interferer is called out unless -- as would be the case in batter interference on strike 3 -- he can't both be out for the strikeout and the INT. However, in this case, I don't think you can get an out on someone who has yet to be at bat officially, so that means the on-deck batter must still come to bat. The B/R is awarded 1B on the walk, and anything he tries to get after that is at his own peril.

I'd call the B/R out since you can't get the out on the on-deck hitter.

[Cav]

B/R is doing what's he's supposed to be doing - taking advantage of F2's ambivalence.  The on-deck hitter is doing what he's supposed to be doing - coming up to bat.  Baring intent to interfere with a thrown ball, I've got no basis on which to penalize the offense.  The play stands.      

[ElkOil]

19 minutes ago, Cav said:

B/R is doing what's he's supposed to be doing - taking advantage of F2's ambivalence.  The on-deck hitter is doing what he's supposed to be doing - coming up to bat.  Baring intent to interfere with a thrown ball, I've got no basis on which to penalize the offense.  The play stands.      

Wouldn't the logic apply to any other batter interference call, where intent doesn't matter but if the batter did something to interfere, you'd call it?

[Replacematt]

21 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Wouldn't the logic apply to any other batter interference call, where intent doesn't matter but if the batter did something to interfere, you'd call it?

He's not a batter.

[MooseLoop]

FED 8-4-2-g, clause 3 (?):  Any runner is out when . . .  his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team."  The on-deck batter illegally hindered the catcher attempting to make a play on the batter-runner; the batter-runner is out.

[beerguy55]

47 minutes ago, Cav said:

B/R is doing what's he's supposed to be doing - taking advantage of F2's ambivalence.  The on-deck hitter is doing what he's supposed to be doing - coming up to bat.  Baring intent to interfere with a thrown ball, I've got no basis on which to penalize the offense.  The play stands.      

Barring.

"Doing what he is supposed to be doing" is a meaningless and irrelevant argument in baseball.     The runner advancing to the next base on a ground ball is doing what he is supposed to be doing...that does not absolve him of running into the ball or the fielder playing the ball.

However, the on deck hitter is NOT doing what he is supposed to be doing, which is staying out of the way of the play.   He is not supposed to, nor required to, come up to bat until the previous play is over.

I see no difference if the ball rolled over to him while he was in the on deck circle warming up.  He's not allowed to just stand there and continue his warmups while the catcher is trying to get the ball out of his feet, is he?

Regardless - this is interference by a player on the field - not a batter and not a runner.  It just comes down to whether or not that requires intent.

 

In OBR, it's clear that the runner is out.

Fielder Right of Way The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference

I can't find a FED counterpart for this language, but I assume it wouldn't be much different.

[ElkOil]

17 minutes ago, Matt said:

24 minutes ago, Matt said:

He's not a batter.

True. But he still interfered.

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

He's not a batter.

He became the batter as a soon as the prior batter became the B/R

 

[Cav]

22 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Barring.

No, I wrote "baring" on purpose: I would rule intent to interfere with F2's throw if the next hitter came to the plate and deliberately exposed himself.  

 

25 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

"Doing what he is supposed to be doing" is a meaningless and irrelevant argument in baseball.    

Larry Barnett used those very words to explain his no call in the '75 WS on the famous Armbrister-Fisk entanglement.

OBR 6.01(d) PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman.  The coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach.  The batter-runner finally ends up on third base. Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

He became the batter as a soon as the prior batter became the B/R

 

You are not a batter until you are entitled to occupy the batter's box.  That entitlement does not occur until the previous play is over.   At the beginning of an inning you are not a "batter" until the pitcher warmup is over, or some point shortly thereafter when you are entitled to occupy the batter's box.

 

1 hour ago, Cav said:

Larry Barnett used those very words to explain his no call in the '75 WS on the famous Armbrister-Fisk entanglement.

Let me re-word my thoughts.  It is a lazy and overused expression that is only applicable to a small number of scenarios...and even then, using that expression when it is correct to do so, like tangle/untangle, can still create confusion when taken literally and out of context, because in most scenarios, runners and fielders are doing what they are supposed to be doing and still accountable to obstruction/interference, because what they are really supposed to be doing is avoiding obstruction/interference - in tangle/untangle it's impossible to do that.

 

ie. the standard isn't "doing what they're supposed to be doing" alone, but that along with the situational reality that there is no other reasonable/practical alternative.

[maven]

1 hour ago, MooseLoop said:

FED 8-4-2-g, clause 3 (?):  Any runner is out when . . .  his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team."  The on-deck batter illegally hindered the catcher attempting to make a play on the batter-runner; the batter-runner is out.

Right rule: FED has the "anyone connected with the [runner's] team" language, but the standard to be applied is the same for retired/scored runners. They have to stay out of the way when possible (but do not have to disappear entirely). If the ODB had an opportunity to get out of the way, then he must do so. Sounds as if he did in the OP.

Initially I was going to quibble with your ruling, but it is indeed the BR—the guy who walked and tried for 2B when the INT occurred—who is out, not the ODB. So yes, the BR is out.

Good call.

[grayhawk]

This was either a really short backstop or a really tall batter. I’m having a hard time picturing how F2 had to alter his throw when his target was likely 140+ feet away.

[beerguy55]

29 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

This was either a really short backstop or a really tall batter. I’m having a hard time picturing how F2 had to alter his throw when his target was likely 140+ feet away.

Yeah, unless he can throw a bullet from A to B at five feet off the ground, which isn't unheard of, just unlikely.  Psychological - you see the object between you and your target and immediately believe it's in your way.

[Tborze]

4 hours ago, ElkOil said:

I'd call the B/R out since you can't get the out on the on-deck hitter.

Or the bat boy! 

[umpstu]

50 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

This was either a really short backstop or a really tall batter. I’m having a hard time picturing how F2 had to alter his throw when his target was likely 140+ feet away.

No kidding.

[maven]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

This was either a really short backstop or a really tall batter. I’m having a hard time picturing how F2 had to alter his throw when his target was likely 140+ feet away.

I guess I was taking the INT for granted. If F2 is 40 feet from the ODB, this should be a no-call.

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

Or the bat boy! 

Well... whoever. I'm banging an out is all I know.

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

This was either a really short backstop or a really tall batter. I’m having a hard time picturing how F2 had to alter his throw when his target was likely 140+ feet away.

AT first read I pictured a one of those tight cages around the plate. Then I thought, if the it's a short cage,  Just how slow was F2 moving that BR got around 1B and towards 2nd??

[umpstu]

1 hour ago, ElkOil said:

Well... whoever. I'm banging an out is all I know.

Out's and strikes make the world go round.  Go get em ElkOil.

[maven]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

AT first read I pictured a one of those tight cages around the plate. Then I thought, if the it's a short cage,  Just how slow was F2 moving that BR got around 1B and towards 2nd??

It could happen: short cage, WP, F2 ignores the ball and starts whining to F1 about the crappy pitch, doesn't bother looking for the ball until the BR takes off for 2B. When he finds and retrieves the ball, the ODB is now in the way of the throw.

[ElkOil]

2 hours ago, umpstu said:

Out's and strikes make the world go round.  Go get em ElkOil.

Words to live by. I take it as a personal failure if any game I'm in goes longer than an hour twenty-five. So far, I've failed twice. Three times. Maybe four.

[Richvee]

I agree the rule states all OBR and FED, runner out for ODB's INT and that's the way it should be called.. One of those rulings that suck in this situation. Hate the fact of rewarding the lard ass F2. I know..think of it as penalizing the dumb ODB and his team but at leas the ODB's teammate was hustling. 

[maven]

5 hours ago, Richvee said:

I agree the rule states all OBR and FED, runner out for ODB's INT and that's the way it should be called.. One of those rulings that suck in this situation. Hate the fact of rewarding the lard ass F2. I know..think of it as penalizing the dumb ODB and his team but at least the ODB's teammate was hustling. 

Do you feel that bad every time an infielder doesn't charge a batted ball hard enough; or every time an outfielder takes a bad route to a fly ball, allowing R3 to tag and score? "It sucks that we can't get an out, but least his teammate was in a good position to retire a runner!"

People—and I reluctantly include umpires among them—sometimes forget that offense is also a team sport.

[WilsonFlyer]

We'd probably be amazed at how many catchers at lower levels that don't realize that's a live-ball situation even with nobody on also. Well, at least not until it's too late like in the situation outlined above. Lots of people take walks very "casually" and shouldn't. Lots can go wrong as above demonstrates.

Certainly not on us. Just furthering the point to the question with regards to the runner attempting 2B and why.

[Richvee]

4 hours ago, maven said:

 

People—and I reluctantly include umpires among them—sometimes forget that offense is also a team sport.

 

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

I know..think of it as penalizing the dumb ODB and his team

I didn't forget the offense is a team.

4 hours ago, maven said:

Do you feel that bad every time an infielder doesn't charge a batted ball hard enough; or every time an outfielder takes a bad route to a fly ball, allowing R3 to tag and score?

I don't think these are the same. F8 takes a bad route to the ball, it's on him, a run scores against him. F6 doesn't charge a slow roller, it's on him, he doesn't get an out. Now he's got a guy on first. What irks me about situations like the OP is you're rewarding the lazy defense. I get it. Offense is a team. One messed up. F2 was still a lazy oaf and was rewarded. I get it. I'll call it.  I don't have to like it.