Interpretation, rulings?

[Tborze]

Thoughts?

 

 

[johnnyg08]

23 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Thoughts?

 

 

Try posting it again. There's nothing there. 

[noumpere]

6 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Try posting it again. There's nothing there. 

Yeah -- but at least there are no mistakes in the interps. 

[MadMax]

I'll contribute my mad typing skills, and transcribe the PDF that @Tborze posted. I am not responsible for the material presented, as I am only posting this verbatim:

------------------------------------ ~ ------------------------------------------------

2018 PIAA Baseball Bulletin III – Rules, Revisions, and Interpretations
April
from Statewide Rules Interpreter: Andrew Keteles

Rules Interpretation

Situation 1: On a dropped third strike, where the batter-runner has the opportunity to advance to first base, the plate umpire interferes with the catcher's throw to retire the BR. Ruling?

Ruling: The play stands. The batter and any runners remain where they were at the end of playing action. When the catcher drops the 3rd strike he becomes a fielder. There can be no umpire interference with a fielder. It is just the rub of the green. The umpire will feel bad, be embarrassed, take some heat, but there is no interference.

 

Situation 2: Runner on third, no outs. Runner takes off from third. Batter bunts ball. Runner from third crosses home plate before catcher fields the ball and he throws the ball. Ball hits Batter-Runner who is outside of running lane. Interference is called and Batter-Runner is called out. Time play, or does runner return to third?

Ruling: Case Book plays 8.4.1.d and 8.4.1.j seem to differ in placement of runners, i.e. return to base occupied at time of interference (TOI) in 8.4.1.d and time of the pitch (TOP) in 8.4.1.j.
Interference by the batter returns the runners to bases occupied at the time of the pitch and no the time of interference to avoid a situation with two outs where the interference by the batter occurs after a run scored. We would then have to score the run even though the 3rd out was made by the batter runner before he reached 1st base.

[Jimurray]

3 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Yeah -- but at least there are no mistakes in the interps. 

It shows on the Safari Browser. But @Tborze, this interp might take away the interpreter's concern about a third out RLI still allowing a run to score since it was before the TOI:

"2009

SITUATION 13: Runner on third with two outs. The batter swings at a pitch in the dirt for strike three and begins to advance to first base. The runner from third scores before the catcher, in an attempt to record the out at first, throws and hits the batter-runner who is out of the running lane. The offensive team's coach says the run should count since the runner scored prior to the interference. RULING: The run does not count. A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before he touches first base.  (9-1-1a) "

Once that concern is taken away he can then score the run with less than 2 outs if it scored before the TOI and he does not have to grasp at straws to rationalize. 

[Tborze]

http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/2018 Baseball Bulletin III 3(1).pdf

Looking more for a ruling on #1. Is there any rule to support this interp?  How would you handle it?

I have my opinions!  

[maven]

6 hours ago, MadMax said:

Situation 1: On a dropped third strike, where the batter-runner has the opportunity to advance to first base, the plate umpire interferes with the catcher's throw to retire the BR. Ruling?

Ruling: The play stands. The batter and any runners remain where they were at the end of playing action. When the catcher drops the 3rd strike he becomes a fielder. There can be no umpire interference with a fielder. It is just the rub of the green. The umpire will feel bad, be embarrassed, take some heat, but there is no interference.

Well, F2 is always a fielder: that's what the F stands for. The fielder's status doesn't change after D3K, only the batter's status changes (now a BR).

Also, umpire INT is always with a fielder: INT is hindrance of the defense.

Moreover, look at the definition of umpire INT. The relevant part of FED's says: "inadvertently moves so as to hinder a catcher's attempt to throw..." It's not restricted to a batted ball, nor is the status of the batter/batter-runner relevant.

Finally, what's the purpose of the umpire INT rule? The fact is that the PU has to be back behind F2, and sometimes, hopefully rarely and always inadvertently, we get in the way. When we do, we put the defense at an unfair advantage. We need to acknowledge that and deal with it as prescribed by rule, not ignore it.

I will add that I'm assuming that the umpire hindered the throw, or attempted throw, and not F2's attempt to retrieve the pitch in the dirt. The latter, as a glance at the definition should make clear, is not umpire INT. We ignore such contact: if F2 falls down trying to get the ball because he bumps the umpire, that's nothing.

That interp sounds as if it is from an umpire who doesn't want to get yelled at for the INT, and is rationalizing an incorrect no-call.

[beerguy55]

On 4/27/2018 at 2:14 PM, MadMax said:

Ruling: Case Book plays 8.4.1.d and 8.4.1.j seem to differ in placement of runners, i.e. return to base occupied at time of interference (TOI) in 8.4.1.d and time of the pitch (TOP) in 8.4.1.j.
Interference by the batter returns the runners to bases occupied at the time of the pitch and no the time of interference to avoid a situation with two outs where the interference by the batter occurs after a run scored. We would then have to score the run even though the 3rd out was made by the batter runner before he reached 1st base.

 

On 4/27/2018 at 2:17 PM, Jimurray said:

 this interp might take away the interpreter's concern about a third out RLI still allowing a run to score since it was before the TOI:

"2009

SITUATION 13: Runner on third with two outs. The batter swings at a pitch in the dirt for strike three and begins to advance to first base. The runner from third scores before the catcher, in an attempt to record the out at first, throws and hits the batter-runner who is out of the running lane. The offensive team's coach says the run should count since the runner scored prior to the interference. RULING: The run does not count. A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before he touches first base.  (9-1-1a) "

Once that concern is taken away he can then score the run with less than 2 outs if it scored before the TOI and he does not have to grasp at straws to rationalize. 

I can't even fathom why someone would/could even rationalize this way to want to score the run with three outs.  The batter-runner made the third out before reaching first base - that is pretty clear and so is the rule governing it.  At TOP R3 was on third base, so even if he had crossed home at TOI this would be no different than him crossing home before the third out on a play where there wasn't any interference at all.

 

On 4/27/2018 at 2:14 PM, MadMax said:

Ruling: The play stands. The batter and any runners remain where they were at the end of playing action. When the catcher drops the 3rd strike he becomes a fielder. There can be no umpire interference with a fielder. It is just the rub of the green. The umpire will feel bad, be embarrassed, take some heat, but there is no interference.

wtf???  One of these days we're going to get rule makers and interpreters that have actually played the game and understand it.  The catcher is a fielder the moment the half inning starts.   If you want to decide/interpret that ump interference only applies to catchers trying to throw out runners, rather than batter-runners, then fine, make your case...but not because the catcher is a fielder.

[Senor Azul]

Just last year the NFHS added a rule (8-3-6) and I think it accounts for the Pennsylvania rules interpreter’s ruling for Situation 1 in the bulletin. Here’s what NFHS stated in the 2017 Rules Interpretations--

A new article 6 was added to Rule 8-3 to provide a rules reference for an existing ruling in the Baseball Case Book. The new article reads: “When a plate umpire hinders, impedes or prevents a catcher’s throw attempting to prevent a stolen base or retire a runner on a pickoff play, if an out is not made at the end of the catcher’s initial throw, the ball shall be dead and all runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference.”

2017 SITUATION 12: The pitch bounces off the catcher and rolls away from home plate. The plate umpire, trying to get out of the way of the catcher, moves into the catcher’s path as he attempts to retrieve the pitched ball. The contact causes the catcher to lose enough time so that he cannot make a play on the runner advancing. RULING: This is not umpire interference. The play stands. (8-3-6)

[maven]

4 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

2017 SITUATION 12: The pitch bounces off the catcher and rolls away from home plate. The plate umpire, trying to get out of the way of the catcher, moves into the catcher’s path as he attempts to retrieve the pitched ball. The contact causes the catcher to lose enough time so that he cannot make a play on the runner advancing. RULING: This is not umpire interference. The play stands. (8-3-6)

Glad I addressed that!

On 4/27/2018 at 10:31 PM, maven said:

I will add that I'm assuming that the umpire hindered the throw, or attempted throw, and not F2's attempt to retrieve the pitch in the dirt. The latter, as a glance at the definition should make clear, is not umpire INT.

As I'm reading the OP, however, the umpire hindered F2's throw, not his effort to retrieve the ball, and hindering the throw IS umpire INT.

On 4/27/2018 at 4:14 PM, MadMax said:

Situation 1: On a dropped third strike, where the batter-runner has the opportunity to advance to first base, the plate umpire interferes with the catcher's throw to retire the BR. Ruling?

 

[Tborze]

So maybe he's confusing the two?

In the bulletin, the situation clearly say interferes with the catcher's throw, but the picture shows the catcher running into the umpire as he is trying to retrieve a passed ball.  

[maven]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

So maybe he's confusing the two?

In the bulletin, the situation clearly say interferes with the catcher's throw, but the picture shows the catcher running into the umpire as he is trying to retrieve a passed ball.  

I looked up that bulletin, and that's an excellent hypothesis.

[beerguy55]

On 5/2/2018 at 7:43 AM, maven said:

Glad I addressed that!

As I'm reading the OP, however, the umpire hindered F2's throw, not his effort to retrieve the ball, and hindering the throw IS umpire INT.

 

 

On 5/2/2018 at 10:07 AM, Tborze said:

So maybe he's confusing the two?

In the bulletin, the situation clearly say interferes with the catcher's throw, but the picture shows the catcher running into the umpire as he is trying to retrieve a passed ball.  

  

On 4/27/2018 at 8:31 PM, maven said:

Moreover, look at the definition of umpire INT. The relevant part of FED's says: "inadvertently moves so as to hinder a catcher's attempt to throw..." It's not restricted to a batted ball, nor is the status of the batter/batter-runner relevant.

What's the remedy then if you're calling ump INT here?

Article 6 is pretty clear on defining, and limiting, the scenario for a runner who is stealing, or a pick off attempt.   It doesn't mention a batter-runner, and I think for good reason.

You can't send the batter-runner back for a do over to swing at a pitch in the dirt again.

You wouldn't rule him out, would you - dead ball strike three?

Would you award him first, but just send any other runners who advanced back to TOP (advance if forced)?

I think the only remedy is "play stands".  

The context of the catcher's throw provision in 5-2 and 2-21, and I think highlighted/complemented by the specificity of the base running awards in 8-3 article 6, is limited to attempts to throw out runners after a pitch - the scenario where it is reasonable for the umpire to be vulnerable to impeding the catcher, through no fault of his own or F2's.    There's a reason the definition/rule you cite above specifically mentions the catcher, and not any other fielder.   The rule isn't meant to call a delayed dead ball/INT on any catcher's throw impeded, and ignore the exact same scenarios with other fielders.   It's meant to address the period where the risk is apparent - the moment F2 receives the pitch and immediately makes a throw.

On a batted ball in front of the plate - you wouldn't rule catcher's interference if PU impeded the catcher's throw, would you?  What would be the remedy/result? 

On a throw from F8 to home, where F2 then tries to get R1 advancing to third, you wouldn't rule ump INT on that throw, would you?   How about a casual toss from the catcher back to the pitcher, where the PU and F2 bump, the throw goes sideways and the runners advance?  I'd say all three of those are most likely on F2, and "SH*# happens, play stands".

I think the spirit and context of the rule are pretty clear.

The writers of the article in the OP are differentiating between a "F2 who is catching pitches" and a "F2 who is fielding" - they could have done it differently in their language, but I'm picking up what they're putting down.

[maven]

The "penalty" for umpire INT (PU version) is to negate any advance by the offense that occurs when F2 was hindered. So we negate the BR's advance, and he's out on strikes.

We adjust neither the rules, nor our interpretations thereof, nor our rulings on particular plays to some pre-defined sense of what outcome would be fair (or fairest).

I've already noted that the OC won't like this ruling: the OC never likes umpire INT. C'est la guerre.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Jeu sur

[beerguy55]

osti tabernacle

[noumpere]

igpay atinlay

[Senor Azul]

Mr. beerguy55, no need to worry about the “casual toss from the catcher back to the pitcher.” That is covered in all three codes--

2015 (2018 as well) NFHS Case Book play 2.21.2 SITUATION:  With R2, the umpire inadvertently interferes with catcher’s throw back to F1 and R2 advances to third base. RULING:  If, in the umpire’s judgment, his interference permitted R2 to reach third base safely, the umpire shall send R2 back to second base. (5-1-2c)

In OBR it is actually in the rule 5.06(c)(2) Comment:

Rule 5.06(c)(2) Comment: Umpire interference may also occur when an umpire interferes with a catcher returning the ball to the pitcher.

NCAA rule 6-3 Delayed Dead Ball—Runners Return or Advance

SECTION 3. The ball becomes dead and base runners return when:

a.    The plate umpire interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw anywhere;

Note The interference shall be disregarded if the catcher's throw retires the runner