Jump to content
  • 0

Batter-runner interference or nothing?


Guest CrazyMe
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1759 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest CrazyMe

Bottom of the last.  Home team behind all game but has rallied so tying run on third, winning run on second.  Two outs.  2-2 count.  Fastball outside, swung at and missed at by both B3 and F2.  The ball hits a concrete wall 8 feet behind home plate and ricochets into the first base line.  F2 is chasing the ball.  B3, while running to first, accidentally kicks the ball.  U1 calls batter-runner interference for the third out.  U1 said the ball was still a pitch because it was not corralled by F2, was not put into play and did not leave the field.  It also did not ricochet off of a player so the batter-runner was not protected.  Had the catcher been able to glove the bouncing ball and retire the runner at first the out would have stood, therefore, the batter-runner interfered.  Agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
6 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

Need to know the ruleset.  Under OBR the call is correct.  The only determination that needs to be made is did the runner interfere with F2's ability to field the ball.

Yup, and under NFHS it would be nothing because to be interference, the kick would have had to be intentional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

His call may be correct, but his explanation can't be.  Or is this about the difference between a pitch and a pitched ball?

By the umpire's explanation if the ball ricocheted back across the plate the batter would have been allowed to hit it, if it's still a pitch.   Batters are allowed to swing at pitches.

But, it's not still a pitch.  At some point before the b/r kicked it it stopped being a pitch.  I thought there was a ruling/case play that defined when a pitch was no longer a pitch.

It might still be a pitched ball though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Guest Crazy Me

Thanks Gents,

It was an OBR game.  I had finished my game and was watching this one when it happened.  I thought he got it right but wanted to check with other rule savvy folks.

My belief is that U1 meant it was a pitch as opposed to a thrown ball or a batted ball.  In OBR a pitched ball is a pitch until it is caught by the catcher, is hit, hits a batter or goes out of play or would have gone out of play if not pushed out of play by a fielder. In NFHS a pitch stops being a pitch for all of the same reasons OR when it stops rolling.   That distinction matters when assigning bases after a ball goes out of play.

If the ball had ricocheted off of the catcher in this play  however, I don't think the interference call would have been correct.  Runners are not penalized when a batted ball ricochets off of a fielder and into them (unless intentional of course).  For example, R3 stealing, pitched ball in the dirt is blocked by the catcher.  Sliding R3 contacts the ball in front of the plate.  I got nothing.  Agree?  Disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

If the ball were still a pitch, wouldn't it have been an immediate dead ball and, because the batter was contacted by the ball after swinging, a strike added to the count? I'm kidding, obviously. But if you want to say this was a "pitch" that contacted the batter's foot, then you have to treat it as such.

Given the scenario, I've got the out, but not using the umpire's logic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...