- 0
Batter-runner interference or nothing?
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
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
1
1
Popular Days
Jun 5
7
Top Posters For This Question
grayhawk 1 post
johnpatrick 1 post
beerguy55 1 post
The Man in Blue 1 post
Popular Days
Jun 5 2019
7 posts
Popular Posts
The Man in Blue
^Those. He may or may not have got it right, but either way his explanation of it still being a pitch is convoluted at best. It simply is an interference call or not.
yawetag
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
6 answers to this question
Recommended Posts