Interference or Nothing?

[johnnyg08]

 

[Vegas_Ump]

IMO (and with the luxury of looking at it a few times), one could argue that the batter didn't have a clue what was going on.

I think you'd have to judge intent, and standing there like a dummy does not constitute intent.  As far as the eventual contact goes, I could rule that was a classic tangle/untangle play between the batter runner and the catcher.  

I have "play on" and no INT.

JMO.  And there may be different AR's based on the level of play.

Mike

Las Vegas

[Jimurray]

35 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

IMO (and with the luxury of looking at it a few times), one could argue that the batter didn't have a clue what was going on.

I think you'd have to judge intent, and standing there like a dummy does not constitute intent.  As far as the eventual contact goes, I could rule that was a classic tangle/untangle play between the batter runner and the catcher.  

I have "play on" and no INT.

JMO.  And there may be different AR's based on the level of play.

Mike

Las Vegas

I think there was an MLB play, similar to this, that was called interference. The batter delayed getting out of the box. That put him at fault for interference.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

I think there was an MLB play, similar to this, that was called interference. The batter delayed getting out of the box. That put him at fault for interference.

This is exactly why this is not tangle/untangle.

[maven]

College game? Batter hits a fair ball and doesn't know to run to 1B? C'mon. I've been confused before, and this ain't it. And the whole infield is shouting "four! four!" to direct F4 to throw home. Sorry, I'm not buying the "where'd it go?" bit.

The hindrance here is sufficient by itself to rule INT. This is runner INT (not batter INT: different penalties), and because it's intentional, I'm getting 2 outs. The ball is dead, R3 out, BR out, inning over (or, had there been no outs, R2 would return to 2B). 

The only other ruling I'd even consider supporting would be: runner INT (but not intentional), ball is dead, BR is out for INT, R2, R3 return, now 2 outs in the inning. If the umpire had serious doubt about the BR's intent, this would be the way to go. But IMO that's neither as plausible nor sufficient penalty for this illegal act, and gives the offense another shot at getting those runs in.

That's the ruling for OBR and FED; I'd guess NCAA is the same.

[noumpere]

Pretty easy INT, imo.

[johnnyg08]

9 hours ago, Vegas_Ump said:

IMO (and with the luxury of looking at it a few times), one could argue that the batter didn't have a clue what was going on.

I think you'd have to judge intent, and standing there like a dummy does not constitute intent.  As far as the eventual contact goes, I could rule that was a classic tangle/untangle play between the batter runner and the catcher.  

I have "play on" and no INT.

JMO.  And there may be different AR's based on the level of play.

Mike

Las Vegas

I think tangle/untangle applies to a batted ball. 

[johnnyg08]

Is there room for NCAA 8-5q here?

 

[wolfe_man]

I've got nothing... literally, work IT blocks the link so I can't see it.

Or maybe that's just interference?

[johnnyg08]

2 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

I've got nothing... literally, work IT blocks the link so I can't see it.

Or maybe that's just interference?

Work blocks YouTube? 

Do you work for Microsoft? 

[wolfe_man]

Just now, johnnyg08 said:

Work blocks YouTube? 

Do you work for Microsoft? 

Big bank, they block all the social sites.

 

[johnnyg08]

4 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

Big bank, they block all the social sites.

 

That's not any fun. 

[ArchAngel72]

Interference 

R3 is out at the plate .. however BR is safe at 1st is he not? 

because there was only 1 out..

 

[BobUmp]

This one was quite interesting, thanks for sharing..

At speed, first time, I'm grabbing interference on the BR all the way. I am SURE that is what I would have called on the field at the time.. I would have needed to get together with the crews to discuss if we had two outs or one, and, if one, whether it was the R3 or the BR.. Again, at speed, and if my partners had no more info to give for whatever reason, I would have probably grabbed a DP, R3 and BR BECAUSE my first "gut" feel at speed was he "intentionally" delayed leaving the box, either by stupidity watching the play, or by genius knowing there was going to be a play at home (with everyone yelling FOUR!), and prevented the catcher from making a tag on R3 and then possibly him..

But, on replay, I notice the catcher looking around and behind him, so based on replay, MAYBE the ball was very hard to track and both the BR and catcher lost it and thought it was not on the field of play. So maybe it was unintentional.. 

I don't do NCAA, so by FED rules (Rule 5 Immediate Dead Ball Table) , I think I can grab a DP either way, since the penalty for interference with a fielder attempting to make a play by a runner is that "the interferer is out, and so is another runner if interference prevented a double play on the latter. other runners return". No difference in intent, the penalty stays the same, so a DP I think is the best call for this OP. 

The key here is I would be interpreting the rules by designating the BR a "runner" not a "batter" for this OP, since he hit the ball into fair territory, and the interference was on the throw attempt after the ball was fielded. If he was a "batter", which I think in FED he would be if the throw was an initial throw (or pitch) by the pitcher,  the rule 5 Delayed Dead Ball Table would then apply, in which case "the runner is out, unless two outs, then the batter is out". Again, in my interp of this OP, this does not apply, and the penalty for the BR as a RUNNER applies, in which case I can legitimately grab two outs..

For FED guys, does this sound like decent logic? Man, this was a thinker! Again, thanks for sharing!

[Thunderheads]

2 hours ago, maven said:

College game? Batter hits a fair ball and doesn't know to run to 1B? C'mon. I've been confused before, and this ain't it. And the whole infield is shouting "four! four!" to direct F4 to throw home. Sorry, I'm not buying the "where'd it go?" bit.

The hindrance here is sufficient by itself to rule INT. This is runner INT (not batter INT: different penalties), and because it's intentional, I'm getting 2 outs. The ball is dead, R3 out, BR out, inning over (or, had there been no outs, R2 would return to 2B). 

The only other ruling I'd even consider supporting would be: runner INT (but not intentional), ball is dead, BR is out for INT, R2, R3 return, now 2 outs in the inning. If the umpire had serious doubt about the BR's intent, this would be the way to go. But IMO that's neither as plausible nor sufficient penalty for this illegal act, and gives the offense another shot at getting those runs in.

That's the ruling for OBR and FED; I'd guess NCAA is the same.

I understand your rationale here, but ...if you really watch close, it DOES appear he has not clue when he hits the ball because he 'pool cues' it ....

[Replacematt]

23 minutes ago, BobUmp said:

This one was quite interesting, thanks for sharing..

At speed, first time, I'm grabbing interference on the BR all the way. I am SURE that is what I would have called on the field at the time.. I would have needed to get together with the crews to discuss if we had two outs or one, and, if one, whether it was the R3 or the BR.. Again, at speed, and if my partners had no more info to give for whatever reason, I would have probably grabbed a DP, R3 and BR BECAUSE my first "gut" feel at speed was he "intentionally" delayed leaving the box, either by stupidity watching the play, or by genius knowing there was going to be a play at home (with everyone yelling FOUR!), and prevented the catcher from making a tag on R3 and then possibly him..

But, on replay, I notice the catcher looking around and behind him, so based on replay, MAYBE the ball was very hard to track and both the BR and catcher lost it and thought it was not on the field of play. So maybe it was unintentional.. 

I don't do NCAA, so by FED rules (Rule 5 Immediate Dead Ball Table) , I think I can grab a DP either way, since the penalty for interference with a fielder attempting to make a play by a runner is that "the interferer is out, and so is another runner if interference prevented a double play on the latter. other runners return". No difference in intent, the penalty stays the same, so a DP I think is the best call for this OP. 

The key here is I would be interpreting the rules by designating the BR a "runner" not a "batter" for this OP, since he hit the ball into fair territory, and the interference was on the throw attempt after the ball was fielded. If he was a "batter", which I think in FED he would be if the throw was an initial throw (or pitch) by the pitcher,  the rule 5 Delayed Dead Ball Table would then apply, in which case "the runner is out, unless two outs, then the batter is out". Again, in my interp of this OP, this does not apply, and the penalty for the BR as a RUNNER applies, in which case I can legitimately grab two outs..

For FED guys, does this sound like decent logic? Man, this was a thinker! Again, thanks for sharing!

I think you might be putting the cart before the horse.

First, think of the parameters involved. You have a batter-runner and a fielder fielding a thrown ball. Because of the latter,  you have to figure out intent. All of those play into a) if this is legal or not, and b) what the penalty is. 

[Rich Ives]

When the ball was hit it went down then kicked out to F1.   Both the batter and catcher thought it was by the plate.  

It hit something. that kicked it out to the pitcher. What did it hit?

[Mussgrass]

19 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

When the ball was hit it went down then kicked out to F1.   Both the batter and catcher thought it was by the plate.  

It hit something. that kicked it out to the pitcher. What did it hit?

I saw it first hit the ground beside the mound. It does look like it may have felt weird to the BR the way he looked at the bat. It was definitely a cleanly batted ball. 

[ArchAngel72]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

I understand your rationale here, but ...if you really watch close, it DOES appear he has not clue when he hits the ball because he 'pool cues' it ....

 

Is there nothing on Interference whether intentional or not?

I thought it was either.

 

[Thunderheads]

23 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

When the ball was hit it went down then kicked out to F1.   Both the batter and catcher thought it was by the plate.  

It hit something. that kicked it out to the pitcher. What did it hit?

it hit nothing, ... he 'cued' it off the end of the bat ......

[maven]

4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Is there room for NCAA 8-5q here?

 

All codes have a comparable provision, which I've always interpreted to apply to non-players (and possibly retired/scored runners).

I'm rethinking that interp based on the last sentence of (q): it includes the batter. I guess NCAA (and perhaps other codes) could extend that to the BR once the ball is put in play.

Reading it that way would certainly make the ruling here easy.

[BravoUmp]

This is a Facebook post from UTD Umpires JG Utd Instructor Lee‎  regarding this particular play:

 This play is NOTHING.

I know that this is an unpopular answer to this play, but the correct call here is no interference. For the NCAA we will use rule 8-5-d, and for OBR 6.01(a)(10). Both rules talk about how to have interference on a thrown ball, the act by the runner must be INTENTIONAL. I know there was some discussion about the fact that the batter-runner did not run immediately so by that alone he should be called out for interference. That would be incorrect here. You would need to judge that his action was something intentional. There is no rule that will back you to call him out simply because he did not immediately run.

We can NOT use any rule that talks about better’s interference here; once the ball was batted this player is no longer a batter, but a batter-runner.

Also, since this player is an active runner, we can’t use the rule that pertains to members off the offensive team not vacating a space for a fielder to make a play. That rule applies to on-deck hitters, coaches, runners who have already been put out and for a batter after the pitch has crossed the plate.

There were a couple responses talking about obstruction here. I like how we are looking at and evaluating the entire play, but there is no OBS on this play. There is definitely the potential for it, should the ball have already passed the catcher or gone to another base, but there is nothing here. The ball was in fight directly toward and near the fielder, where he needed to occupy his position. He is considered to be in the act of fielding a thrown ball.

This play was sent to the NCAA, MiLB and MLB. All three (independently) came back with a no-call here, citing the rule mentioned above about the interference needing to be intentional. And all three made the determination that the runner’s actions were not intentional here.

While this is definitely a unique play, and everything we’ve been taught about common sense and fair would lead us immediately to call interference here, we need to fully understand the rule and how to apply it. Common sense and fair play can only apply if we have a rule to back us. Both ends of the stick here are dirty, and this end is definitely the dirtier end (in the public opinion). But it’s better to make the unpopular call and be supported by rule, then to make the favorable call and learn after the fact that you were incorrect.

One final note here, if you should have this play in the future, and you deem the batter-runner did intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, you will call him out and return the runner(s) to their bases occupied at the time of the pitch (INT by the BR before reaching first base, runner(s) return to TOP). You would not call R3 out and award the BR first base. That rule only applies when the runner is stealing home or there is a passed ball, wild pitch and the batter interferes.

[noumpere]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

Pretty easy INT, imo.

D'oh!

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

I've got nothing... literally, work IT blocks the link so I can't see it.

Or maybe that's just interference?

Robot umpires ... 

 

[The Man in Blue]

I'm really wondering if I am seeing the same play ... somebody mentioned the ball hitting straight down, somebody mentioned the ball going off the tip of the bat ...

Watching it in full speed on the first viewing: I'm seeing a little line drive to the 1st base side of the pitchers mound.  The batter initially thinks he fouled it off (OK).  Then he picks up the ball, looks directly at the play coming in, and then (to me) appears to square up and make an attempt to bunt the incoming throw.  Watch his hands and the bat.

Sorry, I've got INT and 2 outs all day every day if I am calling this game.