December Referee Mag baseball case play

[jms1425]

Case Play #3

R1, 1 out

"B3 hits a wind-blown pop-up to F4; R1 moves toward 2nd, but sees the ball will likely be caught and retreats toward 1st.F3 is looking up at the ball and sees it drifting toward him but is not ready to make a play when R1 bumps into F3 and both fall to the ground. After F4 makes the catch, he flips to F1 covering for an apparent double play."

The Ruling provided is fine, at least until the last line, which caused me some confusion. In short, it says that if the umpire judges that F3 was the protected fielder on this play, the double play would stand.

If F3 is the protected fielder, R1 is out on interference. Interference is an immediate dead ball, so the catch by F4 is now irrelevant. B3 would be awarded 1st. Rule 8-5-d says if the runner intentionally interferes, then both the runner and the batter are out, but the case play does not state the interference was intentional.

Thoughts?

[maven]

You didn't provide the ruling.

[Thunderheads]

9 hours ago, jms1425 said:

Case Play #3

R1, 1 out

"B3 hits a wind-blown pop-up to F4; R1 moves toward 2nd, but sees the ball will likely be caught and retreats toward 1st.F3 is looking up at the ball and sees it drifting toward him but is not ready to make a play when R1 bumps into F3 and both fall to the ground. After F4 makes the catch, he flips to F1 covering for an apparent double play."

The Ruling provided is fine, at least until the last line, which caused me some confusion. In short, it says that if the umpire judges that F3 was the protected fielder on this play, the double play would stand.

If F3 is the protected fielder, R1 is out on interference. Interference is an immediate dead ball, so the catch by F4 is now irrelevant. B3 would be awarded 1st. Rule 8-5-d says if the runner intentionally interferes, then both the runner and the batter are out, but the case play does not state the interference was intentional.

Thoughts?

Either I haven't had enough coffee, or ............  

[noumpere]

53 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Either I haven't had enough coffee, or ............  

The part you bolded is jms' interpretation / ruling on the play. not the wording from RefMag.    RefMag's ruling is in his previous paragraph ("in short ... the double play would stand.")

 

Jms' reference to 8-5-d seems to be from NCAA, which does state to get a double play only if the runner intentionally interferes with a double play likely.  That's different from the FED ruling (get a double play if it's likely, regardless of intent)

 

[Thunderheads]

6 minutes ago, noumpere said:

The part you bolded is jms' interpretation / ruling on the play. not the wording from RefMag.    RefMag's ruling is in his previous paragraph ("in short ... the double play would stand.")

 

Yes, ...I realized that ........

Thanks!

[jms1425]

Sorry, all - I posted as though everyone has Referee Magazine, which was a dumb assumption..... Let me clarify and summarize the magazine's somewhat more wordy ruling:

The MAGAZINE'S ruling says the umpire must judge which fielder is protected (F3 or F4):

If protecting F4, then call obstruction on F3, though R1 would only be awarded 1st (Type 2 obs, so award the base the runner would have attained had the obstruction not occurred.)

 

Alternatively, if the umpire judges that F3 was the protected fielder on this play, "the double play would stand."

 

MY INTERPRETATION of this play agrees with the magazine if F4 is protected. HOWEVER, if F3 is the protected fielder, R1 is out on interference. Interference is an immediate dead ball, so the catch by F4 is now irrelevant. B3 would be awarded 1st. Rule 8-5-d says if the runner intentionally interferes, then both the runner and the batter are out, but the case play does not state the interference was intentional.

 

Is that more clear? And what are your thoughts on the ruling?

 

[jms1425]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

...

Jms' reference to 8-5-d seems to be from NCAA, which does state to get a double play only if the runner intentionally interferes with a double play likely.  That's different from the FED ruling (get a double play if it's likely, regardless of intent)

 

Correct, which is why I placed it in the collegiate forum.

[Stk004]

On 12/3/2020 at 8:26 AM, jms1425 said:

Sorry, all - I posted as though everyone has Referee Magazine, which was a dumb assumption..... Let me clarify and summarize the magazine's somewhat more wordy ruling:

The MAGAZINE'S ruling says the umpire must judge which fielder is protected (F3 or F4):

If protecting F4, then call obstruction on F3, though R1 would only be awarded 1st (Type 2 obs, so award the base the runner would have attained had the obstruction not occurred.)

 

Alternatively, if the umpire judges that F3 was the protected fielder on this play, "the double play would stand."

 

MY INTERPRETATION of this play agrees with the magazine if F4 is protected. HOWEVER, if F3 is the protected fielder, R1 is out on interference. Interference is an immediate dead ball, so the catch by F4 is now irrelevant. B3 would be awarded 1st. Rule 8-5-d says if the runner intentionally interferes, then both the runner and the batter are out, but the case play does not state the interference was intentional.

 

Is that more clear? And what are your thoughts on the ruling?

 

I agree with you. However, I'd be careful saying "Interference is an immediate dead ball, so the catch by F4 is now irrelevant." We still need to wait for a Fair/Foul decision before we call time, especially if it's windy like the play describes. You say B3 is awarded first, which is correct assuming it's a fair ball. 

I always think of this play when I hear scenarios like this one: