What a way to start a game...

[urout17]

Last night - American Legion Semi-Final playing under OBR - 18U

Top of the 1st, R1 and R2, nobody out, third batter up!  I'm in C.  Line drive base hit to right center. The throw from the outfielder is online but late as the runner from second scores easily.  The runner from first takes third on the throw to the plate and rounds the bag, the BR also rounds first.  Here's where it gets good.  As that first run scores and is totally clear of the dirt circle, the on-deck batter (the #4 hitter) made his way to the plate area to retrieve the bat.  As I said, the throw from the outfielder was online but short-hopped the catcher, bounced over his head and sails to the backstop. As the catcher spins around to get the ball he slams right into the on-deck batter, knocking the two of them over. My partner immediately calls time.

I'm not sure if we kicked this one or applied a rule incorrectly, but here's what we did.  Of course we have both HC's coming out (amazingly both calm) to see what we have. We both motion for them to hang on and let us sort this out and they both return to their dugouts (yes, it does happen once in awhile).  We know we have interference but our question was do we grab an out?  It was in both our judgments that it didn't matter if the player retrieving the bat did so intentionally or not since he shouldn't have been there during a live ball play in the first place. Since the catcher did not have an opportunity to make a play on the next potential run, we call the runner who was on his way to score out and place the BR at first since he didn't acquire 2B at the time of the throw from the outfielder or at the time of the interference.  We put the on-deck batter who started the whole mess up to bat and continue play, both coaches have no problem with what we ruled. 

After the game, I read thru OBR on interference and the closet I can find are rules 6.01 (b) and 6.01 (d) (attached).  I'm sure I'm missing something so any help is appreciated.

Thank you

 

[SH0102]

The relevant phrase here is the last sentence in (B) since we are dealing with a thrown ball, not a batted ball.

The only gray area I could see is that the throw was an attempt on R2 (as I read it) but the INT was clearly after he scored, so was the play actually on R1?  Do you erase the run?

I would have ruled exactly as you two did but I’m excited to see some more senior umpires chime in on this.

[The Man in Blue]

My initial reaction would have been the same as yours.

Tear the language apart about intent apart and let's see what we get though ...

WHO interfered?  The on-deck batter is a member of the offense and is authorized to be on the field and is participating in the game.  SO ... 6.01(d) Unintentional Interference (intended for non-team personnel) is not going to apply. 

We would go back up to 6.01(b) Fielder Right of Way.

The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.  Yes, that includes our guy, the on-deck hitter.

If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.  On-deck hitter hindered the catcher, check.  Catcher was going after a thrown ball, check.  You declared the ball dead, check.  Now it gets sticky and you need to apply some interpretation ... WHO was the runner being played on?  I can see a few directions to go here depending on your judgment.

• If you deem the play was on the runner who scored (it doesn't matter if the play had a viable chance) ... in this case, erase the run, call R2 out, R1 goes to third, and the BR goes to first.  (It is hard to say without having seen it, but this is the direction I am leaning for "the correct" answer.)
• If you deem the play was on R1 ... run scores, R1 is declared out, and the BR goes to first.
• If you deem there was no play (just an errant throw on an attempt to get the ball in) ... run scores, R1 on third, BR on first, no outs called.

 

In the course of this exercise, I did find something fascinating that I will keep in my back pocket.  While 6.01(d) is not about the team at bat (penalty-wise), the way it is written does provide us some guidance on intentional versus unintentional.  

The language in that rule completely changes the concept of "intent" as we (at least I) may traditionally be thinking of it.  The language in the rule really states intent is about intent to to get out of the way NOT intent to interfere.  "The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person's actions."  It goes on to say that an effort to get out of the way must be made for it to be considered unintentional "regardless of what his thought may have been."  In the "PLAY" section the language "... if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could do to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called."

[urout17]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

My initial reaction would have been the same as yours.

 

I'm glad you started your reply like this (it made me feel a little better, at least for a short time 🙂) and really appreciate you taking the time to supply your interpretation of an answer, it was very informative. I'm sure others will reply over time as well.  As my partner and I were going over the play, we had to come up with a solution since we were talking for what seemed like 15 minutes but in reality was about 5. We came to what we thought was a reasonable agreement (right or wrong) so we could get the game moving again.  I will definelty store this one is the back of my brain.  Thanks again.

[maven]

10 hours ago, urout17 said:

As the catcher spins around to get the ball he slams right into the on-deck batter, knocking the two of them over.

The rules you cited are not what you want. You want 6.01(a)(4):

Quote

Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates

Although we might naturally read "to confuse, hinder" etc. as "IN ORDER to confuse, hinder" etc., that's not the intent of the rule. Teammates shouldn't be there during play, and if they hinder play, it's INT.

So, IMO, you got it right. The on-deck batter clearly hindered play, and that's teammate INT.

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, maven said:

The rules you cited are not what you want. You want 6.01(a)(4):

Although we might naturally read "to confuse, hinder" etc. as "IN ORDER to confuse, hinder" etc., that's not the intent of the rule. Teammates shouldn't be there during play, and if they hinder play, it's INT.

So, IMO, you got it right. The on-deck batter clearly hindered play, and that's teammate INT.

6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions

(a) Batter or Runner Interference

It is interference by a batter a runner when:

(4)Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates;

 

I suppose you could use that one, but I don't think it is the right one.  Using that, there is no infraction until the on-deck batter got there and the collision happened.  By that point, the runner had already crossed the plate and no runner was advancing to the plate ... no interference.

As a coach, I would make the argument that he didn't "confuse, hinder, or add to the difficulty" as the runner had crossed the plate and nobody else was coming home ... he went up to get the bat.

With 6.01(b) Fielder Right of Way none of that matters as the infraction occurs while the catcher is attempting to field a thrown ball.  I'm not sure I am conveying what I am getting at since the time element is not explicit, but it is there.  Or maybe I am wrong.  😜

This is just an exercise in rule-interpretation as the penalty will be the same either way if you choose to apply it ... you are still going to get the same runner on the out either way.  Now you need to figure out which runner.