1st base occupied - 1 out - dropped 3rd strike - batter/runner interference

[Guest Ihsabok]

12yo baseball...  One out, with a runner on 1st base. Batter swings at strike 3 and ball is dropped by the catcher. The offensive coach yells at the kid to "run!" The batter begins to run to 1st and the catcher (a bit confused) throws to 1st base, but just before reaching, the ball strikes the batter-runner in the helmet, and the ball is deflected into right field. The 1st base runner, advances and scores. The batter-runner was out on strike 3. The question is what happens AFTER the batter-runner is struck.  I've spoken (afterwards) to 3 different umpires with 3 different interpretations.

Umpire 1: Despite the coach yelling at their batter-runner to run, the cacher should not have thrown. Ball is live. The 1B runner scores, the batter-runner was out on strike 3.
Umpire 2: As soon as the ball struck the batter-runner, the ball is dead since the retired-batter runner is out of the batter's box. 1B runner returns to 1B (or it was debated... maybe awarded 2B...)
Umpire 3: Since the batter-runner is out of the batter's box, and in the throwing lane (to which the catcher could be attempting a back-pick to the 1B runner) the batter INTERFERED with the play being out of the box AND in the throwing lane. Because it would be the next closest runner to home plate, the 1B runner would ALSO be called out on interference for 2 outs on the play.

[maven]

We've addressed this recently. The batter is out: announce it. Beyond that, play the bounce.

Umpires 2 and 3 are using the MSU rulebook.

 

[beerguy55]

Running Lane Interference can only apply to a batter/runner.   Since the batter was out on strike three, he's not a runner.  He's not a batter.  He's not a retired runner.  He's a retired batter.

And a retired runner/batter has some latitude in the interference department, provided they're simply advancing the bases as they normally would - which is what happened here.   So, it's nothing.

Editorial: If the defense is expected to know the situation and know that that batter is out, due to first base being occupied, by extension then the batter should also be expected to know he is out, meaning he has no reason to run.  IMO, I'd like to see guidance/ruling that says in cases like this any advancement by the batter is not normal/appropriate, which would lower the bar for interference.   (retired runner/batter interference does not require intent)

 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 349, p. 232):

FED Official Interpretation:  Rumble:  R1, one out. B1 strikes out, but drops the ball. BR starts for first, and the catcher’s throw hits him: (a) inside the running lane; or (b) not in the running lane. Ruling:  in (a), there is no interference unless BR deliberately got hit by the ball. The ball remains alive. In (b), BR is guilty of interference. The ball is dead, and he is declared out. R1 returns TOP unless he had reached second at the time of the interference.

Note 325:  Don’t be confused by the OI. The batter is declared out:  he was out the moment he swung for strike three. In (a), he’s inside the lane so there’s no additional penalty: R1 might go on to third. The point:  The catcher should have known not to play on BR. But in (b), BR is out of the lane: His interference kills the ball and prevents R1 from advancing.

[Velho]

21 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

IMO, I'd like to see guidance/ruling that says in cases like this any advancement by the batter is not normal/appropriate, which would lower the bar for interference.

Agreed. If this resulted in runners being out we can be assured coaches will finally figure it out and teach it! Lol

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 349, p. 233):

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  Interference may be called on a batter-runner who is already out if he interferes with a play being made back into first while he is outside of the running lane. The runner on whom the play is being made (R1) is out.

So it is not as cut and dried as Mr. maven would have you believe. A batter-runner, even one who is already out, has to follow the baserunning rules. If he is not in the running lane then he is in jeopardy of being called for interference—at all levels. Please note that our guest only identified his scenario as 12yo baseball, not whether it was FED or OBR.

[cjroman]

I agree with @beerguy55sentiments...if the defense is responsible, the offense should be also and a lower level of culpability for Interference should come into play, especially when two of three coaches are screaming RUN, RUN, RUN...because isn't that something that " interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play"?

I've had a couple 11u/12u coaches tell their kids "Just run on ANY" uncaught third strike. I'll usually circle back with the coach and ask them if it wouldn't be better to properly teach the players the rule, and it can benefit them even more defensively by ignoring the unexpected runner (who's out anyway) and try to get the other potential outs if there is,a runner on first of first and second and they try to advance...some get it, some don't.  Either way, it's an amazingly misunderstood rule at all levels. 

[MadMax]

3 hours ago, Guest Ihsabok said:

The offensive coach yells at the kid to "run!" The batter begins to run to 1st and the catcher (a bit confused) throws to 1st base… 

 

54 minutes ago, cjroman said:

Interference should come into play, especially when two of three coaches are screaming RUN, RUN, RUN...

Guys, where is the umpire in this? You know, the guy standing behind the catcher, who’s supposed to know the rule(s), rapidly read and recognize a play as it progresses, and who should be, at the very least, signaling an Out (of BR) and calling, “He’s (Batter) out! He’s out! He’s still out! (First base occupied! (Or some variation))”

If the umpire says something even remotely akin to this, that F2 doesn’t throw… and if he does, he does so attempting to make a play on R1, not the BRWIAtRB.* 

“Quit swallowing your whistle!”

* - Batter Runner Who Is Actually the Retired Batter

[cjroman]

This Umpire is doing all those things you highlight above...signaling the batter out...and repeating, pointing and signaling the batter is out...2,3,4 or five times...sometimes little Tommy behind the plate still sees the Red Mist and just hears Coach Testerone...or Mommy screaming and that  BRWIAtRB is doing the same in his own world.  

[maven]

11 hours ago, cjroman said:

I agree with @beerguy55sentiments...if the defense is responsible, the offense should be also and a lower level of culpability for Interference should come into play, especially when two of three coaches are screaming RUN, RUN, RUN...because isn't that something that " interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play"?

Disagree. It's black letter rule that a runner is NOT guilty of INT merely for continuing to run the bases after being retired.

[noumpere]

Is this (or should this) be consistent with the "batter flies out, and is hit by the throw to retire R3 while (a) cutting across the diamond to get to his dugout, or (b) while continuing to advance toward second in the base path" rulings?

[RBIbaseball]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Is this (or should this) be consistent with the "batter flies out, and is hit by the throw to retire R3 while (a) cutting across the diamond to get to his dugout, or (b) while continuing to advance toward second in the base path" rulings?

I think it's significantly different in the sense that in those examples, the defense is attempting to make a play on the another runner and the retired runner interferes with that play.

Whereas in these D3k confusion scenarios, the defense is trying to make a play on the BRWIAtRB© (who interferes with the play on himself) that technically isn't a play at all because there is no play to be had. Assuming no gamesmanship, both teams are confused and should know the situation and understand the rules, so who gets penalized / protected?

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, maven said:

Disagree. It's black letter rule that a runner is NOT guilty of INT merely for continuing to run the bases after being retired.

And that's all the "black letter" rule says...that merely continuing to run the bases "by that act alone" is not confusing, hindering or impeding...but he didn't just run the bases, as a solitary act, did he?  He ran the bases AND got in the way of the throw/catch.   

It's open to interpretation and could be clarified to further apply that standard to both the defense and the offense - if the defense is expected to know the batter is out, so is the offense.  The defense has no reason to throw (as far as the batter is concerned), and shouldn't.  The offense (specifically, the batter) has no reason to run, and shouldn't.   This is not a case of judgment where a runner could reasonably believe they were safe, or called safe, or otherwise not know what an umpire ruled on a judgment call, and reasonably be expected/allowed to continue running the bases.    The batter is out by rule - there's no explanation for sprinting to first that doesn't involve either not knowing the rules, not knowing the situation (ie. forgot there was r1 or number of outs) or trying to draw a throw.

At that point, the On Deck Batter has as much reason to run the bases as this retired batter does.

Hold the defense and offense to the same standard.

Call R1 out, put him back on first...don't care.  But don't give the offense a free pass for not knowing any better, and then blame the defense for not knowing any better.

[noumpere]

16 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I think it's significantly different in the sense that in those examples, the defense is attempting t

 

in the OP, there's an R1 who then advances.  F2 might have been playing on R1.

 

[RBIbaseball]

12 minutes ago, noumpere said:

in the OP, there's an R1 who then advances.  F2 might have been playing on R1.

 

It's possible, and in that scenario there is a parallel. But I think it's very unlikely that is the case most of the time. R1 is probably 2/3 way to 2B when F2 makes that throw to 1B and it deflects (surely he is running as well since all the coaches are yelling to run). But I will concede, we don't know because OP didn't specify.

[RBIbaseball]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

At that point, the On Deck Batter has as much reason to run the bases as this retired batter does.

Hold the defense and offense to the same standard.

Call R1 out, put him back on first...don't care.  But don't give the offense a free pass for not knowing any better, and then blame the defense for not knowing any better.

I think you make a great argument, so I am curious as to your opinion of a similar (yet distinctly different) situation I had last night.

I was BU. We had R2 and 0 out. Batter swings and missed for strike 3. Ball is very low and outside sweeper, I see catcher make a clean catch but it was close (PU was blocked out). I signal to my PU that I saw a clean catch (PU doesn't verbalize any out, just lets the play go, but doesn't look at me). Coaches yell Run! Catcher doesn't want to throw because he knows he caught it clean. Defensive coach reacts to offensive coach and yells to throw to 1B. Catcher listens to coach. R2 advances to 3B on the throw to first, and slides in safe of the relay back to F5 in attempt to put him out.

I tried to make a verbal call to make it clear to my partner what I saw, but at that point the commotion was there and the catcher was committed and tunnel vision'ed on his coach. (maybe I should have just done that from the get go, I'm not sure, but i gave him a silent signal instead initially)

EDIT: to clarify, PU said he wasn't 100% sure but he thought it was caught, and said he had the B/R out from the beginning... there was no appeal to me, I just happened to be the one that explained it to the coach, because the PU wasn't confident enough to do that himself and came to me for help dealing with the coach

Regardless, the defense argued that R2 should have to return to 2B because he only advanced due to the BRWIAtRB© advancing to 1B (in this case you cannot blame the B/R, because the base was open, and it was not an obvious catch). After a brief exchange of defensive coach arguing the PU not more clearly calling him out should put the runner back at 2B, I decided the ball was live and the runner advanced legally and that I wasn't sending him back. Coach unhappily accepted and moved on.

 

Would you send the runner back in this situation, due to our "lack" of umpiring? Did the offense interfere through confusion / verbal hinderance?

[noumpere]

6 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I tried to make a verbal call to make it clear,

[deleted]

 

Would you send the runner back in this situation, due to our "lack" of umpiring? Did the offense interfere through confusion / verbal hinderance?

1) Not your call; that's PU's job

2) Do not send the runner back.

[RBIbaseball]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

1) Not your call; that's PU's job

2) Do not send the runner back.

So, should I continue to give that silent signal for him to check with me if he wants? I feel like I've read that as a "good to do" mechanic. Hypothetically the B/R reaches 1B, and defense argues the ball was caught, I would still only intervene/give what I saw if the PU comes to me willingly, correct?

He was newer than I was, and first time I ever worked with him. He was struggling a tad throughout.

[Tborze]

5 minutes ago, noumpere said:

1) Not your call; that's PU's job

2) Do not send the runner back.

As PU, would you honor an appeal on the U3K?

[noumpere]

38 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

So, should I continue to give that silent signal for him to check with me if he wants?

Yes, until PU acknowldedges it (or waves it off), or it's clear he's not going to look at you.

36 minutes ago, Tborze said:

As PU, would you honor an appeal on the U3K?

I don't know what "appeal" means here --- do you mean would I go to my partner after the fact to see what he has?  Depends on what I saw as PU.

[ArchAngel72]

Being this is 12U 

Around LL Majors

Would it be obscene to once the ball careened off the helmet to call time and stop play, to make sure no one moved and there was no more errors going on with the play?

 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, RBIbaseball said:

I think you make a great argument, so I am curious as to your opinion of a similar (yet distinctly different) situation I had last night.

 

Regardless, the defense argued that R2 should have to return to 2B because he only advanced due to the BRWIAtRB© advancing to 1B (in this case you cannot blame the B/R, because the base was open, and it was not an obvious catch). After a brief exchange of defensive coach arguing the PU not more clearly calling him out should put the runner back at 2B, I decided the ball was live and the runner advanced legally and that I wasn't sending him back. Coach unhappily accepted and moved on.

 

Would you send the runner back in this situation, due to our "lack" of umpiring? Did the offense interfere through confusion / verbal hinderance?

For me the big difference is the batter is not out "by rule" - that is, there is a possible scenario (which occurred) where the batter doesn't know (isn't sure) K3 was caught, and could run, because 1B is open - so, IMO, it's reasonable to allow/expect the batter to run here.   There's no hindrance by the offense.  The B/R genuinely doesn't know he's out.

And, frankly, even for the catcher, sure, maybe he KNOWS he caught the ball...but that doesn't mean the umpire knows...we can't expect the defense to act on their own judgment...they need to know the umpire's judgment...if the umpire determines K3 wasn't caught it doesn't matter a single iota what the catcher "knows".   So it's reasonable for him to throw as well.  Neither the offense nor defense should be expected to guess/assume the umpire's judgment, nor held accountable for guessing wrong.  If the players aren't told a runner is out, they have to assume him safe.  If you were to go the other way...if F2 didn't throw the ball, and R1 reached first safely, and then it was learned PU ruled it UK3 and stuck with the call, then it would be F2's fault for not tagging or throwing out the runner.  It can't be F2's fault in both scenarios, can it?

As to how to remedy...IMO, this was caused by a pure lack of PU communication. If PU had made any type of attempt to indicate the batter was out, then let the play stand.  I'm not seeing that in your description.   The PU believed it was K3 caught, and that B/R was out, and the onus is on him to clearly communicate that to the players on the field...it's part of the job description.   It's not on you, at that point, because in the moment you don't know his judgment - if he determines it wasn't caught, and doesn't want your help, so be it.

I think the runner should/could be sent back (in most levels).  You have to make an assumption that if PU clearly indicated it was caught, that the batter was out, none of the ensuing SH*#show happens.   I'd say your ruling was "technically" correct, and defensible, but not really to the spirit of the game.  B/R ran, F2 threw the ball, and R2 advanced SOLELY because the PU did not do his job.  If an umpire's error creates an advantage, correct it.  This is different than PU ruling a drop, and then after the play getting help and changing the call.  That's a potential part of the game and players are expected to accept that possibility.  (which is why your ruling is technically defensible)   This, OTOH, was of the PU's own making.

Of course, putting R2 back opens the can of worms - what if R2 had been thrown out in his attempted advance?  You have to put him back to be  consistent.  The PU's mistake still created an advantage, just to the other team.  You either always put him back, or never put him back.

 

[Thunderheads]

Is this a dead ball situation?

No.

How can you send him back?

just trying to wipe away all of the minutiae and get to basics on this

[beerguy55]

26 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Is this a dead ball situation?

No.

How can you send him back?

just trying to wipe away all of the minutiae and get to basics on this

Because the action played out due to the actions, or inaction, of the umpire.   If the plate umpire does his job, clearly communicating the batter is out, then no throw (likely) goes to first base.  The umpire created the conditions that led to R2 advancing to third.  Sure, we do know that there are times that no matter how loud/effective the umpire is the players still run and throw where they shouldn't.  But we don't know that here, because the ump didn't do his part.   What we know is the PU had a caught K3, had B/R out, and didn't tell anybody.  And as described, F2 only threw the ball because A) BRWIAtRB© was on his way to first and B) no appropriate authority figure has yet announced the batter to be out.  The umpire made a mistake that created an advantage for the offense - it can be corrected.

(it doesn't have to be, but I see no reason why it can't)

 

[Thunderheads]

10 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Because the action played out due to the actions, or inaction, of the umpire.   If the plate umpire does his job, clearly communicating the batter is out, then no throw (likely) goes to first base.  The umpire created the conditions that led to R2 advancing to third.  Sure, we do know that there are times that no matter how loud/effective the umpire is the players still run and throw where they shouldn't.  But we don't know that here, because the ump didn't do his part.   What we know is the PU had a caught K3, had B/R out, and didn't tell anybody.

 

Ok, that's fair, and I understand, but ...

just like Infield Fly ... regardless of whether the umpire signals so, it's still in tact (the rule).  Same goes for this situation (R1, less than 2 outs, D3k = batters out)

[beerguy55]

1 minute ago, Thunderheads said:

Ok, that's fair, and I understand, but ...

just like Infield Fly ... regardless of whether the umpire signals so, it's still in tact (the rule).  Same goes for this situation (R1, less than 2 outs, D3k = batters out)

In the specific example by @RBIbaseballthere isn't R1, only R2