Batter-Runner Interference

[Guest GettingitRight21]

Runner on first with one out. Batter hits a very short pop up just fair in front of home plate. Catcher catches the ball and attempts to double up the base runner at first. The thrown ball hits the batsman running to first in the back of the helmet deflecting the ball several feet into foul territory. The runner at first had returned to first base when the batter was struck running to first. The base runner advances to second base when the ball was deflected. Almost immediately (after the batter was struck by the thrown ball) the home plate umpire steps out into the field and raises both arms as if to signal a stoppage of play. The batter was out because the pop up was caught in the air. The runner at first was also called out due to interference and essentially completing the double play. Is this the correct call?

The batsman was running down the line and the catcher was 4 ft. out in front of home plate. Seems like the catcher had plenty of room to throw to first base without hitting the batsman who is entitled to a direct path to first base. 
 

Wasn’t the ball legally in play and shouldn’t the base runner be able to stay at second base? Or, at least if the ball had been called dead, the base runner returned to first base?

Thanks!

[noumpere]

IF the retired B was in the running lane, the ball should have been left live.  IF not, there might be some discussion, depending on the code.

 

[quote]Or, at least if the ball had been called dead, the base runner returned to first base? [/quote]

That's the least likely option -- either this was INT and R1 is out, or this wasn't INT and the ball is left live

[Lou B]

If the batter was only 4 feet up the line there is no running lane violation, the running lane starts well down the first base line.

If the batter didn't intentionally interfere with the throw the ball is live, batter out runner on second.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

IF the retired B was in the running lane, the ball should have been left live.

Doesn't RLI only apply to a batter-runner?

[noumpere]

Just now, Velho said:

Doesn't RLI only apply to a batter-runner?

I remember some discussion on whether it also applies to a retired B -- as long as the ball is being thrown to first base.  I am away from my reference materials at the moment to look up the specifics.  Thus, the second sentence in my post.

 

14 minutes ago, Lou B said:

If the batter was only 4 feet up the line there is no running lane violation,

 

Agreed -- but the OP says the catcher was 4' out in front of jome plate; no mention if where the B was

[Senor Azul]

I posted the following text just a month ago! 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.

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.

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 did not identify the rule set that governed his game.

[Jimurray]

10 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

 

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 did not identify the rule set that governed his game.

This quote from Carl is not exactly correct. If the throw that hits him comes from F3 toward HP he doesn't have to be in the running lane and won't be guilty of INT if he is still running the bases. The reasoning in FED and possibly the other codes is that he has to be in the running lane only if a play is being made to 1B even if that play isn't on him.

[SH0102]

9 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

This quote from Carl is not exactly correct. If the throw that hits him comes from F3 toward HP he doesn't have to be in the running lane and won't be guilty of INT if he is still running the bases. The reasoning in FED and possibly the other codes is that he has to be in the running lane only if a play is being made to 1B even if that play isn't on him.

Great example of this in MLB last year, can’t remember which player but was white Sox, batter running to 1st “inside” the line, but not yet to 45’, throw home from f3 hit him.  
 

Was a whole lot of nothing unless deemed intentional by batter but Close Call did a video on it, I’m sure someone could post it

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

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.

Thanks @Senor Azul. Though, I don't see the basis for Wendelstedt to make that interpretation since the running lane is defined under "5.09 Making an Out (a) Retiring the Batter".

51 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

Was a whole lot of nothing unless deemed intentional by batter but Close Call did a video on it, I’m sure someone could post it

https://www.closecallsports.com/2021/10/sorry-stros-rli-doesnt-apply-on-plays.html

While I was there, they also have this, this, this, and this.

[maven]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

Though, I don't see the basis for Wendelstedt to make that interpretation since the running lane is defined under "5.09 Making an Out (a) Retiring the Batter".

What's the issue? His interpretation applies the RLI rule to a retired batter who is, also by interpretation, entitled to run to 1B even though he's out on the K.

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

What's the issue? His interpretation applies the RLI rule to a retired batter who is, also by interpretation, entitled to run to 1B even though he's out on the K.

The issue is the penalty for RLI--it's strictly defined. The BR is out, other runners return; there's no provision to get an out on any other runner by rule.

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, Matt said:

The issue is the penalty for RLI--it's strictly defined. The BR is out, other runners return; there's no provision to get an out on any other runner by rule.

I don't think they are applying the RLI rule for a penalty. They are using it to judge "normal" baserunning on the part of the retired runner. It is kind of a stretch to apply it only when the ball is being thrown to 1B to get another runner when a throw from 1B to get an R3 trying to score would not need the retired runner in the lane to excuse him from any unintentional interference.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, maven said:

4 hours ago, Velho said:

Though, I don't see the basis for Wendelstedt to make that interpretation since the running lane is defined under "5.09 Making an Out (a) Retiring the Batter".

What's the issue? His interpretation applies the RLI rule to a retired batter who is, also by interpretation, entitled to run to 1B even though he's out on the K.

The rule cited, by definition, applies to an unretired batter so isn't applicable. Wendelstedt's argument (as presented) is weak. At least take  @Jimurray argument an extend it to being outside the running lane indicates intentionality to interfere such that the play is evaluated under retired runner interference rules, which is what this is.

[maven]

15 hours ago, Velho said:

The rule cited, by definition, applies to an unretired batter so isn't applicable. Wendelstedt's argument (as presented) is weak. At least take  @Jimurray argument an extend it to being outside the running lane indicates intentionality to interfere such that the play is evaluated under retired runner interference rules, which is what this is.

It's not an argument, it's an interpretation. It doesn't require defense, because it has authority.

And that's what our pal in the forum lacks. 

You don't have to like the interpretation.

17 hours ago, Matt said:

The issue is the penalty for RLI--it's strictly defined. The BR is out, other runners return; there's no provision to get an out on any other runner by rule.

I get that. The interpretation extends the concept. That's not unprecedented.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Velho, I really don’t understand your objection to the OI from Wendelstedt. Why do you see it as weak? After all it is based on the rule 6.01(a)(5) which tells us that if a retired runner interferes that another runner will be declared out for that interference—

2021 OBR  6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions

(a) Batter or Runner Interference

It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see Rule 6.01(j));

In addition, I have already shown that high school rules the same way and so does the NCAA in its rule 5-3 Penalty 2. So, all three major codes agree that a retired runner can legally continue to run the bases but the base running rules would still apply to him.

[Jimurray]

9 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Velho, I really don’t understand your objection to the OI from Wendelstedt. Why do you see it as weak? After all it is based on the rule 6.01(a)(5) which tells us that if a retired runner interferes that another runner will be declared out for that interference—

2021 OBR  6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions

(a) Batter or Runner Interference

It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see Rule 6.01(j));

In addition, I have already shown that high school rules the same way and so does the NCAA in its rule 5-3 Penalty 2. So, all three major codes agree that a retired runner can legally continue to run the bases but the base running rules would still apply to him.

The running lane rule only applies to the play on an unretired B-R when the ball is being fielded to 1B to retire him. Carl and Wendelstedt want the retired B-R in the lane when the ball is being fielded to 1B to retire another runner at 1B but don't require the retired B-R to be in the lane (but still running the bases) when the ball is being fielded from 1B to HP to get another runner. But, as @mavensays, that's the interp.

[The Man in Blue]

On 5/29/2022 at 7:24 AM, maven said:

It's not an argument, it's an interpretation. It doesn't require defense, because it has authority.

And that's what our pal in the forum lacks. 

You don't have to like the interpretation.

I get that. The interpretation extends the concept. That's not unprecedented.

 

I am not diving too deep into the actual play, but rather I want to look at the logic being used.  The logic stated by here by @maven is what I find to be one of the most problematic issues in umpiring.

Wendelstadt is being granted "authority" because of his name and position.  Yet, he fails to support that authority with citations.  I'm not saying he doesn't have credence ... I'm saying that too many people take word as gospel and don't bother to look for support.  One of my favorite examples of this is "the pitcher makes a pickoff throw to a fielder 20 feet off a base."  That has NEVER been a rule and has only been mentioned as a circumstance/description of the action in a theoretical case play/interp (off the top of my head, I forget which and would need to look it up), yet certain crowds drew a line 20 feet off a base and applied it.  What if the fielder is 19 feet away?  21 feet?

As @Velho and @Jimurray have pointed out, the runner's lane is for a live batter-runner.  I understand what Wendelstadt was going for, using it as a frame of reference to say a retired runner -- under certain circumstances -- is allowed to run, so you should consider this ... but even bringing it up becomes problematic because some umpire will now think that is a condition (requirement) and allow RLI to overrule the fact that we have retired runner interference.

Interps and case plays should require support on how they reach their conclusion.  Simply saying "this famous person said so" doesn't cut it.

[maven]

9 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Yet, he fails to support that authority with citations.

I don't think you know what 'authority' means. 

[The Man in Blue]

I know what authority means.  As a student of history, I have serious issues with people who follow authority blindly.  It didn't turn out to well in mid-1900s Germany and it isn't working out too well here today.

Supreme Court Justices do not just issue a ruling, they provide explanation as to why they do or do not agree.  Providing explanations for an interpretation is not too much to ask, particularly when some schools of thought want to grab trivial minutiae in a comment and claim it is rule.

I don't recall what case play it was, but I recently read a case play that referenced "the first baseman is batting."  Does that mean the rule does not apply to any other player, just first basemen?

Why do we allow players to put batting gloves and sliding mitts in their back pocket?  That equipment is not designed to be worn in the back pocket AND we have a case play on wristbands that emphasizes the fact that NO equipment should be worn improperly.

These are misapplications that somebody will latch on to, like applying the use of the runner's lane to a retired runner.  Using the actual rules to explain this makes those situations avoidable.

Like I said, I think I know what he was getting at by mentioning RLI, but providing citations and explaining why you are applying a seemingly unrelated rule would go so much further.  As it stands, umpires will apply RLI to retired runners instead of retired runner's interference ... which results in an incorrect penalty (as evidenced above by people claiming you could not call out another runner).