Dead or Live Ball

[Rollingwolf]

I was at a middle school game back during the spring checking out a pitcher and an unusual play occurred and I've been meaning to get clarification on the umpire's ruling which I disagree with.

Runner on 3rd base and a left-handed batter in the box. Pitcher throws a pitch and catcher catches the ball in from his knees nonchalantly flips the ball back toward the pitcher while the left-handed batter remained in the batter's box basically standing still. Runner at 3rd maintained his secondary lead down the line. The catcher's careless throw bounces off of the batter's helmet, not bat, and rolls out halfway to the pitcher who is now on the mound. The runner from 3rd alertly sees the play happen and scampers down the line sliding across home plate at which point the home plate umpire declares that it is a dead ball and sends runner back to 3rd base and erases run.

Batter in the box which he is entitled to be so why would this be declared dead ball situations. In between innings, I called umpire over as I know him from games at the high school level where I coach and ask him to explain this ruling. He was completely stumped and could not explain the reasoning behind his ruling.

Please give me clarification on this ruling. In my opinion the ball was never out of play and it should have been a live ball situation allowing the runner to advance.

 

[noumpere]

You should be umpiring instead of "checking out pitchers."

 

From MLBUM:

However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's
throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's
judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive
and in play.

[The Man in Blue]

IF there was interference on the batter, he is correct that it is a dead ball and the play is killed.  He is wrong that the runner goes back (somebody is getting called out; who is dependent on the number of outs).

... and that "big if" up there is because there was no interference on the batter's part.  There is a good and lively philosophical discussion on that going on in another thread ... but there was no interference.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Rollingwolf, most middle schools (if not all) use high school rules for their games. Unfortunately, the high school rule book (we just refer to it as FED) does not cover this specific instance of a batter interfering with a catcher’s toss back to the pitcher. However, there is a FED case book play that can help us to answer your question—

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 7.3.5 Situation E:  With less than two outs, R2 and B2 at the plate, R2 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch, (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R2 return to second? RULING:  B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to his position in the batter’s box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

When a rule set does not cover a particular situation we can look to the other rule sets for help. The OBR has official interpretations telling us how to handle this situation and the NCAA actually does have a rule--

7-11f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;

PENALTY for f.—The batter is out and all runners return to their bases at the time of the pitch.

Note: A batter’s actions must be intentional for there to be interference during a catcher’s return throw to the pitcher. If it is unintentional and the return throw to the pitcher hits the batter or his bat while he is in the batter’s box, the ball remains live and in play. If the batter does nothing intentional and no runners are attempting to advance, and the catcher’s return throw to the pitcher hits the batter or his bat while he is legally out of the batter’s box, it is not interference. The ball is immediately dead and all runners return without penalty.

[Senor Azul]

One of the more famous examples of this type of interference (or lack of) occurred in the 2015 ALDS between the Rangers and the Blue Jays--

ALDS, October 14, 2015, Game 5, Rangers at Toronto, top of the 7th, 2 outs. Rougned Odor is on third. Shin-Soo-Choo is at bat, 2-2 count. F2 Russell Martin’s return throw to the pitcher hits Choo’s hand and rolls toward third. Odor scampers home. After first signaling time, plate umpire Dale Scott consults with his crew and New York and allows the run. Martin is charged with an error. Ranger batter Choo was in the batter’s box and so was his bat—the catcher’s return toss hit him but it was not because of any intentional action on his part.

[Rollingwolf]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

You should be umpiring instead of "checking out pitchers."

 

From MLBUM:

However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's
throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's
judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive
and in play.

Well all of us can't be umpires, but if you were intending that as a compliment I will take it. Some of us folks have to do the coaching which I've been doing for over 20 years now. I was checking the pitcher out because he will be a freshman for me this upcoming season. He is going to be a good one I'm happy to say.

Thanks for clarification guys. There was definitely no intention as the batter was standing there with the bat on his shoulder looking out toward the pitcher waiting for him to catch the ball and deliver the next catch.

[beerguy55]

On 8/8/2022 at 3:13 PM, Senor Azul said:

One of the more famous examples of this type of interference (or lack of) occurred in the 2015 ALDS between the Rangers and the Blue Jays--

ALDS, October 14, 2015, Game 5, Rangers at Toronto, top of the 7th, 2 outs. Rougned Odor is on third. Shin-Soo-Choo is at bat, 2-2 count. F2 Russell Martin’s return throw to the pitcher hits Choo’s hand and rolls toward third. Odor scampers home. After first signaling time, plate umpire Dale Scott consults with his crew and New York and allows the run. Martin is charged with an error. Ranger batter Choo was in the batter’s box and so was his bat—the catcher’s return toss hit him but it was not because of any intentional action on his part.

For me, an interesting sidebar to this is the only reason Shin-Soo Choo was in the box was because of MLB's POE at the beginning of the season to have umpires keep batters in the box, in adherence with the letter of the rule.   If this game occurred in 2014 Choo would likely have been ten feet away adjusting his gloves and Martin's throw never would have hit him.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

If this game occurred in 2014 Choo would likely have been ten feet away adjusting his gloves and Martin's throw never would have hit him.

Agreed. Nomar is still adjusting his gloves from 2009

[MadMax]

On 8/8/2022 at 4:13 PM, Senor Azul said:

After first signaling time, plate umpire Dale Scott

It’s very poignant and important to point out, that because this sort of event or action happens so rarely, Dale Scott made a/the Time mechanic before Odor actually touched the plate! It’s one of those, “this don’t look right (or typical)” moments, and all of us are capable of reacting in a not-quite-correct way. 

On 8/8/2022 at 2:02 PM, Rollingwolf said:

at which point the home plate umpire declares that it is a dead ball and sends runner back to 3rd base and erases run.

So we need to emphasize that the PU in Question did not just get it wrong, but he called it wrong because of what he felt it should be instead of knowing what the rule is. It is a frequent mistake of amateur umpires. Granted, Harry Wendelstedt produced the anecdote by which OBR operates under – “Common sense and fair play” – but that’s primarily for instances wherein the particulars are not covered by a Rule. This, this has a rule. It’s a big heaping of “That’s nothing!” 

It’s important to guide the umpire (and other umpires) to not go looking for INT here; just because the catcher bonks the batter on the return throw doesn’t necessarily connote INT. 

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, MadMax said:

It’s very poignant and important to point out, the infrequent mistake of MLB umpires but stiil happens.

Doug Harvey was last of the pro breed that reviewed the book frequently

because this sort of event or action happens so rarely, Dale Scott made a/the Time mechanic before Odor actually touched the plate! It’s one of those, “this don’t look right (or typical)” moments, and all of us are capable of reacting in a not-quite-correct way. 

So we need to emphasize that the PU in Question did not just get it wrong, but he called it wrong because of what he felt it should be instead of knowing what the rule is. It is an infrequent mistake that still happens with MLB and the rest of us. But it is surprising when it happens with a pro ump.

[Thunderheads]

since we're talking about it .............

 

[beerguy55]

That seventh inning lasted one hour - you could make a movie about it and only add a bit of fluff at the beginning and end to have a 90 minute feature.

The bottom half of that inning featured three errors on consecutive plays, two by Elvis Andrus, and the Jose Bautista bat flip.

And the chaos of that inning started in the off season when MLB decided it wanted to stop its batters from leaving the box...