Jump to content

R3 stealing home, BI situation


udbrky
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 569 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

I figure I've probably seen 15,000 hours of baseball in my life - tv, umpiring, playing, watching live. You think you've seen every possible scenario and then you see a new one.

 

R2, R3. double steal, R3 coming home. Pitcher delivers and B4 (RHH) moves to the LH batter's box as pitch is 3/4 way home.

 

R3 slides and misses the plate. F2 misses the tag. R3 gets his hand in.

 

I call him safe, and am processing this whole fubar situation and F2 says "he can't do that right?" and I realize, "yeah, that's interference, you're out and send runners back."

 

Afterwards, I realize I forgot the pitch in the whole situation (it should have been strike 3).

 

Then I thought about it more as the day went and wondered if F2 tag2 R3 out, is the interference negated? Or does that just apply to the throw attempt?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure I've probably seen 15,000 hours of baseball in my life - tv, umpiring, playing, watching live. You think you've seen every possible scenario and then you see a new one.
 
R2, R3. double steal, R3 coming home. Pitcher delivers and B4 (RHH) moves to the LH batter's box as pitch is 3/4 way home.
 
R3 slides and misses the plate. F2 misses the tag. R3 gets his hand in.
 
I call him safe, and am processing this whole fubar situation and F2 says "he can't do that right?" and I realize, "yeah, that's interference, you're out and send runners back."
 
Afterwards, I realize I forgot the pitch in the whole situation (it should have been strike 3).
 
Then I thought about it more as the day went and wondered if F2 tag2 R3 out, is the interference negated? Or does that just apply to the throw attempt?

If NFHS, yes, the INT is ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Catch18 said:


If NFHS, yes, the INT is ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know about this on a play at home. I thought the play is dead the moment you call the interference at home. I don't think we're waiting for the play to unfold see the outcome before enforcing the interference. 

 

7 hours ago, udbrky said:

"yeah, that's interference, you're out and send runners back."

Less than two outs, R3 is out for batter's interference. R2 returns to 2b. 

If two outs, the batter is out. 

If less than two outs and strike three, you have both R3 and BR out, R2 returns (if there were no outs to start)

on second thought......

This one's got a little twist in it though, because the interference actually occurs prior to the pitch crossing the plate. Perhaps we should just apply the rule for a batter switching sides when a pitcher is ready to pitch, and call the batter out, kill it right there, send the runners back. In which case you were 100% right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

This one's got a little twist in it though, because the interference actually occurs prior to the pitch crossing the plate. Perhaps we should just apply the rule for a batter switching sides when a pitcher is ready to pitch, and call the batter out, kill it right there, send the runners back. In which case you were 100% right

I was thinking of that, too, and I think you're right. When I looked at 6.06(b), the rule states that a batter is out when "he steps from one batters box to the other while the pitcher is in position ready to pitch." But after reading that, I thought it only applied if the pitch was not thrown.

However, after reading the interp in the WUM, I think it may apply.

Here's what it says page 144, (in part): "The batter may switch from one batter's box to the other, at any time the pitcher is not prepared to deliver a pitch. He may not do so while the pitcher has started his delivery or if he is on the pitcher's plate and prepared to pitch the ball [6.06(d)]." (The WUM references 6.06(d) in this passage, but I think that is a typo. I think they meant to write 6.06(b). 6.06(d) refers to an illegal bat.) I think this could apply during the course of the pitch.

So I think in this case, the batter is not out for interference, but rather for illegal action. Same penalty, kill it, call the batter out, return runners to TOP base(s).

Thoughts?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JonnyCat said:

I was thinking of that, too, and I think you're right. When I looked at 6.06(b), the rule states that a batter is out when "he steps from one batters box to the other while the pitcher is in position ready to pitch." But after reading that, I thought it only applied if the pitch was not thrown.

However, after reading the interp in the WUM, I think it may apply.

Here's what it says page 144, (in part): "The batter may switch from one batter's box to the other, at any time the pitcher is not prepared to deliver a pitch. He may not do so while the pitcher has started his delivery or if he is on the pitcher's plate and prepared to pitch the ball [6.06(d)]." (The WUM references 6.06(d) in this passage, but I think that is a typo. I think they meant to write 6.06(b). 6.06(d) refers to an illegal bat.) I think this could apply during the course of the pitch.

So I think in this case, the batter is not out for interference, but rather for illegal action. Same penalty, kill it, call the batter out, return runners to TOP base(s).

Thoughts?

I thinking that I don't have INT or illegal box switching. The batter didn't switch boxes. He vacated an area needed by the fielder to make a play. Yes he could have stayed and been legal but at least in OBR there is a concept of giving up your right to hit the ball. I think he did that and cleared the area. F2 caught the pitch so there is no INT. @udbrky When you hear footsteps from 3B and a pitch is on the way you need this "mantra" going off in your head: Call the pitch, call the play, check for BI and CI.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I thinking that I don't have INT or illegal box switching. The batter didn't switch boxes. He vacated an area needed by the fielder to make a play. Yes he could have stayed and been legal but at least in OBR there is a concept of giving up your right to hit the ball. I think he did that and cleared the area. F2 caught the pitch so there is no INT. @udbrky When you hear footsteps from 3B and a pitch is on the way you need this "mantra" going off in your head: Call the pitch, call the play, check for BI and CI.

He came across the catcher as the catcher was trying to catch the pitch. He could have backed out of the way. There is no way that can be a legal act. 

 

I know I messed up on the pitch. I just was processing so much and thinking "Wtf did I just see?!?!?!" then when I called him out, I reset the clicker, and by the time we got the runners back, him out of the box, explained it to the manager, sent the random guy back to coaching third, I had forgotten what the count was. It wasn't until later I thought about that aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

I thinking that I don't have INT or illegal box switching. The batter didn't switch boxes. He vacated an area needed by the fielder to make a play. Yes he could have stayed and been legal but at least in OBR there is a concept of giving up your right to hit the ball. I think he did that and cleared the area. F2 caught the pitch so there is no INT.

I was also thinking of this too. Could fall under 6.02, as well. Batter just vacated, call the pitch, and anything else that happens. But I'm not sure because normally, with a 6.02 violation, you'd have the batter step out away from the box, not over the plate to the other box while the pitch is coming.

13 hours ago, udbrky said:

Pitcher delivers and B4 (RHH) moves to the LH batter's box as pitch is 3/4 way home.

I guess I'm caught up on this statement from the OP. If he did move into the LH box when the pitch was being thrown, I think you have a good case for a 6.06(b) violation. If he did move to the LH box as described, then the batter clearly stepped over the plate. 6.06(b) is probably the cleanest call.

Interesting play. Still not sure on the exact ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, udbrky said:

He came across the catcher as the catcher was trying to catch the pitch. He could have backed out of the way. There is no way that can be a legal act. 

 

I know I messed up on the pitch. I just was processing so much and thinking "Wtf did I just see?!?!?!" then when I called him out, I reset the clicker, and by the time we got the runners back, him out of the box, explained it to the manager, sent the random guy back to coaching third, I had forgotten what the count was. It wasn't until later I thought about that aspect.

Batters leave the box and come across the plate on attempts to bunt. If they miss the catcher usually catches the pitch. Your catcher caught the pitch so there is no hindrance there. Unless the catcher was also doing something illegal and was catching the pitch while on or over HP which then might make the crossing of the plate look like hindrance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Batter cannot hinder the catcher coming across. If he's standing on the base and F2 gets the throw off, but doesn't retire the runner, what do you have? What is hindrance? Does the player have to fail? If the runner contacts a fielder who still catches the popup, we don't ignore the interference.

 

Usually on a bunt attempt, he's not coming across the plate until after the pitch has crossed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, udbrky said:

Batter cannot hinder the catcher coming across. If he's standing on the base and F2 gets the throw off, but doesn't retire the runner, what do you have? What is hindrance? Does the player have to fail? If the runner contacts a fielder who still catches the popup, we don't ignore the interference.

 

Usually on a bunt attempt, he's not coming across the plate until after the pitch has crossed it.

How did the batter hinder the catcher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R2, R3. double steal, R3 coming home. Pitcher delivers and B4 (RHH) moves to the LH batter's box as pitch is 3/4 way home.

 

Granted, that is a little weird.  However, what exactly did the batter do to interfere? Moving from the LHH box to the RHH box probably would be interference. Moving from RHH batter's box to the LHH batter's box, I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a reply I got in our local umpire facebook group from an umpire in Arizona Complex League (Rookie ball)

 

Quote
Fun situation. Lots to this play. First off, you need to determine if the batter actually interfered (hindered) the play on R3. If he actually switched boxes as the ball was coming in (had to be a really slow ball), then he absolutely interfered. If he switched to get out of the way before the pitcher even let go of the ball (I.e. as the pitcher is lifting his leg to deliver), you may not actually have the batter interfering with the play at home.
Here’s the appropriate rulings.
If you determine the batter interfered with a play at the plate you are calling out R3, sending R2 back to second, and the batter back to bat. This is only because there’s less than 2 outs.
If you determine the batter did not actually interfere with the play and was well out of the way before hand, then you signal time, call the batter out for switching boxes when the pitcher is in position to pitch, and send R2 and R3 back because it’s a dead ball as soon as that happens.
One way or another you have to get an out here. It cannot be nothing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, udbrky said:

Here's a reply I got in our local umpire facebook group from an umpire in Arizona Complex League (Rookie ball)

 

 

If you determine BI, which I don't agree with nor switching boxes, does it become a no pitch and the batter resumes the previous count or is he out on strike three also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

If you determine BI, which I don't agree with nor switching boxes, does it become a no pitch and the batter resumes the previous count or is he out on strike three also?

How could you have nothing and no pitch? What's your justification for no pitch?

 

I still don't see how you have nothing on this.

So far two pro school grads have both said BI on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, udbrky said:

How could you have nothing and no pitch? What's your justification for no pitch?

 

I still don't see how you have nothing on this.

So far two pro school grads have both said BI on it.

I have nothing. My question is what do the 2 pro schools have on the pitch. Your rookie ball ump said to put the batter back to bat after strike 3. Did the pitch become dead on the INT as it was on the way or stay live to become a strike?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I have nothing. My question is what do the 2 pro schools have on the pitch. Your rookie ball ump said to put the batter back to bat after strike 3. Did the pitch become dead on the INT as it was on the way or stay live to become a strike?

I think he missed it was strike 3

 

Correct. Rule 6.01(a)(5)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, udbrky said:

I think he missed it was strike 3

 

Correct. Rule 6.01(a)(5)

When the pitch was on the way he wasn't out yet. So what do you have? Please don't go back to Facebook to discuss baseball rules. It is the worst venue, threads get split to ad infinitum, and idiots participate. Invite those guys that can contribute here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

When the pitch was on the way he wasn't out yet. So what do you have? Please don't go back to Facebook to discuss baseball rules. It is the worst venue, threads get split to ad infinitum, and idiots participate. Invite those guys that can contribute here

Thank you for telling me where I can and cannot discuss/help others. 

 

It's a private group, and I'm sure you can appreciate that his credentials ring out anywhere. I still want to see some rule and interpretation to disagree with him.

 

Here are some more rules related to interference

 

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/official-rule/nfhs/runner-attempts-to-steal-during-pitch-to-batter/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, udbrky said:

Thank you for telling me where I can and cannot discuss/help others. 

 

It's a private group, and I'm sure you can appreciate that his credentials ring out anywhere. I still want to see some rule and interpretation to disagree with him.

I don't think I told you but I did ask you not to use Facebook for baseball rules discussions. Since it's a private group I'm guessing you have eliminated idiots but have you perfected the reply system where a thread can be easily followed. I participate in a few umpire groups on facebook and the threads become trees. and not easily followed. The only rule/s I can give you is any in OBR that have the word hinder. And then the definition of hinder wherever you can find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, udbrky said:

IF this was legal, why don't we see it happening more?

For one, it's hard (maybe impossible at any level HS frosh or above) to cross the plate between the time the ball is released and the time the ball reaches the plate.

For two, a RH batter can be of more legal assistance to his runner by standing in the RH batter's box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

The catcher caught the pitch. That's how he could make the tag. Where was there any interference?

Is catching it required to not be interference? That seems to be a key sticking point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, udbrky said:

Is catching it required to not be interference? That seems to be a key sticking point.

The sticking point is what was hindered: "6.01(a)(3)  Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out;"

If the catcher caught the pitch as the batter vacated across the plate you could still have INT if the catcher was screened or blocked by the batter being in front of him. But your OP seems to have the batter well clear of the plate when the runner arrived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...