NCAA Rule application Pitcher Balks then Catcher’s Interference

[NoCal Blue]

I had a play the other day that I’m looking for confirmation on. I was PU. 

Here is the set up:

Bottom 3, 1 out, R2. Pitcher balks (I called it) and delivers the pitch. Batter grounds it to F4 and is thrown out. The catcher, during the swing interfered with the batter. Bat hit the glove. 
 

Im more than confident with each rule individually. Looking for confirmation that I handled this correctly.

My Ruling:

R2 gets third.

Batter/Runner gets first. 
 

Have been digging through the rule books looking for case plays. So far no joy. So was I right or do I owe someone an apology.

[Jimurray]

7 minutes ago, NoCal Blue said:

I had a play the other day that I’m looking for confirmation on. I was PU. 

Here is the set up:

Bottom 3, 1 out, R2. Pitcher balks (I called it) and delivers the pitch. Batter grounds it to F4 and is thrown out. The catcher, during the swing interfered with the batter. Bat hit the glove. 
 

Im more than confident with each rule individually. Looking for confirmation that I handled this correctly.

My Ruling:

R2 gets third.

Batter/Runner gets first. 
 

Have been digging through the rule books looking for case plays. So far no joy. So was I right or do I owe someone an apology.

Batter would get 1B on the CI, R2 was not stealing so stays at 2B if CI. The balk cannot be ignored since batter and all baserunners did not advance 1 base. Enforce the balk, R2 to 3B, B-R back at bat with count before the balk. That's what I think.

[Senor Azul]

Agree with Mr. Jimurray--balk is enforced. Here's an official NCAA interpretation found in the 2016 BRD (section 383, p. 256):

When a balk is followed by catcher's interference, if all runners do not advance on the pitch, enforce the balk.

This OI is shown as being issued in March 2012 as Interpretation #6. There is a case play accompanying this section of the BRD that is similar to the scenario presented in the original post. I can post that in an hour or so if you would like.

[NoCal Blue]

Senior Azul,

Please post the reference it would be helpful. I’m trying to understand the logic behind not enforcing the CI. 
 

Is this an order of operations issue? I.E. balk occurred prior to the CI?

[Jimurray]

12 minutes ago, NoCal Blue said:

Senior Azul,

Please post the reference it would be helpful. I’m trying to understand the logic behind not enforcing the CI. 
 

Is this an order of operations issue? I.E. balk occurred prior to the CI?

I think it's equivalent to the same logic that awards 1B to a walked batter when the pitch goes out of play.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 383, pp. 256-257):  0-0 count. R2, not advancing on the pitch. F1 balks, then delivers. The catcher interferes with the batter's swing, but he muscles a ground ball that strikes R2 before it passes a fielder other than the pitcher. Ruling:  Immediate dead ball (runner interference). But because of the balk, R2's interference is ignored, as is the catcher's. Award R2 second, B1 continues his at-bat, 0-0 count.

Note:  If R2 had been stealing on the pitch, he would be awarded third (advancing during catcher interference), and B1 would get first:  As such, you would ignore the balk because all runners and the batter advanced one base.

 

[Velho]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2016 BRD (section 383, pp. 256-257):  0-0 count. R2, not advancing on the pitch. F1 balks, then delivers. The catcher interferes with the batter's swing, but he muscles a ground ball that strikes R2 before it passes a fielder other than the pitcher. Ruling:  Immediate dead ball (runner interference). But because of the balk, R2's interference is ignored, as is the catcher's. Award R2 second, B1 continues his at-bat, 0-0 count.

You forgot the addendum: "In addition, a UFO lands in right field and an alien emerges. This being the crazy times of 2023, no one cares. The play stands as above."

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, NoCal Blue said:

Is this an order of operations issue? I.E. balk occurred prior to the CI?

Yes, but not only because of that.

You can't decide what to do with the balk until you know the results of the play.  The play includes CI.  You can't decide what to do with CI until you know the results of the play.  So, you need to resolve the play from the inside out (or LIFO).

OP:  The play was a ground out.  The conditions for ignoring CI are not met.  Enforce (temporarily) CI:  BR at first, R2 stays at second. Now, the conditions for the balk have not been met -- so enforce the balk.  R2 to third.

Different Play; BR singles and R2 advances.  The conditions for ignoring CI have been met.  The conditions for ignoring the balk have been met.  The play stands.

 

Suppose in the OP that speedy R2 advanced all the way to home.  Under CI, the coach might (probably would) take the results of the play.  But, that still doesn't meet the criteria for ignoring the balk (ball in play, BR does not advance to first).  So, we have to enforce the balk.  The defense screws up twice and benefits from the results.  That's baseball.

[JSam21]

11 hours ago, NoCal Blue said:

Senior Azul,

Please post the reference it would be helpful. I’m trying to understand the logic behind not enforcing the CI. 
 

Is this an order of operations issue? I.E. balk occurred prior to the CI?

Answered better above me....

Edited August 23, 2023 by JSam21