Connecticut Contacts Here? BI/Strike 3 - Possible DP or Not

[johnnyg08]

So I've been hearing about a play that occurred last year, potentially in their state tournament or late in the playoffs that involved batter interference on strike three and they ruled that a possible DP was not possible and also possibly left R1 on 2B, now R2. Anyone recall, have more info or have a video? 

I'm trying to wrap my head around realistically a situation that could occur and why the NFHS has the rule codified in this manner?

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire’s judgment interference prevents a possible ­double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g). 

I've probably called this 20 times in my career and I can't think of one time where I wouldn't have also grabbed the out on R1 even though the rule and case play state that for some reason, I can allow a runner to advance on BI/Strike 3 if there's not a chance to retire R1. 

Make it make sense? Any other similar scenarios are welcomed, even if it's not the one I'm asking about. 

Thanks!

[maven]

Sounds like an umpire who's been dying to apply a FED rules difference for his whole career, and finally had the chance. 

The other possibility is that he's been dying to call this to prompt FED to change their stupid case play.

I've posted this a number of times at UE, but I will say it again. The definition of batter INT entails that F2 was hindered from playing on another runner. If we rule batter INT on strike 3, then by definition a "double play" was possible (batter out on strikes, runner out for the batter INT).

So either it was batter INT with a K and we have 2 outs, or it was not batter INT because there was no hindrance. I have no idea what FED could be thinking in keeping a case play that allows conceptual space for ruling batter INT and NOT calling anyone out for it. No such conceptual space exists in the rules (true of all major codes). 

The only possible rationale for the stupid case play that I have been able to dream up over the years is that some misguided soul thought that consistency with FED's runner INT rule is required here. The runner INT rule allows the umpire to rule 2 out in cases where a double play was "possible," so it's conceivable that someone thought that the same standard should apply to batter INT. For reasons just given, it cannot.

We don't, however, need a rule change. Just call batter INT in the appropriate way, and nobody (except possibly that guy in CT) will ever rule just one out here.

[Senor Azul]

Actually, Mr. johnnyg08, there are at least three "stupid" case plays that FED has given us on this topic. Two are found in the annual online interpretations 

2014 Interpretations situations 3 and 4

2011 Interpretations situations 4 and 5

current case book play 8.4.2 Situation K

Also see the following thread in the Rules forum

FED Follow-Through Interference Question on page 8 of Rules 

[johnnyg08]

6 hours ago, maven said:

Sounds like an umpire who's been dying to apply a FED rules difference for his whole career, and finally had the chance. 

The other possibility is that he's been dying to call this to prompt FED to change their stupid case play.

I've posted this a number of times at UE, but I will say it again. The definition of batter INT entails that F2 was hindered from playing on another runner. If we rule batter INT on strike 3, then by definition a "double play" was possible (batter out on strikes, runner out for the batter INT).

So either it was batter INT with a K and we have 2 outs, or it was not batter INT because there was no hindrance. I have no idea what FED could be thinking in keeping a case play that allows conceptual space for ruling batter INT and NOT calling anyone out for it. No such conceptual space exists in the rules (true of all major codes). 

The only possible rationale for the stupid case play that I have been able to dream up over the years is that some misguided soul thought that consistency with FED's runner INT rule is required here. The runner INT rule allows the umpire to rule 2 out in cases where a double play was "possible," so it's conceivable that someone thought that the same standard should apply to batter INT. For reasons just given, it cannot.

We don't, however, need a rule change. Just call batter INT in the appropriate way, and nobody (except possibly that guy in CT) will ever rule just one out here.

So..this came up in a session I was leading last night and I told them essentially the same thing. 

What you need to do...is call the runner out 100% of the time on this play because that's the proper enforcement and application of the rule. 

It's two. Period. 

[maven]

6 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

It's two. Period. 

If the idea is to keep it simple, this is fine.

If umpires need a bit more to wrap their heads around the problem, just announcing "period" can seem tyrannical. 

Another approach for stubborn umpires: if we call just 1 out here, then either we have a third strike with no strikeout (batter out for his INT), or we have INT with no penalty (batter out for his K). Neither is fair to the defense.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, maven said:

If the idea is to keep it simple, this is fine.

If umpires need a bit more to wrap their heads around the problem, just announcing "period" can seem tyrannical. 

Another approach for stubborn umpires: if we call just 1 out here, then either we have a third strike with no strikeout (batter out for his INT), or we have INT with no penalty (batter out for his K). Neither is fair to the defense.

For sure. 

Tyranny is not the intent 🙂

And to be fair, to myself that was a paraphrase & not a quote. 

It's similar to the "you don't have to ask on a check swing" 

True...but you should always ask. Just ask. 

 

[Tborze]

Is this it?  @johnnyg08
 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1597709230997008/?mibextid=9bG9fT

[johnnyg08]

39 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Is this it?  @johnnyg08
 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1597709230997008/?mibextid=9bG9fT

Nope. That's a college game from a few weeks ago. Thanks though. 

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, maven said:

If the idea is to keep it simple, this is fine.

If umpires need a bit more to wrap their heads around the problem, just announcing "period" can seem tyrannical. 

Another approach for stubborn umpires: if we call just 1 out here, then either we have a third strike with no strikeout (batter out for his INT), or we have INT with no penalty (batter out for his K). Neither is fair to the defense.

The batter is no longer a batter and cannot become a batter-runner with a caught third strike which is why the other codes call the runner out for the interference of a teammate.