FED: Retired runner at 1 and wild throw, after discussion, interference called

[Tog Gee]

Postseason game. VT at bat.

R2 and R3. 1 out.

On a uncaught third, BR runs to first and the BU signals out. PU doesn't react.

The first baseman then tries to get the runner at third but overthrows and hangs head.

R3 and R2 score. But after the HTHC throws a fit, the umpires discuss and announce inning is over and neither run counts. PU's explanation is that the BR was out (clearly the 2nd out) but then interfered with the first baseman 's throw (3rd out, no runs, inning over)

If anything I got RLI but is RLI ignored when the out is made in NFHS?

So my question is: was INT correct?

 

 

Edited May 31, 2024 by Tog Gee

[The Man in Blue]

Well, the way a certain organization and one individual who had his secretary type up a letter claim it should be called, it is RLI.

I don't see the interference with the throw from F2 or the catch by F3 for an RLI call.

I certainly don't see how the retired batter-runner could have interfered with F3's throw to F5 when the BR is behind the throwing F3.

So, how many ejections occurred?

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

So my question is: was this correct?

 

Only if there's something not seen in the video (e.g., verbal interference).  Or, if the explanation was misinterpreted.

[ArchAngel72]

The BR does appear to run at F3 veering out of the BP in order to get to 1st for sure.

 

But the catch was made and the throw does not actually appear to be messed with, yes he ran at F3 but there is more than a foot if not 2 feet between them.  So I do not have int there.  Just basing off what I see in the video F3 made a crap throw.

my 2 cents f2 is the one that made the error with trying to put out an already dead runner.  His throw should have been to 3rd base.

 

[Tog Gee]

On 5/30/2024 at 6:30 AM, noumpere said:

Only if there's something not seen in the video (e.g., verbal interference).  Or, if the explanation was misinterpreted.

No, was not verbal interference, but that would have done it.

After the game the PU's explanation was clear: the third out resulted from the interference with the first baseman's throw.

He said "the throw was wild because of the interference". I think after the play the HTHC "informed" the PU that the BR contacted F3. Then they did a mental replay and made the call.

There were no ejections but the crowd was warned. VT coaches didn't act out when the call was made. It looked like robbery though. 

 

Umpire chatting in between every inning with the HT coaches. Don't know if they were trying to grind him down or they're buddies. Or both.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2024 by Tog Gee

[Velho]

18 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

my 2 cents f2 is the one that made the error with trying to put out an already dead runner.  His throw should have been to 3rd base.

First was unoccupied. Cherry Ice / Omaha / U3K was live.

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, Tog Gee said:

Umpire chatting in between evey inning with the HT coaches. Don't know if they were trying to grind him down or they've known him for 20 years. Or both.

That's why (umps) we don't do that.

[Tborze]

RLI? Absolutely!! 
Are we calling this?  Absolutely not!?  
Did BR INT with F3 attempting to make a play by forcing him to clear BR?  Possibly!

But nothing was called in real time. 
 

So IMO there is only one conclusion!  
 

HOMERED!  

[Tog Gee]

On 5/30/2024 at 8:36 AM, Tborze said:

RLI? Absolutely!! 
Are we calling this?  Absolutely not!?

It's my understanding that an RLI call and immediate dead ball would be appropriate. The BR touches the infield grass while a throw is coming from fair ground in front of plate. The call could be made when the ball leaves the catcher's hand in FED. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (and now I am learning it's not RLi because the runner was put out; disregard the NFHS memo.)

The problem is that a 3rd out was conjured up.

Edited June 4, 2024 by Tog Gee

[Tborze]

3 minutes ago, Tog Gee said:

It's my understanding that an RLI call and immediate dead ball would be appropriate. The BR touches the infield grass while a throw is coming from fair ground in front of plate. The call could be made when the ball leaves the catcher's hand in FED. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem is that a 3rd out was conjured up.

That is the FED rule. But if RLI was called, there was no play after that. Ball is dead runners return. 

[beerguy55]

26 minutes ago, Tborze said:

RLI? Absolutely!! 
Are we calling this?  Absolutely not!?

Is FED handled differently than OBR?  In OBR it's about interfering with the catch (not the throw).  In FED the rule simply says the batter/runner is out if he's running outside the lane when the throw to first is made.  By strict interpretation of the letter of that rule, this is RLI in FED.

 

16 minutes ago, Tog Gee said:

The problem is that a 3rd out was conjured up.

Only if this is RLI.  If this isn't RLI, then the batter/runner is retired at first on the U3K and then AFTER that it is judged he interfered with F3's throw to third.  His step towards F3 doesn't look good in real time.

It all comes down to whether or not this should be called RLI in FED

[Jimurray]

31 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Is FED handled differently than OBR?  In OBR it's about interfering with the catch (not the throw).  In FED the rule simply says the batter/runner is out if he's running outside the lane when the throw to first is made.  By strict interpretation of the letter of that rule, this is RLI in FED.

 

Only if this is RLI.  If this isn't RLI, then the batter/runner is retired at first on the U3K and then AFTER that it is judged he interfered with F3's throw to third.  His step towards F3 doesn't look good in real time.

It all comes down to whether or not this should be called RLI in FED

Unless this is in Texas this is not RLI since no one from another state has admitted to getting the NFHS memo. But we have a retired runner who in OBR is not running the bases normally and hindered a following play, intent not required. But we do have intent to interfere with a throw in FED. You can justify an INT call in this play. You can't justify being cajoled to call INT by a coach who you have been talking to throughout the game.

[Tborze]

8 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Unless this is in Texas this is not RLI since no one from another state has admitted to getting the NFHS memo. But we have a retired runner who in OBR is not running the bases normally and hindered a following play, intent not required. But we do have intent to interfere with a throw in FED. You can justify an INT call in this play. You can't justify being cajoled to call INT by a coach who you have been talking to throughout the game.

Isn’t OBR TOP for RLI?

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Isn’t OBR TOP for RLI?

This play is not RLI in OBR. The batter-runner was put out. 

"6.01(a)(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));"

[beerguy55]

27 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Isn’t OBR TOP for RLI?

Yes, but does that matter for the purposes of the OP?

If this is OBR, this isn't RLI.

If this is RLI anywhere it's an immediate dead ball, so it doesn't matter what happened next....except, yes, the runners would return TOP....which frankly would be the same as TOI here anyway.

 

[beerguy55]

13 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

This play is not RLI in OBR. The batter-runner was put out. 

"6.01(a)(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));"

I would contend, in OBR, it's not RLI because he didn't interfere with the catch.   The batter/runner being retired is simply evidence of that...not the reason, per se, that it's not RLI.  I also acknowledge that point may be both semantical and academic. 

IF, monstrously large IF, this was somehow called RLI in OBR, that happens before the (eventual) put out, and the ball is dead.

[ArchAngel72]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

First was unoccupied. Cherry Ice / Omaha / U3K was live.

  good point that 1st go thru I thought it was occupied whoops

[Tborze]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Is FED handled differently than OBR?  In OBR it's about interfering with the catch (not the throw).  In FED the rule simply says the batter/runner is out if he's running outside the lane when the throw to first is made.  By strict interpretation of the letter of that rule, this is RLI in FED.

 

Only if this is RLI.  If this isn't RLI, then the batter/runner is retired at first on the U3K and then AFTER that it is judged he interfered with F3's throw to third.  His step towards F3 doesn't look good in real time.

It all comes down to whether or not this should be called RLI in FED

Yes this is by “strict interpretation “ RLI. 

You must not have heard my story about calling this for the first time, which was and will be the last time by the “letter of the law”  

To your other point, no, this wouldn’t matter for the OP  Was pointing out difference between FED/OBR which I am sure you are aware of, but others may not  

 

 

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Yes this is by “strict interpretation “ RLI. 

You must not have heard my story about calling this for the first time, which was and will be the last time by the “letter of the law”  

To your other point, no, this wouldn’t matter for the OP  Was pointing out difference between FED/OBR which I am sure you are aware of, but others may not  

 

 

Did your state get and publish the "strict interpretation" memo from Hopkins?

[Tborze]

2 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Did your state get and publish the "strict interpretation" memo from Hopkins?

No!  

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Tborze said:

That is the FED rule. But if RLI was called, there was no play after that. Ball is dead runners return. 

 

Aimed at NFHS and a guy named Bud, not at you, @Tborze.

 

That play, by NFHS RULE, was not RLI.  It was RLI by capricious and arbitrary (albeit possibly well-intentioned) declaration by the man who gets to sit in a certain office and was cajoled by a letter from a state that wants the power to tell its subjugates what they can and cannot do across state lines.

[Tog Gee]

10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

That play, by NFHS RULE, was not RLI. 

Do you mean because the out was made successfully?

Do you have INT on the subsequent F3 throw?

Edited May 31, 2024 by Tog Gee

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Tog Gee said:

Do you mean because the out was made successfully?

Do have INT on the subsequent F3 throw?

By rule (I may have an out of date version) it's not RLI because of this:

1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

 

To your second question...in real time, I can justify INT on now retired runner for his step/stomp towards F3 as he is catching/throwing the ball.  

[BigBlue4u]

6 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Is FED handled differently than OBR?  In OBR it's about interfering with the catch (not the throw).  In FED the rule simply says the batter/runner is out if he's running outside the lane when the throw to first is made.  By strict interpretation of the letter of that rule, this is RLI in FED.

That is not a correct statement.  Here's the rule:  8-4-1-g-1

This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.   beerguy55....I'm surprised at you.

 

 

[beerguy55]

3 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

That is not a correct statement.  Here's the rule:  8-4-1-g-1

This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.   beerguy55....I'm surprised at you.

 

 

You'll see I acknowledged that about 45 minutes ago - I had missed that part of the exception the first couple of times I read the rule.

[The Man in Blue]

12 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

After the game the PU's explanation was clear: the third out resulted from the interference with the third baseman's throw."

 

????

 

8 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

Do you mean because the out was made successfully?

Do have INT on the subsequent F3 throw?

No RLI because it neither interfered with the throw or the catch, in my judgement.

On the subsequent throw?  Not even remotely close.  Not even after a few beers while rooting for my own team.

Was that a typo earlier?  Or is that really what the PU said?