Richvee Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1B2aXBeSrr/?mibextid=wwXIfr Im sure many have seen this clip floating around the social media interwebs. I think it’s worth a discussion. Do we have batter/ runner interference? Tangle/ untangle? Different for different codes? Seems any rule we apply doesn’t really address a batter runner who is awarded 1b and hinders a catcher on a miss played ball 4. Do we need intent? Do we call interference only if the BR CLEARLY hinders the catcher? Quote
grayhawk Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 He's now a runner, so we would need some kind of intent to grab interference. Remember, the the catcher failed to control the pitch, so we're not giving them a get out of jail free card. In NCAA at least, we can call the runner out if he clearly hinders the catcher, ON AN UNCAUGHT THIRD STRIKE. There is no similar provision in the rules that I'm aware of on ball 4. 2 Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 31 minutes ago, Richvee said: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1B2aXBeSrr/?mibextid=wwXIfr Im sure many have seen this clip floating around the social media interwebs. I think it’s worth a discussion. Do we have batter/ runner interference? Tangle/ untangle? Different for different codes? Seems any rule we apply doesn’t really address a batter runner who is awarded 1b and hinders a catcher on a miss played ball 4. Do we need intent? Do we call interference only if the BR CLEARLY hinders the catcher? The only discussion would be why umpires would think this is something. But a CWS umpire did call BI on a walked batter with a runner stealing 2B quite a few years ago. The only thing, without intent, this could be in a very unlikely scenario is OBS. Quote
Kevin_K Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 9 minutes ago, grayhawk said: In NCAA at least, we can call the runner out if he clearly hinders the catcher, ON AN UNCAUGHT THIRD STRIKE. There is no similar provision in the rules that I'm aware of on ball 4. NCAA rule 7-11 The batter is out when: f. 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. Does this apply when the pitch is ball four and the batter becomes a batter-runner as the clip shows? Here is an reply from Randy Bruns on a similar question: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 Date: May 31, 2022 Rule: 7-11-h Question: With a runner on first , less than two outs and 1-2 count. I called an uncaught 3rd strike interference as the BR started running toward 1st base and the ball came off the catcher and the BR hindered the catchers attempt to field the ball. I put R1 back to 1st. In hindsight should this be interference by BR who has been put out since he struck out and 1st was occupied? If so should I have gotten R1 out in this instance instead of putting him back on the interference ? Here is the play. https://watch.screencastify.com/v/joWjBFN70XYaHvRMVgVU Answer: Your first instinct on this play was correct. The batter didn’t do anything intentional, but he did “clearly hinder the catcher in their attempt to field the ball” after the pitch deflected back in front of the catcher. So the right call was call “time”, the batter is already out, and return all other runners to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch. 1 Quote
grayhawk Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 1 minute ago, Kevin_K said: NCAA rule 7-11 The batter is out when: f. 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. Does this apply when the pitch is ball four and the batter becomes a batter-runner as the clip shows? Here is an reply from Randy Bruns on a similar question: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 Date: May 31, 2022 Rule: 7-11-h Question: With a runner on first , less than two outs and 1-2 count. I called an uncaught 3rd strike interference as the BR started running toward 1st base and the ball came off the catcher and the BR hindered the catchers attempt to field the ball. I put R1 back to 1st. In hindsight should this be interference by BR who has been put out since he struck out and 1st was occupied? If so should I have gotten R1 out in this instance instead of putting him back on the interference ? Here is the play. https://watch.screencastify.com/v/joWjBFN70XYaHvRMVgVU Answer: Your first instinct on this play was correct. The batter didn’t do anything intentional, but he did “clearly hinder the catcher in their attempt to field the ball” after the pitch deflected back in front of the catcher. So the right call was call “time”, the batter is already out, and return all other runners to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch. He’s not a batter, he’s a runner. And in the case, it was a U3K which does have a specific rule about clearly hindering the catcher. They don’t include that rule language for ball 4. 1 Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 4 minutes ago, Kevin_K said: NCAA rule 7-11 The batter is out when: f. 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. Does this apply when the pitch is ball four and the batter becomes a batter-runner as the clip shows? Here is an reply from Randy Bruns on a similar question: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 Date: May 31, 2022 Rule: 7-11-h Question: With a runner on first , less than two outs and 1-2 count. I called an uncaught 3rd strike interference as the BR started running toward 1st base and the ball came off the catcher and the BR hindered the catchers attempt to field the ball. I put R1 back to 1st. In hindsight should this be interference by BR who has been put out since he struck out and 1st was occupied? If so should I have gotten R1 out in this instance instead of putting him back on the interference ? Here is the play. https://watch.screencastify.com/v/joWjBFN70XYaHvRMVgVU Answer: Your first instinct on this play was correct. The batter didn’t do anything intentional, but he did “clearly hinder the catcher in their attempt to field the ball” after the pitch deflected back in front of the catcher. So the right call was call “time”, the batter is already out, and return all other runners to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch. Similar except there was no runner. Quote
Richvee Posted January 20 Author Report Posted January 20 1 hour ago, grayhawk said: He’s not a batter, he’s a runner. And in the case, it was a U3K which does have a specific rule about clearly hindering the catcher. They don’t include that rule language for ball 4. And herein lies the problem. We’ve got rules for D3K, batter interference, but really nothing that explicitly applies to a miss played ball 4. I tend to agree we need intent to have anything here. However, any cite we use - no matter how we rule- has a hole in it. Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 20 minutes ago, Richvee said: And herein lies the problem. We’ve got rules for D3K, batter interference, but really nothing that explicitly applies to a miss played ball 4. I tend to agree we need intent to have anything here. However, any cite we use - no matter how we rule- has a hole in it. There are no holes. If the pitch was wild and the catcher tackled the B-R we would have OBS. Quote
Richvee Posted January 20 Author Report Posted January 20 1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said: There are no holes. If the pitch was wild and the catcher tackled the B-R we would have OBS. It’s ball 4 . How can you obstruct a guy taking an awarded base? 1 Quote
SeeingEyeDog Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 37 minutes ago, Richvee said: It’s ball 4 . How can you obstruct a guy taking an awarded base? HTBT, of course...if F2 "tackles" B-R, that's likely MC. ~Dawg Quote
Replacematt Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 5 hours ago, Richvee said: And herein lies the problem. We’ve got rules for D3K, batter interference, but really nothing that explicitly applies to a miss played ball 4. I tend to agree we need intent to have anything here. However, any cite we use - no matter how we rule- has a hole in it. It's not a problem. The batter becomes a runner after ball four. That is in the rules. Interference by a runner on a thrown ball must be intentional. That is also in the rules. Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 9 hours ago, Richvee said: It’s ball 4 . How can you obstruct a guy taking an awarded base? Improbable sit but wild pitch and batter wants to try for 2. It’s a live ball. 1 Quote
lawump Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 36 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said: Improbable sit but wild pitch and batter wants to try for 2. It’s a live ball. Agreed. An award of "base on balls" is not a dead ball award. It is a live ball award. So, hypothetically and technically speaking (since this is an "(i)probable sit"), obstruction could occur. Quote
Kevin_K Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 So back to the original video...... Why might the crew have called R2 out? Shouldn't R2 be returned to 2B if the interference was on the batter? Was this a total brain fart? 2 Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 17 minutes ago, Kevin_K said: So back to the original video...... Why might the crew have called R2 out? Shouldn't R2 be returned to 2B if the interference was on the batter? Was this a total brain fart? When you pull stuff out of your ass anything goes. 4 Quote
834k3r Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 38 minutes ago, Kevin_K said: So back to the original video...... Why might the crew have called R2 out? Shouldn't R2 be returned to 2B if the interference was on the batter? Was this a total brain fart? I'm guessing they knew the interferer is out on INT, but couldn't call the BR out on an awarded base, so they defaulted to "well, we gotta get the out somewhere." @jimurrayalterego sums it up best. 2 Quote
Richvee Posted January 20 Author Report Posted January 20 1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said: Improbable sit but wild pitch and batter wants to try for 2. It’s a live ball. Granted. But pretty irrelevant on this play. Quote
Richvee Posted January 20 Author Report Posted January 20 6 hours ago, Replacematt said: It's not a problem. The batter becomes a runner after ball four. That is in the rules. Interference by a runner on a thrown ball must be intentional. That is also in the rules. However this isn’t interference with a thrown ball. It’s with a catcher’s fielding. He's a runner. Agree. So this isn’t BI. it’s not a batted ball, so this isn’t tangle:untangle It’s not a D3K. So “BR is out if he clearly hinders the catcher” doesn’t necessarily apply. Quote
grayhawk Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Richvee said: However this isn’t interference with a thrown ball. It’s with a catcher’s fielding. He's a runner. Agree. So this isn’t BI. it’s not a batted ball, so this isn’t tangle:untangle It’s not a D3K. So “BR is out if he clearly hinders the catcher” doesn’t necessarily apply. What is something that's not illegal? Quote
SeeingEyeDog Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 21 minutes ago, grayhawk said: What is something that's not illegal? Gonna' go legal, "Bob"... ~Dawg 2 Quote
BigBlue4u Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 17 hours ago, Richvee said: Seems any rule we apply doesn’t really address a batter runner who is awarded 1b and hinders a catcher on a miss played ball 4. Do we need intent? Do we call interference only if the BR CLEARLY hinders the catcher? Richvee, first, for those without Facebook, would you please use another format so we can view the play. Thanks. That said, I think one does need intent for this play. The reason is this: Who created the problem? The catcher, because he did not properly field the pitch. So, in my thinking, we are not going to penalize the b/r provided he did not intentionally interfere with the catcher. Does that make sense? 1 1 Quote
Velho Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 32 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said: Richvee, first, for those without Facebook, would you please use another format so we can view the play. Thanks. In case not aware, you don't have to have facebook account to view video in the above link (but I understand someone who doesn't even want to go to Facebook.com). Here is the YouTube link 1 Quote
Velho Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 I concur on "that's nothing" for ball 4. On U3K we've got BR-INT, BR out, all runners return, yeah? Quote
JSam21 Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 3 hours ago, Richvee said: However this isn’t interference with a thrown ball. It’s with a catcher’s fielding. He's a runner. Agree. So this isn’t BI. it’s not a batted ball, so this isn’t tangle:untangle It’s not a D3K. So “BR is out if he clearly hinders the catcher” doesn’t necessarily apply. It isn't a batted ball, so the catcher isn't afforded any protection on ball 4 outside of an intentional action. Quote
Richvee Posted January 20 Author Report Posted January 20 25 minutes ago, JSam21 said: It isn't a batted ball, so the catcher isn't afforded any protection on ball 4 outside of an intentional action. Playing devils advocate because I really don’t know what is the correct call here, or if it would vary by code. Given that NCAA says on a D3K, if the batter runner “clearly hinders F2’s attempt to make a play on the ball, he’s out.” Would you have an out on the BR in NCAA? If not, what would be your rational for a “that’s nothing” call here? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.