Richvee Posted January 20 Author Report Posted January 20 56 minutes ago, Velho said: I concur on "that's nothing" for ball 4. On U3K we've got BR-INT, BR out, all runners return, yeah? In FED the D3K interface needs to be intentional. NCAA, any hindrance by the BR kills it and the BR is out.
JSam21 Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 9 minutes ago, Richvee said: 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? No, I would have nothing for NCAA rule set as well.
Velho Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 12 minutes ago, Richvee said: 1 hour ago, Velho said: I concur on "that's nothing" for ball 4. On U3K we've got BR-INT, BR out, all runners return, yeah? In FED the D3K interface needs to be intentional. NCAA, any hindrance by the BR kills it and the BR is out. What about OBR?
Richvee Posted January 20 Author Report Posted January 20 1 hour ago, JSam21 said: No, I would have nothing for NCAA rule set as well. And what's your rule backup for that? If we're using has to be intentional, we can point to D3K for a FED game. What do we point to as the reason for it needs to be intentional for NCAA? I can't buy "Intentionally interferes with a throw".
Richvee Posted January 20 Author Report Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Velho said: What about OBR? Someone let me know if I'm wrong , but I believe same as NCAA. (It's amazing I do virtually no games under OBR now. All FED for high school and tourneys and NCAA.)
Replacematt Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 46 minutes ago, Richvee said: Someone let me know if I'm wrong , but I believe same as NCAA. (It's amazing I do virtually no games under OBR now. All FED for high school and tourneys and NCAA.) NCAA and OBR are the same for B/R interference with a catcher fielding a ball after an uncaught third strike. Wendelstedt footnote 411 and 9.2.1 comment imply that we treat a B/R on an uncaught third strike the same as a batter for purposes of interfering with the catcher's attempt to put out another runner.
Kevin_K Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 42 minutes ago, Richvee said: And what's your rule backup for that? If there is no rule making it illegal there wouldn't be a citation. 1
grayhawk Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Richvee said: 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? My rationale for why it would be different is that on a U3K, the defense got the better of the batter. He struck out and now must keep from hindering the defense from making a play. In your OP, the batter got the better of the defense, and is awarded 1B without liability to be put out. I just see the bar being higher for interference in the case of a walk, so I think the BR's hinderance must be intentional. That and the fact the rules committee only felt it necessary to include the "clearly hinders" language on a U3K and not on a base on balls. 1
Richvee Posted January 21 Author Report Posted January 21 OK. So the consensus is this is nothing. I’ve been convinced
SeeingEyeDog Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Richvee said: OK. So the consensus is this is nothing. I’ve been convinced This is for anyone, of course, I'm just quoting Rich to try and stimulate more conversation... Ok, so you have this play. You're on the plate, you have ball 4 and its a passed ball by F2 and B-R in some way interferes with F2 making getting to the ball and making a play on another runner (who is not being forced by ball 4...it's R1 say trying for 3B). You have nothing here and allow R1 to 3B and B-R is on 1B. The defensive coach has asked for time and you have granted time and he calmly asks you, "Why did you not call an out for interference of my catcher by the B-R?" What are you telling him? ~Dawg
jimurrayalterego Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 6 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said: This is for anyone, of course, I'm just quoting Rich to try and stimulate more conversation... Ok, so you have this play. You're on the plate, you have ball 4 and its a passed ball by F2 and B-R in some way interferes with F2 making getting to the ball and making a play on another runner (who is not being forced by ball 4...it's R1 say trying for 3B). You have nothing here and allow R1 to 3B and B-R is on 1B. The defensive coach has asked for time and you have granted time and he calmly asks you, "Why did you not call an out for interference of my catcher by the B-R?" What are you telling him? ~Dawg Your Catcher, who was not fielding a batted ball but chasing a booted ball/wild pitch, obstructed the batter-runner who was running to 1B. (aside to @SeeingEyeDogunless you can postulate a "some way' that doesn't have him going to 1B) I don't have to award bases because the batter-runner did not attempt 2B. 1
jimurrayalterego Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 3 hours ago, grayhawk said: My rationale for why it would be different is that on a U3K, the defense got the better of the batter. He struck out and now must keep from hindering the defense from making a play. In your OP, the batter got the better of the defense, and is awarded 1B without liability to be put out. I just see the bar being higher for interference in the case of a walk, so I think the BR's hinderance must be intentional. That and the fact the rules committee only felt it necessary to include the "clearly hinders" language on a U3K and not on a base on balls. Your rationale for INT on a DTK probably is why OBR and, NCAA following, changed the interp that allowed hinder until the batter-runner was "down the line" to the rule change that eliminated that interp. DTKs at their level result in outs. Outs get us home and reduce game time. No longer in OBR and NCAA is distance down the line a criteria for batter-runner INT with a DTK. 1
Replacematt Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 15 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said: This is for anyone, of course, I'm just quoting Rich to try and stimulate more conversation... Ok, so you have this play. You're on the plate, you have ball 4 and its a passed ball by F2 and B-R in some way interferes with F2 making getting to the ball and making a play on another runner (who is not being forced by ball 4...it's R1 say trying for 3B). You have nothing here and allow R1 to 3B and B-R is on 1B. The defensive coach has asked for time and you have granted time and he calmly asks you, "Why did you not call an out for interference of my catcher by the B-R?" What are you telling him? ~Dawg Because there is no rule that makes unintentional interference illegal by a runner on ball four. 1
maven Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 22 hours ago, grayhawk said: My rationale for why it would be different is that on a U3K, the defense got the better of the batter. He struck out and now must keep from hindering the defense from making a play. In your OP, the batter got the better of the defense, and is awarded 1B without liability to be put out. I just see the bar being higher for interference in the case of a walk, so I think the BR's hinderance must be intentional. That and the fact the rules committee only felt it necessary to include the "clearly hinders" language on a U3K and not on a base on balls. I'd put it more strongly still. On a BB (with no other runners) there's no play. Without a play, there's nothing to hinder. Without the possibility of hindrance, there's no possibility of INT. I don't see that code would matter to this question. There are opportunities for MC, UNS, and other infractions, depending on the code. OBS is possible, of course, because we have a runner advancing legally on the award, but it would have to be some sort of grabbing or tripping.
Replacematt Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 43 minutes ago, maven said: I'd put it more strongly still. On a BB (with no other runners) there's no play. Without a play, there's nothing to hinder. Without the possibility of hindrance, there's no possibility of INT. I don't see that code would matter to this question. Disagree with this logic. If that was the reasoning, there would be some treatment (affirmative or negative) regarding B/R with other runners on ball four. 44 minutes ago, maven said: OBS is possible, of course, because we have a runner advancing legally on the award, but it would have to be some sort of grabbing or tripping. It could be anything. We don't have to make a huge deal out of an OBS call with no obvious impact at the time it occurs, but we need to be cognizant that what seemingly has no impact at one moment could be significant based on subsequent events, especially in a situation like this where no defensive player has possession of the ball yet. I've voiced these kinds of infractions with a spoken-word "That's obstruction" and a quick point.
SeeingEyeDog Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 59 minutes ago, Replacematt said: I've voiced these kinds of infractions with a spoken-word "That's obstruction" and a quick point. Yup...this is so critical and vital because of course obstruction in NFHS is a delayed ball so, we point and we announce the obstruction to try and show what we have here and DO NOT kill the play. This is so preventative because no one but your partner will hear your obstruction call or see your point so, if there is discussion following the play you and potentially your partner can say, "Coach, obstruction was indicated and called and by rule, we do not kill that play." ~Dawg
BigBlue4u Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 On 1/20/2025 at 11:32 AM, Velho said: Here is the YouTube link Velho, Thanks. 3
Richvee Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 6 hours ago, maven said: 'd put it more strongly still. On a BB (with no other runners) there's no play. Without a play, there's nothing to hinder. Without the possibility of hindrance, there's no possibility of INT. I don't see that code would matter to this question You are aware this play has an R2 advancing on the catcher’s misplay of the pitch, right?
maven Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 9 hours ago, Richvee said: You are aware this play has an R2 advancing on the catcher’s misplay of the pitch, right? How could I possibly be aware of that, not having watched the video or reading the first page of posts in this thread? C'mon Rich, be reasonable!!
Kevin_K Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 3 hours ago, maven said: How could I possibly be aware of that, not having watched the video or reading the first page of posts in this thread? C'mon Rich, be reasonable!! My spidey senses detect some sarcasm! 1
flyingron Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 Not sure which code applies here. The logo on the field is ETSU Bucs, but those aren't the ETSU uniforms. Players look really young, so probably not even high school.
Velho Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 On 1/21/2025 at 10:17 AM, Replacematt said: On 1/20/2025 at 7:14 PM, SeeingEyeDog said: This is for anyone, of course, I'm just quoting Rich to try and stimulate more conversation... Ok, so you have this play. You're on the plate, you have ball 4 and its a passed ball by F2 and B-R in some way interferes with F2 making getting to the ball and making a play on another runner (who is not being forced by ball 4...it's R1 say trying for 3B). You have nothing here and allow R1 to 3B and B-R is on 1B. The defensive coach has asked for time and you have granted time and he calmly asks you, "Why did you not call an out for interference of my catcher by the B-R?" What are you telling him? ~Dawg Because there is no rule that makes unintentional interference illegal by a runner on ball four. Fair to say it's treated as tangle/untangle with BR ok as long as he "did what he's supposed to"?
jimurrayalterego Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 15 minutes ago, Velho said: Fair to say it's treated as tangle/untangle with BR ok as long as he "did what he's supposed to"? No I wouldn’t apply “tangle untangle”. It’s not a batted ball. The catcher is at risk for OBS. 1
Replacematt Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 35 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said: No I wouldn’t apply “tangle untangle”. It’s not a batted ball. The catcher is at risk for OBS. This. 1
The Man in Blue Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 While getting lost in the weeds, I'd challenge you to take a step back and stay basic on this. Of course, you will all tell me you think I am wrong . . . but hear me out. Using FED (which I assume this is a HS level tournament being played on a college field) . . . I have interference on the batter-runner. Stay basic. "Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play; or . . . " If the batter did this on ball three, what would you have? Now I have to figure out who is out. In virtually every case, the interferer is out. So I have the batter-runner out and the runner going back. BUT . . . BUT . . . BUT . . . He walked, TMIB! He can't be called out! He is awarded first base! He is not awarded first base with impunity. He is awarded the base without liability to be put out. He is not being put out. He is being penalized for the illegal action of interfering with a fielder attempting to make a play (on the runner stealing third base). The rule does NOT say he cannot be called out. As with any other base award, the runner is still beholden to all other rules. If a runner misses a base on a base award, we do not overlook it. As there is no imperative for a walked batter runner to beat a play at first base, as there would be with a UK3, there is no reason to give him priority (or impunity as in a tangle) over the catcher who has a play to be made. Stay basic on this. 1
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now