Umpire (and) Batter Interference?

[Biscuit]

14 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Huh?

If the throw retires the runner, both are ignored.

If the throw doesn't, then the batter is out (BI penalty) and the runner is returned (both BI and CI penalties.)

 

Again, this is assuming yo treat it like you do the balk, CI, IFF scenario where you apply them in reverse order. Based on that, if after you apply the BI penalty the UI requirements have not been met (i.e the throw did not retire the runner), you would enforce UI and not BI. 

Does any one have any insight on this? Does it get treated like balk, CI, IFF? Where does the reverse order application of penalties come from for that?

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Biscuit said:

Again, this is assuming yo treat it like you do the balk, CI, IFF scenario where you apply them in reverse order. Based on that, if after you apply the BI penalty the UI requirements have not been met (i.e the throw did not retire the runner), you would enforce UI and not BI. 

Does any one have any insight on this? Does it get treated like balk, CI, IFF? Where does the reverse order application of penalties come from for that?

Yes, the requirements would have been met, as I pointed out.

Where are you getting this idea about reverse application of penalties? There's no such principle.

[BigBlue4u]

On 6/4/2025 at 7:59 PM, Richvee said:

Let's say there was undeniable BI, but F2's arm hit PU's mask prior to the throw. I'm interested in the baseball interps. Do we get an out for BI? Or since the UI came first, we send the runner back? 

 

Without the benefit of seeing a replay, why would this not possibly be an error on the catcher?  Apparently, the contact with the PU occurred as the catcher was reaching back to throw the ball.  Two things:  1) The umpire cannot disappear.  2)This question:  What caused the interference?  The catcher's contact with the PU or the batter leaning over the plate.  No offense to many of the posters, but it seems to me that every time something unusual happens, people often want to penalize someone.  As I have said many times before, let them play the game.

 

On 6/4/2025 at 7:59 PM, Richvee said:

Runner steals, Batter swings and misses strike three, F2 's goes to throw, hits PU's mask, as retired batter leans across home plate maybe in the catcher's line of the throw. 

 

[grayhawk]

22 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Without the benefit of seeing a replay, why would this not possibly be an error on the catcher?

Because we have a specific rule that addresses this situation and that rule dictates that it's UI.

[Velho]

48 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Without the benefit of seeing a replay, why would this not possibly be an error on the catcher?  Apparently, the contact with the PU occurred as the catcher was reaching back to throw the ball.  Two things:  1) The umpire cannot disappear.  2)This question:  What caused the interference?  The catcher's contact with the PU or the batter leaning over the plate.

We have to call this Umpire Interference the same as we have to call an out for a caught batted ball. It's non-negotiable.

 

... unless we're play Calvin-ball instead of baseball 🤣

[Biscuit]

23 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Yes, the requirements would have been met, as I pointed out.

Where are you getting this idea about reverse application of penalties? There's no such principle.

The concept is discussed and drilled extensively at umpire school. We spent multiple days with this being the main thing we drilled, but only for combinations of balk, CI, IFF. You apply them in reverse order, and if the requirements to ignore the next infraction isn't met, the later (but enforced first) infraction is ignored. 

If you have all three, as soon as you recognize it as IFF, you kill the play. Next, you enforce CI. If all runners including the batter runner advance at least one base because of the CI, then the balk is ignored. However, if yo had, say, R1 R3, the requirements to ignore the balk have not been met, so you then enforce the balk. Importantly, this supersedes the penalty of CI. R3 would be awarded home, R1 second, but the batter is NOT awarded first. Instead, they return to bat with the same count as before the pitch. 

[Replacematt]

19 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

The concept is discussed and drilled extensively at umpire school. We spent multiple days with this being the main thing we drilled, but only for combinations of balk, CI, IFF. You apply them in reverse order, and if the requirements to ignore the next infraction isn't met, the later (but enforced first) infraction is ignored. 

If you have all three, as soon as you recognize it as IFF, you kill the play. Next, you enforce CI. If all runners including the batter runner advance at least one base because of the CI, then the balk is ignored. However, if yo had, say, R1 R3, the requirements to ignore the balk have not been met, so you then enforce the balk. Importantly, this supersedes the penalty of CI. R3 would be awarded home, R1 second, but the batter is NOT awarded first. Instead, they return to bat with the same count as before the pitch. 

That's not a principle--that's simply the interplay between the rules in that particular situation.

And if you have all three, you will always enforce the CI because that is how the rules play into each other (although hypothetically, OC could refuse the CI penalty and then you would have the same batter up with R2 and R3, and if the bases had been loaded, a run scoring, due to enforcing the balk.)

[Biscuit]

6 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

That's not a principle--that's simply the interplay between the rules in that particular situation.

And if you have all three, you will always enforce the CI because that is how the rules play into each other (although hypothetically, OC could refuse the CI penalty and then you would have the same batter up with R2 and R3, and if the bases had been loaded, a run scoring.)

And I'm saying, if enforcement is most to least recent, you can get the same kind of interplay with UI and BI. And no, as pointed out in the R1 R3 example, you do not always enforce the CI. In that particular case the balk supersedes CI because, once you get to the balk, the requirements to ignore the balk have not been met, and you enforce the balk instead of the CI. If you always enforced the CI, then you would never score the run, and the batter would always go to first, but thats is not the case. Additionally, in this scenario, the offense doesn't actually get a choice on the play. It's the only scenario that I know of where that is true.

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

And I'm saying, if enforcement is most to least recent, you can get the same kind of interplay with UI and BI. And no, as pointed out in the R1 R3 example, you do not always enforce the CI. In that particular case the balk supersedes CI because, once you get to the balk, the requirements to ignore the balk have not been met, and you enforce the balk instead of the CI. If you always enforced the CI, then you would never score the run, and the batter would always go to first, but thats is not the case. Additionally, in this scenario, the offense doesn't actually get a choice on the play. It's the only scenario that I know of where that is true.

Lose the idea of most to least recent. It's hindering your understanding of how to apply penalties that satisfy all requirements.

There is never a time you have IFF with R1 and R3, FYI.

Again, the reason the penalty in that particular situation is the way it is is because of the interplay between the rules and their penalties, not because they occurred in a particular order.

[Biscuit]

2 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Lose the idea of most to least recent. It's hindering your understanding of how to apply penalties that satisfy all requirements.

There is never a time you have IFF with R1 and R3, FYI.

Again, the reason the penalty in that particular situation is the way it is is because of the interplay between the rules and their penalties, not because they occurred in a particular order.

Ah, yes, you're right, that's a balk CI but not IFF situation of course. With IFF in play, that will always be CI. 

It is possible that they taught it as a way to simplify/streamline thinking through those situations, but we were explicitly and repeatedly told to enforce the penalties in reverse order. I can't think of anywhere in the rulebook where that order is explicitly codified, which is why I was asking if anyone knows where that comes from.

If order truly doesn't matter in enforcement, then I really dont see a way to rule on the BI CI situation (with less than two strikes and the throw not retiring the runner) Common sense and fair play tells me enforce the BI, but I'm not 100% sold on that.

[Replacematt]

4 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

It is possible that they taught it as a way to simplify/streamline thinking through those situations, but we were explicitly and repeatedly told to enforce the penalties in reverse order. I can't think of anywhere in the rulebook where that order is explicitly codified, which is why I was asking if anyone knows where that comes from.

That is exactly what it is--because each of the penalties has a condition based on the result of the play.

4 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

If order truly doesn't matter in enforcement, then I really dont see a way to rule on the BI CI situation (with less than two strikes and the throw not retiring the runner) Common sense and fair play tells me enforce the BI, but I'm not 100% sold on that.

Enforce the BI--the penalty encompasses the UI "penalty," as I have mentioned. I don't know why this is hard to understand. You've satisfied both rules.

[Biscuit]

37 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

That is exactly what it is--because each of the penalties has a condition based on the result of the play.

Enforce the BI--the penalty encompasses the UI "penalty," as I have mentioned. I don't know why this is hard to understand. You've satisfied both rules.

Appreciate you taking the time to help me think through it. I've been away from umpiring for a bit, and I could be kinda dense when my umpiring brain wasn't rusty, haha.