Umpire (and) Batter Interference?

[Richvee]

So I'm watching the end of the WCWS. One out, R1. 2 strikes.

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. 

The call on the field was umpire interference and they sent the runner back. It was upheld on review. Now I don't think BI is a reviewable call, but that's not my question. 

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? 

 

[Replacematt]

51 minutes ago, Richvee said:

So I'm watching the end of the WCWS. One out, R1. 2 strikes.

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. 

The call on the field was umpire interference and they sent the runner back. It was upheld on review. Now I don't think BI is a reviewable call, but that's not my question. 

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? 

 

I think I asked this exact question about a decade ago based on something that happened to me. I don't remember if there was an answer. 

[noumpere]

Since the catcher's THROW did not retire the RUNNER, I'm going with that and the better gets away with one. 

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Since the catcher's THROW did not retire the RUNNER, I'm going with that and the better gets away with one. 

You're saying you would return the runner for UI, and ignore the BI? 

[Kevin_K]

I would probably go with the order of hinderance.

If my actions started the process of interference it seems to make sense that it should be the first decision to make on how to adjudicate the results of F2's actions. This has no basis in any case play that I am aware of. I am using the common sense approach which also offers the best foundation of an explanation when some one wants to discuss the results of the play.

[Velho]

Similar to @noumpere (what I think is being said), I think that NCAA wording is clear that it's UI given "interferes with catcher's attempt to throw" unless "throw directly retires runner".

Plus, secondarily, UI is before BI. Order of operation is not a totally unreasonable expectation.

 

OBR has a little more wiggle since it says "throw". Well, the outcome of a throw with BI is an out. 😈 That seems a stretch though.

 

NFHS is wide open to interpretation based on what I see:

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

If my actions started the process of interference

Not picking on you, just playing this out...

How did PU INT trigger BI?

Or are you simply saying it came first which is a straightforward logic to kill the play and ignore BI?

[Kevin_K]

6 minutes ago, Velho said:

Not picking on you, just playing this out...

How did PU INT trigger BI?

Or are you simply saying it came first which is a straightforward logic to kill the play and ignore BI?

My thought is that if my actions started the interference that's where I start with assessing how to fix the problem. If I didn't interfere would the runner have been retired? We'll never know. Ergo, I cannot assume the runner would not have been retired because of BI. 

By using UI there is a rule based resolution to the runner not being retired that does not include any speculation of what could have happened.

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

My thought is that if my actions started the interference that's where I start with assessing how to fix the problem. If I didn't interfere would the runner have been retired? We'll never know. Ergo, I cannot assume the runner would not have been retired because of BI. 

I follow. Thanks.

I think there are two forks:

1) What I imagine from your description UI created a time window for BI, e.g. F2 double clutched and BI made a late step across the plate that would have been fine with an immediate F2 throw.

2) Immediate and egregious BI, e.g. batter is immediately out of the box presenting a wall to F2, and UI.

For OBR and NCAA, per rules above, I think both are UI.

For NFHS, again given the rules, I think it's open. IMO, #1 is UI and #2 (which I think is OP) is possibly BI (though in #2 if UI is so bad there is no throw, the explanation of BI is a challenge).

[Richvee]

32 minutes ago, Velho said:

#1 is UI and #2 (which I think is OP) is possibly BI (though in #2 if UI is so bad there is no throw, the explanation of BI is a challenge)

Either way.. I'm looking for an explanation...let's take the judgement of BI out of the equation...

batter swings strike three, F2 cocks, hits PU's mask, batter stumbles into F2. 

 

[The Man in Blue]

I saw this play, too.  I don't think they got it right, but instead let the circumstance influence that decision.  I hope I am wrong about that, but it would have been the game ending out in Game 1 of the WCWS with the tying run on base.  (And how we got there was quite interesting also, with the game's top pitcher botching an intentional walk in the previous half inning!)

To pick at @Velho's strict reading of "directly retires" . . . I do not interpret that to say that the throw has to be what retires the runner.  I interpret that to read it has to happen on that play, meaning a rundown or subsequent play does not get to evolve.  I would argue the batter's interference was on that throw to directly (on that play) retire the runner.

It is fairly evident across codes that the intent of the UI rule is for it to be a delayed dead ball, as we are allowing a possible play to ensue, with a correction pending the outcome.

Specific to NCAA Softball, where this happened:

 

Their rule implies the BI should be enforced, as it states the exception is if the catcher is NOT making a play. They did not come back with a ruling of UI superseding or preventing the BI, they simply said there was no BI.  I suppose that is judgment, but it looked like a pretty good text book example to me.

[Velho]

My $0.02

NCAA & OBR: The rules are clear, or clear enough. If the throw doesn't retire the runner, it's UI.

"Coach, by rule, Umpire Interference precedes the Batters Interference. It's a reset."

NFHS: My read, it's open since, subsequent to the UI, the runner would have bene putout on BI. You've got room to do the above or, if you want, get the BI.

"Coach, the batter interference was egregious and obvious. The umpire interference doesn't change that (or BI was first). It's an out".

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Their rule implies the BI should be enforced, as it states the exception is if the catcher is NOT making a play. They did not come back with a ruling of UI superseding or preventing the BI, they simply said there was no BI.  I suppose that is judgment, but it looked like a pretty good text book example to me.

Good point (though I read that rule differently in application to last night*).

The key different to baseball though is the team gets an option of the play or penalty. I agree that means BI is in play even with UI. No baseball rules (that I've seen) give an option. UI & BI are addressed independently and are ignored if throw retires the runner.

* If F2 is not** making a play on the runner but the UI/BI allows runnerto further ("consequently") advance, pull it back as a reset to what would have been the state without the UI/BI (i.e. put R1 at 2B that they stole with no play before they advanced to 3B because of the INT^).

** F1 snagged the throw from F2 last night so that introduced uncertainty if F2 was trying to get R1. The least controversial decision was return the runner. Offense and Defense both left wanting.

^ A codification of something umps may want/do but baseball doesn't explicitly have. Nice.

[Kevin_K]

I think there is some over thinking with this. If UI precedes the BI, use the remedy under UI.

Using BI places the offense at a disadvantage and provides the defense a significant advantage for something neither had a part in creating

22 hours ago, Velho said:

* If F2 is not** making a play on the runner but the UI/BI allows runnerto further ("consequently") advance, pull it back as a reset to what would have been the state without the UI/BI (i.e. put R1 at 2B that they stole with no play before they advanced to 3B because of the INT^).

Can you explain this further? If F2 is not making a play how there by interference? if F2 isn't hindered how can there be a call of either UI or BI? Or I am just being obtuse?

[Velho]

35 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

22 hours ago, Velho said:

* If F2 is not** making a play on the runner but the UI/BI allows runnerto further ("consequently") advance, pull it back as a reset to what would have been the state without the UI/BI (i.e. put R1 at 2B that they stole with no play before they advanced to 3B because of the INT^).

Can you explain this further? If F2 is not making a play how there by interference? if F2 isn't hindered how can there be a call of either UI or BI? Or I am just being obtuse?

This is in reference to the NCAA Softball rules TMIB posted (sorry if that fork wasn't clear).

My read, they are referring to when defense is not making a play but a runner advances because of BI. Example is BI causing F2 to airmail F1 on a return throw while ignoring the base runners. The runners weren't advancing further than what the defense was giving them, and the batter created a further situation for them to advance further.

This is similar to baseball ODB grabbing a wild pitch when the runners aren't advancing which then allows runners to advance. We've discussed that as generally being a "Stop, don't do that. Runners go back" because they didn't interfere with an active play.

44 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

I think there is some over thinking with this. If UI precedes the BI, use the remedy under UI.

Maybe, probably - though I don't consider this purely academic*. If you have a savvy coach (like @beerguy55 reading this), and the BI was unquestionable such that UI is arguably inconsequential, how are you explaining UI only within the rules, especially NFHS?

* As mentioned elsewhere, LL mechanics have been overhauled and one of those is PU being very very close to F2. I watched a game with a regional instructor and asked "if we're so close, how do we avoid F2 contact?". The answer was "It will happen". So this is very much on my mind if I want to do Regionals+.

[Replacematt]

Bringing this here: https://umpire-empire.com/topic/68853-ui-followed-by-bi/

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Bringing this here: https://umpire-empire.com/topic/68853-ui-followed-by-bi/

Nice find. 8 years later, we really still don’t have a concrete answer/interp. 

[Replacematt]

22 hours ago, Richvee said:

Nice find. 8 years later, we really still don’t have a concrete answer/interp. 

I think we have to enforce the BI.

In doing so, we have enforced the consequence for both things that have occurred on the play.

There is no rule support for ignoring BI because it might have been impacted by something that occurred before it. Plus, there is no such animal as intentional vs. unintentional BI, thus only enforcing the UI means that a quick-thinking batter could intentionally interfere with the throw to ensure their runner is not thrown out and merely has to return with no penalty.

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

I think we have to enforce the BI.

In doing so, we have enforced the consequence for both things that have occurred on the play.

There is no rule support for ignoring BI because it might have been impacted by something that occurred before it. Plus, there is no such animal as intentional vs. unintentional BI, thus only enforcing the UI means that a quick-thinking batter could intentionally interfere with the throw to ensure their runner is not thrown out and merely has to return with no penalty.

I’m with you on this. I don’t see UI as a reason to give the bater a pass. 

[Kevin_K]

At the risk of sounding like a d-bag.....

@Richvee and @Replacematt are going back and forth on a hypothetical situation. One might say a unicorn of a play. It seems like a lot of time and effort on something discussed here once in 8 years and probably never in any of their games.

The conversation on this thread is taking the same arc as the one from 2017. And the logic from then was once the UI occurs the other stuff doesn't matter. That hasn't changed. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

At the risk of sounding like a d-bag.....

@Richvee and @Replacematt are going back and forth on a hypothetical situation. One might say a unicorn of a play. It seems like a lot of time and effort on something discussed here once in 8 years and probably never in any of their games.

The conversation on this thread is taking the same arc as the one from 2017. And the logic from then was once the UI occurs the other stuff doesn't matter. That hasn't changed. 

It literally almost happened in my game, hence the old post.

And that was NOT the consensus. Nor is there one now.

And yes, you sound like a douche because this happened in softball, it almost happened to me, and it's something to be aware of in the event it happens. Millions of plays happen every day and if having this out there is seen by the umpire who has this happen, then we've contributed something...well, some of us have contributed.

So, feel free to move on from this thread if you feel it's a waste of your time.

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

At the risk of sounding like a d-bag.....

@Richvee and @Replacematt are going back and forth on a hypothetical situation. One might say a unicorn of a play. It seems like a lot of time and effort on something discussed here once in 8 years and probably never in any of their games.

The conversation on this thread is taking the same arc as the one from 2017. And the logic from then was once the UI occurs the other stuff doesn't matter. That hasn't changed. 

Not that hypothetical … this conversation was brought back up because it just happened in Game 1 of the WCWS and was the potential game ending call with the tying run on base.

As @Replacematt said, and it seems more of a unicorn when he and I agree on a topic like this 😁 , these are the plays that teach you to think like an umpire in using the rules and quit relying on viral umpiring, hand-me-down interps, and saying it will never happen.

[grayhawk]

On 6/7/2025 at 4:11 PM, Replacematt said:

I think we have to enforce the BI.

In doing so, we have enforced the consequence for both things that have occurred on the play.

There is no rule support for ignoring BI because it might have been impacted by something that occurred before it. Plus, there is no such animal as intentional vs. unintentional BI, thus only enforcing the UI means that a quick-thinking batter could intentionally interfere with the throw to ensure their runner is not thrown out and merely has to return with no penalty.

I sent Randy Bruns this question and he agrees. If the batter's actions do hinder the catcher's attempt to throw out the runner, then enforce BI.

[Biscuit]

One more wrinkle, in enforcing plays with CI, IFF, balks, and the like, we start enforcement with the LAST infraction, not the first (so, IFF, then CI, then balk). From that lens, enforce the BI first (the throw did not retire the runner, so dead ball, call the runner out), now consider UI. Here, you have to decide whether or not the runner being put out for the interference of his/her teamate satisfies the condition for UI. That I think is an open question. If it does, ignore the UI. If not, call the batter out on strikes and return the runner. 

Interestingly, based off this line of logic, you would never have BI with less than two strikes as it would be the batter being called out, not the runner, and thus the provision for ignoring UI could not be met.

But of course, I'm not 100% sure that you enforce it in reverse order like you do the balk, CI, IFF play. Anyone know where that comes from and if it applies here?

[Replacematt]

13 hours ago, Biscuit said:

Interestingly, based off this line of logic, you would never have BI with less than two strikes as it would be the batter being called out, not the runner, and thus the provision for ignoring UI could not be met.

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.)