Was this interference?

[dddunn3d]

Working the dish - LL Sr/ R1, R3

count 1-1...pitch bounces in dirt and F2 does a good job smothering it as it rebounds about a foot in front of B3.

B3 reaches down and picks the ball up.

Now what?

Sort of caught me by surprise as I have never ever seen that (B picking up a live ball) in almost 40 years of practically living on a baseball field.

[Jeff C.]

I had the same thing in a summer game last year. No runners were advancing. No squawks from anyone. I did tell the batter to leave it alone next time.

[JaxRolo]

Technically it might be interference but if you call that you will (here I go again) grab the $hitty end of the stick!!!

Best thing to do is kill it. That is if no one was trying to advance.

[Thunderheads]

Technically it might be interference but if you call that you will (here I go again) grab the $hitty end of the stick!!!

Best thing to do is kill it. That is if no one was trying to advance.

That's got to be interference, not saying I'd necessarily grab that stick (depends on the situation) but ....

By rule, isn't that interference. Time. Everyone advances,...yes? (by the book)

[Whonu19]

This happens far more often than you would think! My general practice is AS LONG AS NO RUNNERS ATTEMPT TO ADVANCE, I call, "TIME" and change the ball.... Brush the plate and explain to the batter what could have happened. If a runner starts to advance, I impose the interference call... Batter out and return runners.... Probably followed by a good Sh$t Storm~

[Rich Ives]

To have interference there must be a play that was interfered with.

No play, no interference.

There was no play happening here so no interference - and besides, it was assistance, not interference

[sdix00]

I would think officially we have "interference without a play."

[mstaylor]

Advancing runner, interference. No advance, nothing. The OP doesn't say whether there was an attempt. As Rich says, you can't have interference without a play.

[Dragon29]

I would think officially we have "interference without a play."

Huh?

Rule 2.00 - INTERFERENCE: Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinder or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play

(my emphasis)

[Rich Ives]

I would think officially we have "interference without a play."

Huh?

Rule 2.00 - INTERFERENCE: Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinder or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play

(my emphasis)

It's a Roder invention. It's also sometinmes called weak interference. Best example is backswing interference where all you do is kill the ball.

[dddunn3d]

Yeah, an attempt to make a play is key.

However, what exactly does that mean in this situation? The runners read the ball in the dirt and start to go towards their advance bases. They stop when they see the ball blocked down in front of the plate. But now they are perilously far away from their bases and are in danger of being picked-off, especially R1.

Now how is F2 supposed to attempt to catch R1 off 1B if the batter has the ball in his hand? I think that in this situation, interference can be called because the batter's deliberate action precluded F2 from initiating any attempt at a play.

The key word here is deliberate, which distinguishes it from the unintentional backswing-type interference (Roder's weak interference).

Trying to divine if the runners are attempting to advance, or just bluffing an advance, or too far off their base, etc. is, IMHO, the wrong way to go.

[Rich Ives]

Yeah, an attempt to make a play is key.

However, what exactly does that mean in this situation? The runners read the ball in the dirt and start to go towards their advance bases. They stop when they see the ball blocked down in front of the plate. But now they are perilously far away from their bases and are in danger of being picked-off, especially R1.

Now how is F2 supposed to attempt to catch R1 off 1B if the batter has the ball in his hand? I think that in this situation, interference can be called because the batter's deliberate action precluded F2 from initiating any attempt at a play.

The key word here is deliberate, which distinguishes it from the unintentional backswing-type interference (Roder's weak interference).

Trying to divine if the runners are attempting to advance, or just bluffing an advance, or too far off their base, etc. is, IMHO, the wrong way to go.

So you come here and ask what to do, several answer, then you tell us we're wrong.

Thanks a heap. Good luck with your next question.

[noumpere]

Yeah, an attempt to make a play is key.

However, what exactly does that mean in this situation? The runners read the ball in the dirt and start to go towards their advance bases. They stop when they see the ball blocked down in front of the plate. But now they are perilously far away from their bases and are in danger of being picked-off, especially R1.

Now how is F2 supposed to attempt to catch R1 off 1B if the batter has the ball in his hand? I think that in this situation, interference can be called because the batter's deliberate action precluded F2 from initiating any attempt at a play.

Yes you could have interference but youve addeed information that wasnt in your first post. The umpire needs to decide, benefit of the doubt to the defense, but its not necessarily interference as mentioned by others.

[dddunn3d]

Yeah, an attempt to make a play is key.

However, what exactly does that mean in this situation? The runners read the ball in the dirt and start to go towards their advance bases. They stop when they see the ball blocked down in front of the plate. But now they are perilously far away from their bases and are in danger of being picked-off, especially R1.

Now how is F2 supposed to attempt to catch R1 off 1B if the batter has the ball in his hand? I think that in this situation, interference can be called because the batter's deliberate action precluded F2 from initiating any attempt at a play.

The key word here is deliberate, which distinguishes it from the unintentional backswing-type interference (Roder's weak interference).

Trying to divine if the runners are attempting to advance, or just bluffing an advance, or too far off their base, etc. is, IMHO, the wrong way to go.

So you come here and ask what to do, several answer, then you tell us we're wrong.

Thanks a heap. Good luck with your next question.

Rich, please point out to me where:

1) I asked anywhere for what to do, and

2) I said anyone was wrong.

Additionally, what the heck is 'assistance?' The only assistance I know of in the rules is 7.09(h).

[dddunn3d]

Yeah, an attempt to make a play is key.

However, what exactly does that mean in this situation? The runners read the ball in the dirt and start to go towards their advance bases. They stop when they see the ball blocked down in front of the plate. But now they are perilously far away from their bases and are in danger of being picked-off, especially R1.

Now how is F2 supposed to attempt to catch R1 off 1B if the batter has the ball in his hand? I think that in this situation, interference can be called because the batter's deliberate action precluded F2 from initiating any attempt at a play.

Yes you could have interference but you've added information that wasn't in your first post. The umpire needs to decide, benefit of the doubt to the defense, but its not necessarily interference as mentioned by others.

I apologize for not making myself clear, this extra information was meant to be a hypothetical extension of the play. Originally, I have no idea were the runners were, if they had started to advance, etc., but that's my point. In this situation, the PU has the responsibility to track the pitch and make calls relating to the batter, not to try to ascertain the disposition of the runners.

So as far as I can tell, the consensus of the thread is that interference here is contingent on what the runners do, and not on what the batter, the player that actually touched the live ball, does.

[mstaylor]

It also depends on what the catcher does. How many times have you seen the catcher spin 4 or 5 times trying to find the ball. You can't call interference if the catcher doesn't have a clue where the ball is. You also can't call interference if the runners just take a couple of steps and then return. It's when it becomes more than that that you have to decide to just kill it and reset or call interference.

[LA ump]

I had something similar yesterday in which Ball four goes to the backstop and the on deck batter picks it up.

[dddunn3d]

Everyone:

The idea that interference in this situation is contingent upon the actions of someone other than the offender just didn't sit right with me.

Thus this e-mail:

From: fivetoolsbaseball@yahoo.com

Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 10:24 PM

To: carlchildress@officiating.com

Subject: Please to help on this situation

Carl,

R1, R3

count 1-1...pitch bounces in dirt and F2 does a good job smothering it as it rebounds about a foot in front of B3.

B3 reaches down and picks the ball up.

Now what?

In my discussions so far, most umpires say this is not interference, unless the runners try to advance, and to just kill it. This does not feel right to me. I can envision a coach instructing his batters to always pick up the ball in this situation to protect the runners. Example:

Proceed as above but R1 reads the pitch in the dirt, starts to advance then checks and returns to 1B. How can F2 make an attempt R1 returning to 1B when the batter has the ball in his hand?

I may be wrong, and if so, then I'll add it to the list (it's getting sort of long), but IHMO this has to be ruled interference with runners on the bases because the batter's action precludes any attempt at a play.

Thank you,

David Dunn

And Papa C's reply:

From: Carl Childress <carlchildress@officiating.com>

To: fivetoolsbaseball@yahoo.com

Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 4:14:59 AM

Subject: RE: Please to help on this situation

David:

You are right, of course. I can't imagine any other correct ruling as long as runners are on base.

The batter is hindering the defense by picking up the live ball. Your point that coaches might teach batters to pick up the ball is well-taken. You point out the interference prevents the catcher from making a play.

There's more. The batter handling the ball precludes, for example, the catcher from any dekes: He pretends to lose the handle, just waiting for an unwary runner to attempt to advance.

This is too easy: Live ball, runners on base, pitch, and the batter handles the ball.

That's Offensive Interference 101.

Routine call: "Time! Interference! The batter is out."

Thanks.

Papa C

[scrounge]

It may be actually be interference, but if no one's running and nothing is de facto actually hindered? I'm not calling it. Seems like going out of your way to be overly legalistic to do so. Just like prosecutors often use discretion in not filing every possible charge they can, some discretion is ok here as well. At least that's how I see it. Let the kids play.

[Guest]

Why exactly do some many people bow down to the knowledge of Carl Childress?

I stopped reading anything he had to offer when I read his game management solution was to have coaches eject players by asking them to remove them from the line-up.

[Mr Umpire]

Why exactly do some many people bow down to the knowledge of Carl Childress?

I stopped reading anything he had to offer when I read his game management solution was to have coaches eject players by asking them to remove them from the line-up.

Agreed. And, I would not have INT b/c of what an umpire who has been to and instructed at Jim Evans said "There has to be interference to call interference". Now, if that is what pro schools are teaching, why would I call something that is not interfering with the game. No call is the correct call if there is no possible play. Just b/c runners are on base does not mean there is a play anywhere.

I'll agree with an ex-professional baseball umpire before I will with someone who wants coaches to eject players.

[sdix00]

Why exactly do some many people bow down to the knowledge of Carl Childress?

I stopped reading anything he had to offer when I read his game management solution was to have coaches eject players by asking them to remove them from the line-up.

I think this is harsh.. This is a bit like choosing not to vote for a political candidate just because he is not the same religion as you are. If he gets 98-99% of the stuff correct, his efforts do not deserve to be discounted

People have the same issue with J/R.

Anytime you put yourself out there in 350 pages of analysis of a highly-flawed rule book, you are going to have some debatable points.

Name for me please the rules analyst who has published more current information, more overall content, in a better format.

[mstaylor]

I have a lot of respect for what Carl has done over the years in teaching umpires and publishing his BRD, I have reccomended it over the years will continue to do so. There is none better at documenting the differences in the codes, his research and contacting the correct people is impeccable. He has written some good books besides the BRD but as far as rules interps and mechanics, his time is past. He has advanced some pretty off the wall ideas, others just flat wrong. There are others that I listen to long before Carl, Evans obviously being one.

[sdix00]

I have a lot of respect for what Carl has done over the years in teaching umpires and publishing his BRD, I have reccomended it over the years will continue to do so. There is none better at documenting the differences in the codes, his research and contacting the correct people is impeccable. He has written some good books besides the BRD but as far as rules interps and mechanics, his time is past. He has advanced some pretty off the wall ideas, others just flat wrong. There are others that I listen to long before Carl, Evans obviously being one.

Agreed, IF Evans would publish something current. This does not discount what is out in the ether right now. It would just have more of a voice if it were available.