baseball 3rd strike interference
RonSanta
definitively answer:
With a runner on 2nd and no outs, the catcher drops the called third
strike and the batter head for first. As the catcher begins his throw to
1st, the umpre interferes with his throw and it sails into right-field.
R2 scores and the batter winds up at 2nd. Should the play stand?
Ronald Santa, NCUA, PO Box 4062, Middletown, RI 02842
Baseball, Softball, & Volleyball, NASO
James Mantle u
: A colleague of mine posed the following question which I could not
Under MLB Rules (your mileage and rulebook may differ):
Umpire interference with a through is covered in two places: 2.00 and
5.09b.
Under 2.00/Interference, it is umpire interference only if the umpire
interferes with a catcher's throw only when the catcher is attempting to
retire a base runner who is stealing. Under 5.09b, it's interference for
interfering with throw. This is one of the self-contradicting parts of
the rulebook, and by an interpretation document from BUD and MLB, 5.09b
prevails. In this case, you let the (interfered-with) throw happen, but
make some sort of call/signal as soon as the throw is released. let the
play unwind (heh, maybe they would have retrieved that ball, tagged
someone, done a rundown and retired both runners).
Then, when it has all happened, call time, call interference on yourself,
return R2 to 2B, circle the wagons, and prepare to take some grief.
I'm unsure about what to do with the batter-runner. He has become a
runner by 6.09b, and 5.09b says "runners may not advance", so I'm
inclined to call him out. If he should be awared a base, he only gets 1B.
Jim
Craig W. M. Friedley
>
> A colleague of mine posed the following question which I could not
> definitively answer:
> With a runner on 2nd and no outs, the catcher drops the called third
> strike and the batter head for first. As the catcher begins his throw to
> 1st, the umpre interferes with his throw and it sails into right-field.
> R2 scores and the batter winds up at 2nd. Should the play stand?
> Ronald Santa, NCUA, PO Box 4062, Middletown, RI 02842
> Baseball, Softball, & Volleyball, NASO
No. The plate umpire should immediately call "That's Interference"
while pointing in the vicinity of the plate. If the catcher's
initial throw puts out a runner the out stands; if not, then immediately
call time (as the ball goes into the outfield) and place runners back on
base. In your case first and second.
Craig W. M. Friedley
Ryan Robbins
>With a runner on 2nd and no outs, the catcher drops the called third
>strike and the batter head for first. As the catcher begins his throw to
>1st, the umpre interferes with his throw and it sails into right-field.
>R2 scores and the batter winds up at 2nd. Should the play stand?
The pro rules define umpire's interference as occuring when the umpire
"hinders, impedes or prevents a catcher's throw to prevent a stolen
base..."
Because the umpire didn't hinder the catcher's attempt to put out a
base stealer, you can't really apply this rule. I would tell the
catcher it's just one of those things, he should have held onto the
ball or the pitcher should have made a better pitch.
However, Federation rules define umpire's interference as occuring
when the umpire "inadvertantly moves so as to hinder a catcher's
attempt to throw..." Here there is no mention about a base stealer.
So under Federation rules, I would place the runners where I think
they would have been had the interference not occurred. Somewhere
in the Federation case book for this year there is a play similar
to this.
_____________________________________________________________________
Ryan Robbins "Nothing in fine print is ever good news."
University of Maine -- Andy Rooney
_____________________________________________________________________
RROB...@Maine.Maine.Edu ____________________________________________
http://maine.maine.edu/~rrobbi32/____________________________________
Craig W. M. Friedley
>
> RonSanta (rons...@aol.com) wrote:
> : With a runner on 2nd and no outs, the catcher drops the called third
> : strike and the batter head for first. As the catcher begins his throw to
> : 1st, the umpre interferes with his throw and it sails into right-field.
> : R2 scores and the batter winds up at 2nd. Should the play stand?
> : Baseball, Softball, & Volleyball, NASO
>
>
> Umpire interference with a through is covered in two places: 2.00 and
> 5.09b.
>
> Under 2.00/Interference, it is umpire interference only if the umpire
> interferes with a catcher's throw only when the catcher is attempting to
> retire a base runner who is stealing. Under 5.09b, it's interference for
> interfering with throw. This is one of the self-contradicting parts of
> the rulebook, and by an interpretation document from BUD and MLB, 5.09b
> prevails. In this case, you let the (interfered-with) throw happen, but
> make some sort of call/signal as soon as the throw is released. let the
> play unwind (heh, maybe they would have retrieved that ball, tagged
> someone, done a rundown and retired both runners).
>
> Then, when it has all happened, call time, call interference on yourself,
> return R2 to 2B, circle the wagons, and prepare to take some grief.
>
> I'm unsure about what to do with the batter-runner. He has become a
> runner by 6.09b, and 5.09b says "runners may not advance", so I'm
> inclined to call him out. If he should be awared a base, he only gets 1B.
>
> Jim
Call the batter out. Sorry somebody gets the short end of the stick on
this play. But look at it this way. The batter caused the entire
problem in the first place by striking out. Don't penalize the defense.
Craig W. M. Friedley
Ryan Robbins
umpire's interference in 2.00 and what happens when there is umpire's
interference on a throw to retire a base stealer.
Rule 5.09 simply states:
"(b) The plate umpire interferes with the catcher's throw; runners may not
advance"
The rule doesn't say "a throw," it says "the throw." And in 2.00 we're
told it's umpire's interference when the umpire interferes with the
catcher as the catcher tries to throw out a base stealer. Rule 2.00
defines umpire's interference; Rule 5.09 tells us what happens.
James Mantle u
: I don't see any contradiction in the rules between the definition of
: umpire's interference in 2.00 and what happens when there is umpire's
: interference on a throw to retire a base stealer.
:
: Rule 5.09 simply states:
: "(b) The plate umpire interferes with the catcher's throw; runners may not
: advance"
:
: The rule doesn't say "a throw," it says "the throw." And in 2.00 we're
: told it's umpire's interference when the umpire interferes with the
: catcher as the catcher tries to throw out a base stealer. Rule 2.00
: defines umpire's interference; Rule 5.09 tells us what happens.
Not so much a contradiction, as a restriction present only in one of the
two cases.
If 2.00 was dominant, umpire's interference would be called only if you
interfered with the catcher while he was trying to throw, and only if that
throw was trying to retire a stealing base runner.
Under 5.09, umpire interference would be called only if you interfered
with the catcher while he trying to throw, for any purpose.
Subtle difference. 5.09 prevails. Delete the "attempting to prevent a
stolen base" from 2.00.
Jim
Michael Soss
: : I don't see any contradiction in the rules between the definition of
: : umpire's interference in 2.00 and what happens when there is umpire's
: : interference on a throw to retire a base stealer.
: :
: : Rule 5.09 simply states:
: : "(b) The plate umpire interferes with the catcher's throw; runners may not
: : advance"
: :
: : The rule doesn't say "a throw," it says "the throw." And in 2.00 we're
: : told it's umpire's interference when the umpire interferes with the
: : catcher as the catcher tries to throw out a base stealer. Rule 2.00
: : defines umpire's interference; Rule 5.09 tells us what happens.
Actually, it seems to me that the rule says, "the catcher," as opposed to
"a catcher."
Mike
Adam Hickman
In reading this little dilemma and the posts which followed, it seems as
if nobody has stated the obvious. The answer to the question. The play
should stand. Section 2.00 of the rulebook defines umpire's interference
as a situation in which an umpire interferes with the catcher trying to
prevent a steal. So, a dropped third strike situation interference would
not be called.
Adam Hickman
Level III Umpire
Ontario Baseball Association