Umpire ruling question.

• thavoice

  I usually am the one at games and such telling/informing people of the rulings in baseball. There are so many diff scenarios that it really is unique in some of the calls. I trey to be thavoice of reason at games when ignorant people dont know what they are talking about.
  
  Last night in a Great Lakes Collegiate League this was the situation.
  
  
  
  One out. Runner at first. Batter with two strikes.
  
  Runner steals, batter swings and misses. Plate umpire calls a delayed dead ball for the batter interfering with the catcher. The runner was safe at second so then the ruling comes down.
  
  (it is delayed because if the runner is thrown out then there is assumed no interferance).
  
  What do you rule?
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Inning over.
• thavoice

  and tell me why.
• hasbeen

  

  Batter is out on strikes and the runner goes back to first.
  
  right?
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  thavoice;1206089 wrote:and tell me why.

  Strike out and runner out because of interference. Batter cost them 2 outs.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  pnhasbeen;1206090 wrote:Batter is out on strikes and the runner goes back to first.
  
  right?

  You have to assume the catcher would throw him out if they had a delayed called.
• thavoice

  Raw Dawgin' it;1206091 wrote:Strike out and runner out because of interference. Batter cost them 2 outs.

  Not quite.
  
  Inning over. Yes. But not the correct ruling, accorind to these collegiate umpires.
• gorocks99

  

  Player has to go back to first because the catcher didn't get him out, I think. The batter is out on interference. For the interference to be waived, the player advancing to second has to be put out. In this case, he wasn't, so interference is not waived. I think.
  
  Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
  
  If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out— not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
• thavoice

  Raw Dawgin' it;1206093 wrote:You have to assume the catcher would throw him out if they had a delayed called.

  The delayed call is to see if the runner is thrown out. If the runner is thrown out then it is assumed the catcher wasnt intefered with enough and the batter is not ruled out.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  thavoice;1206098 wrote:The delayed call is to see if the runner is thrown out. If the runner is thrown out then it is assumed the catcher wasnt intefered with enough and the batter is not ruled out.

  So what's the explanation then?
• thavoice

  gorocks99;1206095 wrote:Player has to go back to first because the catcher didn't get him out, I think. For the interference to be waived, the player advancing to second has to be put out. In this case, he wasn't, so interference is not waived. I think.
  
  Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
  
  If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out— not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

  yes. That is the actual rule.
  
  I should say that I am trying to clarify it with two other umps if indeed these guys last night got it right. I have to assume they did because, well, they are the experts.
• gorocks99

  

  thavoice;1206103 wrote:yes. That is the actual rule.
  
  I should say that I am trying to clarify it with two other umps if indeed these guys last night got it right. I have to assume they did because, well, they are the experts.

  What did the umps actually rule?
• thavoice

  Raw Dawgin' it;1206101 wrote:So what's the explanation then?

  Gonna wait a bit and see if anyone else chimes in and gets the ruling the same as the umps.
  
  
  From coaching for 10 years at the HS level I have seen it befor and the batter is ruled out, and runner sent back. That is what the rule states, but there was also an added thing to the ruling that I am not 100% certain was correct.
• hasbeen

  

  gorocks99;1206095 wrote:Player has to go back to first because the catcher didn't get him out, I think. The batter is out on interference. For the interference to be waived, the player advancing to second has to be put out. In this case, he wasn't, so interference is not waived. I think.
  
  Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
  
  If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out— not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

  This is my experience with it the past few years of college ball. Runner always went back and batter was out. I can't think of a time when the runner was called out.
• lhslep134

  

  pnhasbeen;1206090 wrote:Batter is out on strikes and the runner goes back to first.
  
  right?

  That's what it should have been.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  thavoice;1206107 wrote:Gonna wait a bit and see if anyone else chimes in and gets the ruling the same as the umps.
  
  
  From coaching for 10 years at the HS level I have seen it befor where the batter is ruled out, and runner sent back. That is what the rule states, but there was also an added thing to the ruling that I am not 100% certain was correct.

  W/o knowing the rules i would assume they give the catcher the benefit of the doubt for throwing him out and since he was interfered with the runner would be out, not given a second chance to steal.
• thavoice

  pnhasbeen;1206108 wrote:This is my experience with it the past few years of college ball. Runner always went back and batter was out. I can't think of a time when the runner was called out.

  I am thinking this is correct ruling but am waiting for some of my friends who have umped for years to get back to me.
  After the games the umps were at the concession stand and I asked them what they ruled on that play. They both explained it to me and..well..i am just seeing if anyone else can give this same explanation.
  
  The coach didnt argue it..he asked quickly and that was it, but then again it was the ASST coach as the HC got tossed out of both games on sunday and was suspended for the game last night.
• gorocks99

  

  BTW, the language above is from MLB. Here's the NCAA language:
  

  f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s
  fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any
  other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;
  
  
  PENALTY for f.—The runner(s) return to the base occupied at the time
  of interference.
  
  
  Exceptions—
  (1) If the runner is advancing to home plate and there are fewer than two
  outs, the runner, instead of the batter, is out.
  
  
  (2) The batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out,
  or if the runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
  
  
  (3) If the batter also should strike out on the play, it is a double play.
  
  
  (4) If a batter/runner and a catcher fielding the ball make contact, no call
  shall be made unless either player attempts to alter the play.

  So he struck out, and it's a double play. Inning over.
• thavoice

  Raw Dawgin' it;1206111 wrote:W/o knowing the rules i would assume they give the catcher the benefit of the doubt for throwing him out and since he was interfered with the runner would be out, not given a second chance to steal.

  Yeah, but that isnt in the rule, and it wasnt what they ruled last night. I am still thinking they got it wrong. The runner gets sent back.
• thavoice

  gorocks99;1206115 wrote:BTW, the language above is from MLB. Here's the NCAA language:
  
  
  
  So he struck out, and it's a double play

  Bingo.
  
  Double play.
  
  Batter was called out for striking out, and for the inteferance!
  
  
  
  WHen it happened last night I thought they called the runner out which I knew wasnt right. I had never seen it before where it was strike three, interferance so it was a doublt play
• hasbeen

  

  wow. never seen that before. those umps got it right. studs.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  thavoice;1206118 wrote:Bingo.
  
  Double play.
  
  Batter was called out for striking out, and for the inteferance!
  
  
  
  WHen it happened last night I thought they called the runner out which I knew wasnt right. I had never seen it before where it was strike three, interferance so it was a doublt play

  I said that

  Raw Dawgin' it;1206091 wrote:Strike out and runner out because of interference. Batter cost them 2 outs.

  But reps to gorocks for the legit rule lol
• thavoice

  pnhasbeen;1206119 wrote:wow. never seen that before. those umps got it right. studs.

  Neither have I. At first it seems like it is wrong he should get two outs awarded to him...but when I was thinking about it more I thought maybe it is put into place so batters doesnt intentionally step into the plate on striking out to get in the way and make the umpire call it on him knowing that he is already out and just taking a chance it wont get called and gives the runner a little bit of an advantage. WIth knowing ya can get two outs that would make it not wise to try.
  I asked some of the players afterwards and they werent certain of the call either. They all thought the umps called the runner out as well..which woulda been incorrec.t
• thavoice

  Raw Dawgin' it;1206125 wrote:I said that
  
  But reps to gorocks for the legit rule lol

  No, you said strike out and the runner out. What happened was the batter struck out for one out, interferance for the second out. The runner was not called out. If there had been no outs in the inning an dthis happened the runner would have returned to the base/
  
  
  If you were the ump last night when it happened you would have gotten the end result correct that the inning was over...but the wrong actual call and it woulda been fubar if there were no outs.
• Wooball

  

  Is the rule the same in high school? Would be good to know in case this would actually happen, although I have never seen it happen on strike 3 like described in all my years playing and coaching.
  
  Also had a rules question that came to me during the Kent St v UF game. In the 9th with the bases juiced on the 3-2 pitch. Check swing, homeplate umpire doesn't immediately check with the base umpire. The runners could have easily started for the next base on ball 4. Once the base ump rings him up, are the runners live? Just watching that game in a high pressure situation with the delay on the strike 3 call, I was surprised there weren't runners all over the place.