You make the call; You're gonna love this.

default

default

Member
Courtesy runner at 1st, two outs, 5th inning in a scoreless game, deep backstop with lots of room in foul territory, playing on a multi-use baseball/softball field with 225/250' fences.

Ball drilled to the left center fence.
Center fielder fields it cleanly makes a good throw to the ss cutoff
Very fast runner is waived home.
SS throws the ball to home, but up the line.
The ball and the runner arrive at the same time.
The ball is deflected by the catcher and flies into the backstop careening around the back stop to the 1st base side.
Runner crosses the plate.
The catcher chases it around.
The batter/runner sees that the ball loose and breaks for home.
The 3RD baseman is ready to make a tag at home on the batter/runner.
The Catcher comes up to throw.
The runner is walking back to the plate and is middle of the play blocking the throw/catch.
Batter/runner scores.

To further confuse the issue; the field umpire saw that the runner did not touch the plate and he thought she was coming back to touch the plate. I saw her bend over to pick up the bat and then look up into the face of the oncoming batter/runner much to her surprise to find herself in the middle of the play.

Questions
1. Who is out if anyone?
2. How many runs score if any?
 
default

default

Member
That sounds like a mess. I would say the runner who came back to pick up the bat is questionable. Did she touch home after she realized she missed home? Did she leave the field of play before she realized it? Did the catcher tag her after the ump ruled she missed home? It all depends on what she did. As far as the batter/runner at home, I'd say she was out for the interference by her teammate. You can not get the bats until the play is over.
 
default

default

Member
Did the catcher throw the ball. I would think that if she did not throw the ball there could not be an interference call.
 
default

default

Member
It was kind of a train wreck around home with runners sliding and fielders crashing. There were 6 players and one umpire in the area . There was a lot of shouting and then everyone just froze. I suspect that the umpire made some kind of call but what it was, was lost in the din.

The runner did not touch home before the batter/runner slide home and she did not leave the field.
I don't think that the ball was actually thrown by the catcher but that is not a requirement for interference.
 
default

default

Member
Everyone is safe until something else happens.

First, the runner on first is "safe" until the defense appeals their status of actually touching home.

Second, the batter is "safe" because the story leads me to believe that they touched the plate.

I would be hard-pressed to call interference on the first runner unless a throw was made to the plate. They may have been "in the way" but I don't think that is enough to warrant interference. If a throw had hit them after they had "scored" and then wandered back into the field of play, I think that there would be a strong case for interference. Even if the fielder covering home had to scramble to get around them - same thing. The first runner would have been interfering with the play.

Now, if the defense properly appeals the first runner not touching home, then the inning is over and no runs score. The same situation, in my opinion, if the first runner goes back and touches home after the batter had scored - they have now touched bases out of order.

I would have to defer to one of the umpire experts on if the out-of-order issue is an immediate umpire decision or if it must be appealed in this case.

And, the umpire should not have been picking up the bat.
 
default

default

Member
You couldn't pay me enough money to be the umpire in that game!!
 
default

default

Member
Sideliner; The runner that scored from 1st was picking up the bat when the play was being attempted on the batter/runner at home not the umpire. She was within a few feet of the sliding batter/runner at home and her backside was to the catcher blocking any throwing lane to the plate.

The cacher had the ball but did not make an appeal until the home plate umpire went into a conference with the field umpire. She may have tagged everyone and stomped on the plate but her actions after the play did not seem to matter to anyone.
 
default

default

Member
Why was the field umpire watching the play at home when he had the batter/runner to be concerned about??

All runners are safe and both runs count, pending the outcome of the appeal of course. I'm hard pressed to award any interference when the ball was loose and rolling all around the backstop, especially if there was no attempt made on the batter/runner. Simply picking up the ball and looking does not constitute an attempt to make a play.
 
default

default

Member
The batter/runner was sliding into home there was nothing else to watch. All the action was at home.

The catcher had the ball and the runner picking up her bat was in a direct line between the catcher and the play at the plate. She just walked into the play pleased that she had scored to pick up the bat. The batter/runner slide into the whole mess. I don't think she made contact with the runner but their were 6 players within 10' of home so anything is possible.
 
default

default

Member
The batter/runner was sliding into home there was nothing else to watch. All the action was at home.

I was referring to the point about the runner missing home, the batter runner would have still been on the bases.
 
default

default

Member
Let’s see if I have the facts.

1. Possible obstruction by catcher with Runner 1.
2. Runner 1 did not touch home base.
3. Possible interference by Runner 1 when Batter-Runner ran from third base to home.
4. Batter-runner touched home base and Runner 1 still has not touched home plate.

Ok, here goes. Obstruction and interference are both judgment calls so we will never know the right or wrong answer on those 2 instances. But, if obstruction was called the runner is only protected to the next base, which was home. The runner still has to touch home plate. If she over-runs the base, then obstruction is lifted. Once the Batter-runner touches home plate, the preceding runner cannot then touch home plate if she missed it when she crossed the plate. The umpire admitted that Runner 1 had not touched home plate.

What should have happened next? The defensive asks a dead-ball appeal that Runner 1 missed home plate. Out number 3 and any subsequent runs do not count.

Well that’s my stab at it. How did I do?
 
default

default

Member
What the umpires did was split the difference. Allowed a run to score but rang up an out for the third out. I can't explain their logic only the result. I assume that they decided that that the first run some how scored and then committed interference calling the second runner out.

The defense thought they were lucky to escape with only one run scoring while the offense thought that they might loose both runs and were satisfied with getting one. It was a timed game and everyone was anxious to get their hacks in. So this was as close to a do-over as you are likely to get in a 18U game. Final score 1-0.
 
default

default

Member
My stab is everyone's safe. The catcher should have thrown the ball to the plate when the first runner that missed the plate went back to pick up the bat and inadvertently blocked the throw. Without a throw how's an ump going to make a judgement call that there could have been a play at the plate that could have resulted in an out? I'm scratching my head because it seems like all this could have been avoided after everyone went back to the dugout by just appealing the missed home plate by the 1st runner. In that case inning over no runs count. No where did anyone ever say that she ever went back to touch the plate. Also I haven't seen what call was finally made?
 
default

default

Member
Still scratching my head why the field umpire would be involved in any way with a call about a runner missing the plate. It's not his area of responsibility. He should have been in the vicinity of third base, after having trailed the batter-runner there. Field umpire should have been about 60 feet away from home- not eactly the best position to judge a miss of the plate. Touches of home plate are the responsibility of the plate umpire.

As for the action at the plate...the runner who was going back to pick up the bat might be guilty of interference- if she had actually interfered with something. "No throw" doesn't always equal "no interference", but it is a pretty good starting point. If the catcher was just standing there holding the ball...what did this runner interfere with?

I'd give the defense some benefit of the doubt, if the catcher had at least drawn back to throw and aborted her effort due to the runner's presence. This is assuming that the runner really did touch the plate. If she did, then she doesn't have any business being in the line of the throw.

If she didn't touch the plate, and she moved back toward it to correct her baserunning mistake, then she does have a right to be there. Even if the catcher did make a throw that hit her, I'd treat this the same as any other runner who is accidently hit by a thrown ball anywhere else on the field- no penalty.

"Splitting the difference" and coming up with a call that gives one team a run and one team an out might sound like a "fair" solution. But unless that outcome is supported by some actual playing rule, it's nothing more than a cop-out to appease the coaches. "Fair" as it might seem, it isn't good sound umpiring. You should never make a call just because that call is the one least likely to tick somebody off.
 
default

default

Member
how about if she missed the plate, went back to touch and trailing runner beat her to the plate thereby passing her. :) No runs?
 
default

default

Member
how about if she missed the plate, went back to touch and trailing runner beat her to the plate thereby passing her. :) No runs?

To be called out for passing a runner, you have to physically pass completely past the more advanced runner in the basepaths.

The only way I could picture that happening here...

- First runner crosses the plate, but doesn't touch it (she's now on the "first base side" of the plate).

- She goes back toward the plate, passing it again without touching it, so that she is now back between third and home.

- Then the second runner would need to actually go completely around and past her (ie: also be between third and home, but completely past the first runner and closer to home plate than she is).

If the first runner was still on the first base side of the plate, then the second runner touched the plate, then the first runner went back and touched the plate...this would not be a passing the runner violation. But it would have a big effect on any possible appeal play for the missed base! Once the trailing runner touches the plate, the preceding runner may no longer go back and legally correct her miss. Sure, she might go back and touch it, but her re-touch would be moot. She could still be called out on a valid appeal by the defense.
 
default

default

Member
I would have preferred Snocatzdad's solution. If the leading runner didn't touch home and the trailing runner did then the trailing runner was passed by the leading runner making a called third out and no appeal would be necessary. No run scores and the inning is over.

The field umpire did not trail the runner but stayed near second and moved in on the call. He was out of position and I suspect that the home plate umpire had begun to move to cover a possible play at third and was down the line when the trailing runner broke for home. I was surprised that the field umpire announced to the home plate umpire what he had as they moving together for their conference instead of being quiet and having a private discussion. I also agree with Bretman that making a compromise call is definitely not the right call. My suspicion is that the right call would have been either that both runs score or that the out is recorded and no one scores.
 
default

default

Member
I would have preferred Snocatzdad's solution. If the leading runner didn't touch home and the trailing runner did then the trailing runner was passed by the leading runner making a called third out and no appeal would be necessary. No run scores and the inning is over.

I suppose that the defensive coach would have prefered that solution! :) But there wasn't anything that happened on this play that would support that call being made.

The field umpire did not trail the runner but stayed near second and moved in on the call. He was out of position and I suspect that the home plate umpire had begun to move to cover a possible play at third and was down the line when the trailing runner broke for home.

In that case...they were BOTH out of position!

There was a runner advancing to the plate. That is the plate umpire's primary responsibility and that is where he should be. Any trailing runner(s) belongs to the base umpire. Plate umpire isn't supposed to be covering third on this play.

I was surprised that the field umpire announced to the home plate umpire what he had as they moving together for their conference instead of being quiet and having a private discussion.

Very bad move on the base umpire's part. By openly announcing for all to hear that he had a runner missing a base, he may have just handed the defense a gift-wrapped out on an appeal that they may not have even realized was available to them!

Sounds like a lot went wrong on this one...
 
default

default

Member
...
As for the action at the plate...the runner who was going back to pick up the bat might be guilty of interference- if she had actually interfered with something. "No throw" doesn't always equal "no interference", but it is a pretty good starting point. If the catcher was just standing there holding the ball...what did this runner interfere with?

I'd give the defense some benefit of the doubt, if the catcher had at least drawn back to throw and aborted her effort due to the runner's presence. This is assuming that the runner really did touch the plate. If she did, then she doesn't have any business being in the line of the throw. ...

If the runner had touched the pllate, would this possibly be interference according to 8-7-N (being around a base to which a runner is advancing) even though the catcher didn't make an attempt on the B-R at home?
 
Top