Hmmm, Why did you award her 1B?

[default]

So....1 out, R1 on 3rd base, R2 on 1st base. Batter swings and misses for strike 3 and catcher catches the pitch without the ball touching the ground. The batter takes off running to 1st base. The umpire yells "Batter is out" but the runner keeps on going. The catcher, a 4.0+ student who has memorized the rulebook, throws the ball toward 1st base and hits the batter-runner in the back. The umpire cannot determine whether hitting the runner was intentional but she is grinning at her coach like a Cheshire cat.

So, the strike-out would be out #2 and the out caused by the interference would be out #3, correct?

The reason I ask is because a highly intelligent HS catcher that I personally know ask put this scenario to me.

When the catcher threw to first base, was her throw part of an effort to retire a runner? Was there an active runner off her base that could have been thrown out?

If "yes"...then the retired batter is guilty of interference. Dead ball, runner closest to home out on the interference by a retired player.

If "no"...then the retired batter did not interfere with anything (ie: an opportunity for the defense to make an out). Live ball, play on.

If the catcher's throw is judged as designed to purposely hit the retired batter, rather than complete the play at first base, there would be no interference- and maybe even malicious contact by the catcher. It would have to be pretty obvious and blatant that the throw was away from the base and at the batter to make that call. But it is a possibility! If the throw is anywhere in the vicinity of being catchable at first base, give the defense the benefit of the doubt and call the interference.

 

[default]

Bretman, I doubt that she would ever attempt this, but it shows me that she knows the rules and that the wheels are turning.

 

[default]

When the catcher threw to first base, was her throw part of an effort to retire a runner? Was there an active runner off her base that could have been thrown out?

If "yes"...then the retired batter is guilty of interference. Dead ball, runner closest to home out on the interference by a retired player.

If "no"...then the retired batter did not interfere with anything (ie: an opportunity for the defense to make an out). Live ball, play on.

If the catcher's throw is judged as designed to purposely hit the retired batter, rather than complete the play at first base, there would be no interference- and maybe even malicious contact by the catcher. It would have to be pretty obvious and blatant that the throw was away from the base and at the batter to make that call. But it is a possibility! If the throw is anywhere in the vicinity of being catchable at first base, give the defense the benefit of the doubt and call the interference.

Interesting. This is not what I was told at our local assoc (Elyria) meeting tonight. While the batter running to first and drawing a throw is not interference in itself, any act of interference by that batter should be enforced. If she is hit by the throw, it is interference for sure because she was a retired player and not entitled to run. (assuming she is running towards first, not towards the dugout) The batter is not entitled to the running lane either because she is not entitled to run at all, thus the lane is not a factor. If she is not hit by the throw, it still can be interference if it is judged the retired batter batter interfered with the defense making the play.

A couple of very veteran guys described the exact play happening this past week. Dropped 3rd strike, 1st base occupied, batter takes off for first, catcher attempts to throw to first and it goes down the line. Ruling was dead ball, interference by the retired batter and the runner closest to home was declared out. Reasoning was in the umpires opinion, the retired batter interfered with the defense's ability to make the catch of a thrown ball. They also stated there was no attempt at a pickoff, the runner previously on first had taken off for second base with the pitch.

The rules interpreter who was leading the discussion agreed with the call and said that is consistent with the guidance in the form of a letter he recieved from the state about this scenario.

The gist of it is if there is interference of any sort caused by the retired batter, with the new wording you don't have to wonder about intentions and the retired batter has no rights aside from heading for the dugout. If she interferes in any way, you have an interference call.

 

[default]

Again, the batter's "intent" isn't an an issue. Bringing "intent" into this just muddies the waters as it is irrelevent. The very definition of interference says that the player must interfere with "a play". If there's no out to be gained, there is no "play" to be interfered with.

I would also have to disagree with what you were told about a throw from the catcher that sails over first base. How can a player interfere with someone catching a ball that is...uncatchable? Have you ever heard the concept of a "quality throw"? A quality throw means that the throw must in the direction and vicinity of the fielder receiving it and have some reasonable chance of actually retiring somebody before it can be interfered with.

Otherwise...if I'm the catcher on this play I'm going to purposely sky the ball into rightfield everytime and get the easy out!

I agree that the batter "isn't entitled to the running lane" as the running lane only applies to a batter-runner, which this retired batter is not. The running lane is moot on this play.

 

[default]

I'm just going by what I was told. The 2 guys working the game in question have more time umpiring combined than I have been alive and I'm not exactly a spring chicken. Again, this ruling was consistent with what we were told by the state on this play. In this particular case, they felt that the batter who wasn't supposed to be there influenced the throw and/or the catching of said throw which caused the ball to not be caught, thus it was interference.

What about a throw that would have gone right into the glove of the 1st baseman had the batter not been where she wasn't supposed to be? Now we have to judge was there an out to be had? Maybe they had some sort of elaborate pickoff play on trying to get the runner at 3rd to take off on a throw to first? Shrug, too much to infer IMO, thus it should be interference because the retired batter is someplace they shouldn't be.

Yes, a savvy catcher could bean the retired batter in the back (who is running to first base) and get the call IMO. No different than a savvy catcher hitting a girl who is inside the running lane on a bunt. The defense gets the call because the offense is doing something they shouldn't be doing.

I have no idea how much this has been discussed elsewhere, but it's been gone over and discussed at the last 3 meetings I've been to up here. I'm new at this umpiring thing. Should I go by what my association tells me to do or what I heard on the internet?

 

[default]

SECTION 47 PLAY BALL, MAKE A PLAY, INITIAL PLAY
ART. 1 . . . Play Ball.
The directive given by the umpire when it is time for the game to begin or to be resumed after having been suspended when "time" was granted.
ART. 2 . . . Make a Play.
a. Any action by the pitcher intended to cause a reaction from the runner(s) as it pertains to the look-back rule (F.P.).
b. Any action by a fielder who is attempting to catch or gain control of a batted or thrown ball.
c. An attempt by a defensive player to retire a runner or a batter-runner.

From the NFHS Rule book, to "Make a Play, it could be any one of the three above.

But Rule 8-18, Runner is Out, is specific about making a play on another runner:

ART. 18 . . . After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.
PENALTY: (Arts. 16, 17, 18) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

 

[default]

I'm just going by what I was told. The 2 guys working the game in question have more time umpiring combined than I have been alive and I'm not exactly a spring chicken.

I'm not doubting that someone is telling you this. But "longevity" isn't always the best indication of whether someone is right or wrong. I've known other umpires that have been around for 2, 3 or even 4 decades and still offer up bogus rule interpretations.

Had a guy last year, who was proud to let me know he'd been umpiring over 40 years, also tell me that as the base umpire you should NEVER go out on a fly ball to the outfield. Huh? Just because you've been around a long time doesn't necessarily mean you're always right.

What about a throw that would have gone right into the glove of the 1st baseman had the batter not been where she wasn't supposed to be? Now we have to judge was there an out to be had?

Yes, you do. The reason that the penalty for interference is an out is because the act likely prevented an out. If there was no out to be gained, then we don't just gift wrap free bonus outs and hand them to the defense. This goes right to the heart, spirit and intent of the rules covering interference. If the act prevents a chance for an out, penalize with an out. If it does not, then you don't!

Maybe they had some sort of elaborate pickoff play on trying to get the runner at 3rd to take off on a throw to first? Shrug, too much to infer IMO, thus it should be interference because the retired batter is someplace they shouldn't be.

No need to infer all that. All you have to judge is if the one single throw in question had the chance to retire an offensive player. You DO NOT need to judge what might or might not happen two or three throws and plays AFTER this one! The umpire's judgment should be based on this single throw, not a projection of any possible extra throws.

I have no idea how much this has been discussed elsewhere, but it's been gone over and discussed at the last 3 meetings I've been to up here.

The fact that they've had to discuss this same play at three different meetings leads me to believe that somebody doesn't really have a handle on it.

Should I go by what my association tells me to do or what I heard on the internet?

Now that is an interesting question. Umpires are often forced to go with what their association "higher ups" tell them, even if it goes against the grain of conventional wisdom.

I try to back up anything I post here with published interpretations, playing rules or case plays. Hopefully, that carries a little more weight than just some "random opinion on the internet". Earlier in this thread I posted an interpretation- straight from the NFHS- that seems to contradict what your association is telling you. Perhaps you could present that interpretation to them and see what they have to say.

 

[default]

Hey guys, to put this all into perspective, we have the luxury of knit-picking the rule book apart until we totally understand just this one rule. We have done this over the last couple of days. We are having some NFHS Rulebook E-Learning.

Now, let's get into a game and the umpire has seconds to make the correct interpretation and call.

I'm just happy sitting near the dugout keeping the coach out of trouble concerning the rules.

 

[default]

The reason it was discussed at 3 local meetings is because it was discussed at the state level repeatedly. Ideally, the rule should be enforced in a uniform manner throughout the state. (which it doesn't sound like it will be.) Thus the state puts out written guidance which should be shared at the local level in local meetings throughout the state.

If we are to read into the intent and spirit of the rule, my feeling is the intent of the rule is to not allow the offense from gaining benefit from doing something they are not supposed to be doing. IE Continuing to run once they are put out in this case. If the offending offensive player prevents the defense from controlling the ball by her illegal action, then it is clear to me the offense should not gain a benefit, but rather should be penalized. In this case, when the ball gets away, the runner(s) move up a base or 2. Should the offense gain that benefit because an offensive player did something illegal?

How about this different scenario. Batter strikes out, pauses for a moment and suddenly steps in front of the catcher as she is throwing the ball back to the pitcher. Ball goes to the backstop and all baserunners move up. It wasn't intentionally done by the batter, it just happened. Should this not be interference? No play is being made which can result in an out.

 

[default]

Besides the rule interpretation I already posted- which specifically says a retired batter running to first is not interference, unless she actually interferes with a play- here are a couple of other references:

Rule 8-6-18 (which is the actual rule being discussed on this play): A runner is out when...After being declared out or scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference.

Some people seem to stop right there and automatically say, "This is interference because the retired batter ran." But they need to read and understand the final sentence of the rule! It says:

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE BATTER-RUNNER RUNNING ON THE DROPPED THIRD STRIKE RULE.

That final sentence of the rule specifically means that the retired batter running to first is NOT an illegal act.

Now, read the definition of "Interference" (Rule 2-32-1): Interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder...

Rule 8-6-18 establishes that the batter's presence up the line is NOT an illegal act. Rule 2-32-1 says that interference must be the result of an illegal act.

Conclusion: A retired batter who advances toward first, when not entitled to, is not guilty of interference just because she drew a throw. She might be guilty of interference, if she subsequently prevents the defense from making a play, but until that happens there is no call to be made.

- Case Play 8.1.1B: With less than two outs and R1 on first base, F2 drops B2's third strike. B2 begins running to first base. F2 attempts to throw B2 out and overthrows F3. RULING: As soon as B2 starts to run to first, the umpire shall forcefully announce that B2 is out (because of the third strike and first base being occupied). The ball remains live.

The fact that the ball "remains live" should make it obvious that there is no interference on this play! The umpire announcing that the batter is out is a preventive measure to put the defense on notice that they do not need to make a throw (which the defense should be aware of anyway). If they do make a throw, it's entirely on them and their own mistake.

- Case Play 8.6.18: The umpire has the authority to declare two runners out when, after being declared out or scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

The case play reinforces that the retired batter running to first is not an illegal act. It also mentions again that the throw must be part of "a play on another runner" before it can be interfered with.

And that's all I got...

 

[default]

We are not that far apart at all aside from one important point. Your first reference says "unless she actually interferes with a play". If the retired player does something that causes the defense to lose control of the ball (gets hit with the ball, screens a player) then I don't see how that isn't interfering with the defense's ability to make a play on another runner. The ball is live and the runners may at their discretion advance at any time, thus to me any defensive action is a play. If the retired runner causes it, it is interference. The ball getting away certainly impedes the defense's ability to make a play on the runners moving up a base.

To me, that is the whole point of removing the word intent from the rule. Umpires no longer have to decide if the retired runner did something on purpose, only that she did something to interfere.

Yes, I would agree a blatant overthrow as in the casebook example is not interference. I would disagree in what may constitute interference is all.

I go back to my theoretical example of the ball getting away on a throwback to the pitcher caused by inadvertant contact by the retired batter. Of course that is interference, yet the by the book definition does not cover that instance directly. It has to be inferred. To read your examples literally, it wouldn't be interference at all because no play is being directly made on another runner.

If the defense throws the ball away all on their own, the offense has every right to take advantage of it. If the offense causes the ball to get away by doing something they have no rights to do, then I can't see how the defense should be penalized.

OK, this is a dead horse. Coaches shouldn't be surprised how this may be interpreted in a split second decision either way when it comes up.

 

[default]

To me, that is the whole point of removing the word intent from the rule. Umpires no longer have to decide if the retired runner did something on purpose, only that she did something ILLEGAL to interfere.

There ya go, Exx-Man...fixed it for ya!

(But, seriously, the addition of that one word is the key- just like it says in the very rule book definition of "Interference".)