What's your call on this play??

[default]

This play just happened in the Junior Little League World Series Championship which may have cost Florida the championship against Puerto Rico (last year puerto Rico beat Elyria in the finals...no sour grapes here...ha)

Florida trails 3-2 top of 7th. There is one out. Florida has runners on 2nd and 3rd. Batter hits grounder to short. Batter out in bang/bang play at 1st. Runner from 3rd scores as throw from 1st is late. Runner (Batter) who was called out at first (apparently) thought she was safe and goes to second. Catcher throws the ball to 2. Runner is thrown out at 2(this runner could not be out at second because she was already out at 1st). Runner who started on 2nd proceeds to home to give Florida a one run lead. Umps confer for a lengthy meeting after an appeal from Puerto Rico. They conclude the batter interfered by drawing a throw to second when she was already out. Rulling is runner returns to 3rd, girl still out at first and the game is tied 3-3. Puerto rico goes on to win in bottom of 7th.

Was this the right call? I'm not so sure. I think it is similar to a strikeout victim drawing a throw to 1st on a dropped third strike and allowing a runner from 3rd to score when 1st was occupied and the batter was actually out and could not go to 1st because it was occupied. Catcher shouldn't have thrown it.

Thoughts?

 

[default]

I would have to temper my answer by first saying that I have never worked a Little League game and have never seen their rule book. There are nuances between other sanctioning bodies when it comes to calling interference by a retired runner and I can't really say 100% for certain if Little League has their own special interpretation for this.

Speaking from a standpoint of ASA or high school softball...

A retired runner continuing to run the bases MAY be considered as a form of interference. This is at the discretion and judgment of the umpires. If the retired runner collides with another fielder making a play, or contacts a thrown ball and prevents a play, the interference will be pretty obvious.

But it isn't always that obvious. For instance, there can be times when a runner is put out while advancing to a base and that retired runner will be right in the line of fire of another throw. You can't reasonably expect that retired runner to go "poof" and vanish from the basepaths. So, there is some "benefit of the doubt" given to such a runner and any subsequent act of interference would need to demonstarte some degree of intent.

On the play in question, the umpires could take into consideration whether or not the retired runner had any reasonable expectation to even realize that she was already out. If they think she did, and her continuing to run caused the defense to play on her instead of another viable runner, that can be ruled as an act of interference.

If the umpires ruled that this was interference (which is a viable call here), what happened next confuses the heck out of me.

If it was interference by an already retired runner, then somebody else has to be called out! In the case of ASA and high school softball, that somebody is the runner closest to home at the time of the interference. If that runner had already crossed the plate prior to the interference, her run would count. If she had not, she would be out. The only place you would be putting her would be back in the dugout, because she would be out on the interference call!

My impression is that the interference call itself may have been justified, but putting the runner back on third was the wrong penalty to apply here.

 

[default]

My impression is that the interference call itself may have been justified, but putting the runner back on third was the wrong penalty to apply here.

Hey, bret! Let me first state proudly that I'm not an ump. Which I acknowledge means my opinion may not be worth the pixels it's glowing through.

Nonetheless, I did see the play outlined above, and I'm pretty sure the call that the umps finally got to was correct.

Understand that the retired runner who proceeded to second drew the throw from the catcher. Only at that point did the runner at third go home and score.

I thought the runner who had been retired at first clearly interfered because she deceived the catcher into throwing down to second, which allowed the runner to score from third.

If the catcher holds onto the ball at home, the runner obviously does not score from third.

 

[default]

I can buy that they would rule this as interference. But if you rule interference, you have to call the runner closest to home out, not put her back on base. The only time you put runners back on base is when the act of interference was by a runner NOT already retired.

 

[default]

I can buy that they would rule this as interference. But if you rule interference, you have to call the runner closest to home out, not put her back on base. The only time you put runners back on base is when the act of interference was by a runner NOT already retired.

Aha! Gotcha.

I thought you were indicating that the run would count -- which it obviously wouldn't. My mistake.

You've convinced me. The runner going home should be called out, as a penalty for the interference.

*Bowing to bretman's expertise.*

 

[default]

I liked the final ruling. I don't know the official Little League rule, but it ended up as if the catcher had never thrown down to 2nd in an attempt to put out a runner who was "already out". Maybe they should have called the runner trying to score from 3rd out, but that seems harsh since it appeared the batter thought she was safe at 1st and was probably not trying to deceive the defense on purpose.

 

[default]

Boy....I dunno.

If the interference is considered malicious in intent, then yes, I would go with Bretman and declare the lead runner out. However, I agree with the umpires' discretion here, and they assumed that the batter-runner who was called out was confused about her status, so they must have reverted back to an immediate dead ball situation due to the "out" batter-runner's continuation, and froze the base-runners at the time of the dead ball. In the end, I believe the umpires got it right; after all, that's what it's all about.

Len

 

[default]

In my opinion the defense should have known the situation and the play should have never happened. But Since it did. I say shame on the defence. The run scores, the runnuer on 2nd is asked to leave the base because she was out. Next batter. I don't believe the young lady had any idea she was called out and just continued to play like she was taught and went to 2nd. Again I say the defence should have seen the call and the coaches should have been letting them know the situation.

 

[default]

In my opinion the defense should have known the situation and the play should have never happened. But Since it did. I say shame on the defence. The run scores, the runnuer on 2nd is asked to leave the base because she was out. Next batter. I don't believe the young lady had any idea she was called out and just continued to play like she was taught and went to 2nd. Again I say the defence should have seen the call and the coaches should have been letting them know the situation.

The 2nd base umpire called the "out" batter-runner out again at 2nd so there was confusion all over the field. I saw the play at different angles and the 1B umpre barely moved when he gave the out signal. I could see where that play was very confusing for the offense, defense, and umpires.

Len

 

[default]

Very good explanation Bretman. I think what makes it tough is it was a bang/bang play at 1st and then the ball was being thrown around like a hot potato and I don't think the runner knew she was out.

What about my second point then. About a girl who cannot run on a dropped third because 1st in occupied but she takes off anyhow and an inexperienced catcher throws down...maybe over 1st basemans head. two runs score. Isn't that the same difference.

 

[default]

These girls were 14u! The catcher was looking strait down the 1st base line and seen the ump call the base batter/runner called out. It was her mistake that caused the run to come from 3rd. But the rules are the rules. What the umps did was what they thougth was fair. I believe in little league that matters as well, they do have rules for being in the field and batting. I had this fight with Mrs Viper last night and could not make her understand that in our wourld the runner from third wuld be out. I would like to think in our world catchers would not have made that throw.

How does a team become Little League? Is it an all star team from a community? Neither of those teams would have a chance against some of the talent at asa we have seen around.

How do you let a team load the bases with bunts and score on one. Is there a line the corners cant pass in little league or was that just coaching?

 

[default]

What about my second point then. About a girl who cannot run on a dropped third because 1st in occupied but she takes off anyhow and an inexperienced catcher throws down...maybe over 1st basemans head. two runs score. Isn't that the same difference.

Totally different case. The rule books are available for everyone to read. You should not get an advantage just because your coach or your players do not know the rules of the sport.

 

[default]

They also spoke about this afterward and the 1st base ump did not actually say "out" just motioned it. Therefore he took the blame that no one probably new the girl was out at first. Not even the girl running from third to home. I think that it was a great decision by the umps.

For the second point, the catcher is aware of the situation-she knows 1st base is occupied when the third strike is given (or she should) and therefore knows not to throw the ball. Different situation all together. JMHO

I was very impressed with the umps last night-they met and had no problem listening to all explanations. They just wanted it to be fair for both teams. I think they accomplished that.

 

[default]

What about my second point then. About a girl who cannot run on a dropped third because 1st in occupied but she takes off anyhow and an inexperienced catcher throws down...maybe over 1st basemans head. two runs score. Isn't that the same difference.

Again, I couldn't tell you what Little League says about this. But ASA, high school and most of the other softball sanctioning bodies have a rule that specifically says a retired batter attempting to run on the third strike rule is NOT considered as a form of interference.

So, no, it isn't the same thing at all.

 

[default]

At the Junior level they were playing at last night the LL rule book is very much like ASA except for pitching limitations. They want a team to throw more than one pitcher during the tournament so there are some restrictions. Bretman and others, that clears it up including my apples to oranges example. Thanks.

 

[default]

The ump made the right call after talking with other umps. It was interfence by the runner. the runner was called out at 1st and contiuned to run cause the catcher to throw the ball. So there for she interfeared with the play.

 

[default]

How does a team become Little League? Is it an all star team from a community?
QUOTE]

Little League requires a charter with specific geographic boundries. There is a regular season of play and all-stars are selected from players representing teams from that specific charter. There is a District, State and Regional tournament leading to a World Series that is telecast on ESPN in 4 age levels. There is a ton of volunteer work that goes into LL from coaching to umping to field prep. Teams are usually a combination of girls who play travel ball and girls who love playing locally but do not choose to play or perhaps have the talent to play weekend travel ball.

http://www.littleleague.org/Little_League_Online.htm

 

[default]

Bretman and others, that clears it up including my apples to oranges example. Thanks.

Actually, that was a very good analogy you made there- not so much "apples to oranges" as maybe "Macintosh apples to Red Delicious apples"!

The plays are similar in that they both involve a player already retired continuing to run the bases. But the rule committees have recognized that batters are often coached to run, or at least start to run, on pretty much all third strikes, that often the batter has no idea what's going on behind her, like whether the ball was caught or what the umpire is signalling and that the defense has an ample chance to recognize this situation before hand and not make an unnecessary throw.

So they came up with one special rule that applies to one special situation that says a batter attempting to advance on this play, when she's not entitled to, is exempt from the rules about retired players continuing to run the bases.

 

[default]

The ump made the right call after talking with other umps. It was interfence by the runner. the runner was called out at 1st and contiuned to run cause the catcher to throw the ball. So there for she interfeared with the play.

Well, they came up with "a" call, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the "right" call.

I'm not questioning the interference call itself. What I'm questioning is the penalty that was (or wasn't) applied after the call was made.

If the umpires decide this was interference (which they can and did), then by the interference rules somebody has to be called out. You can't call out the player who interfered because she was already out. ASA and high school rules (and most others) would call out the runner closest to home. Instead of doing that, these umpires placed that runner back on third base.

I really don't know if Little League has their own rule thats different from everyone else's. My suspicion is that that would not. This play is being discussed on several other softball forums and I'm hoping someone will provide the actual Little League rule to clear that up.

 

[default]

defense needs to know what the heck is going on, how many outs. their error. if you watch the batter, when she ran to first, she did not see the ump, her head was turned the other way..