Catcher interference-Earned run?

Catchers Interference is treated as a error for the purposes of computing earned runs. (OBR 10.18)

I did not quite follow your example - what happened to the second batter and how did the bases get loaded?

I actually told it wrong.
There were 2 on base as described before. Son had 1 out on strikes and the next batter gave up a ground ball to 2nd resulting in a double play that was reversed due to catcher interference. Closer came in and gave up a single scoring guy on 3r. Son was charged with an ER.

I'm no expert, but IMHO, yes it was an earned run.

Take away the catchers interference and you don't have the double play because maybe/maybe not the hitter would have hit into the double play. There is still less than two outs and the closer giving up the hit means that unless the runner that scored got on via an error, the run is earned and charged to the pitcher who put him on.

I also believe its an earned run.

Cannot assume a double play (even though it was executed...sort of)...can only assume 1 out on the batted ball and therefore the run would have scored.

Tough way to have it happen, but its earned.

This raises an interesting point that I have wondered about.

As a starting note, I don't know what a "clipper" means in this context. Are you saying he was hit with a pitch?

Anyway, 2 on, 1 out, then the CI. This makes bases loaded with 1 out.

CI is an error, I agree, but here's where I am unclear. In reconstructing the inning to determine earned vs. unearned runs, do you presume that the batter would have been out absent the CI? I know you cannot presume the DP, but do you presume one out? Or do you just note that he shouldn't be on base, should have been still only 2 on with 1 out, and just skip the batter as if he didn't happen at all?

If you presume an out, then in reconstructing the inning you have runners at 1st and 2nd, 2 outs, then a single. Scorer's judgment at that point as to whether the single was of such a character that the runner from second would have scored. Since in reality the hit only scored a runner from third, and not the runner who had already advanced to second (the one we reconstruct on the assumption he would still have been at first absent the CI), I would think that in reconstructing the inning you would still have only bases loaded, 2 outs. So under this scenario I cannot say whether the run is earned or unearned because I don't know what happened next.

If you don't presume the CI batter out, but only treat it as if he were not on base, then the single would reconstruct the inning as bases loaded, only 1 out. So again, you'd have to continue looking at what happened after that point to see whether or not runs were ultimately earned or unearned, but in all likelihood more will be earned since you still have to record 2 more outs before the bleeding stops.

So, Bobblehead, I need more information as to how the inning progressed until it was over.

And if anyone can answer my question about how properly to reconstruct this inning, please reply.

This should be in the Scoring / Stats section.

1st batter was walked, second batter was brushed by a pitch, 3rd batter hit a ground ball right to 2nd base and double play turned. The hit was not really influenced by the interference and everyone was shocked when it was called. The catcher (3rd year US college )argued the call but lost the argument. Next pitcher pitched gave up a single scoring the runner and 3rd and ended the game with a double play to get the final 2 outs. Made for an exciting ending. as we wewre up by 1 run.

In this latest post you omit the 1st out noted in your first post. Since you state that the DP ended the inning I'm going to assume that there was a third batter who struck out.

I would say the run is unearned. Here's why.

In the absence of the CI, you would've had runners at 1st and 2nd with one out. Next batter singles but in real life the hit was not good enough to score the man from 2nd, only the guy who had advanced to 3rd on the CI. So, what you should have had was bases loaded, one out, nobody in yet. The DP then would've ended the inning without any runs, so the run that actually scored is unearned. (Note that although you usually cannot presume a DP that is not turned, you can presume a DP that in real life was turned.)

Ruling this unearned does not depend on the answer to my question above about whether the pitcher benefits from a presumed out by the batter who reaches on a CI. Even if you granted this presumption, you would've had bases loaded, 2 outs, no one in, and then a ground out (the DP ball would've gotten you the third out, not the second and third outs).

I hope this answers your question. I still don't know the answer to my question, though, so if anyone else does, chime in.

Midlo Dad, I think that the catcher's interference is considered an out for the purposes of dertermining earned/unearned runs. That is how I have always done it. OBR 10.18 states: "For the purpose of this rule, a defensive interference penalty shall be construed as a fielding chance." Since OBR 10.18 earlier states "In determining earned runs...the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the pitcher in determining which bases would have been reached by errorless play", I believe that a batter who reaches base via catcher's interfence should be considered out for the purposes of earned run determination.

Thus, Midlo Dad, I believe that you are correct about the run. Earned or unearned depends on whether or not the scorer judges that the runner on second base would have scored on the single (which would have occurred with two outs).

I must type slowly. Your 2:14 post came while I was typing my 2:37 post. LOL

(well, OK, I was interrupted while typing, but still...)

according to the inside pages of a scorebook,
catcher's interference is an error on catcher
and not an at bat.I belive if this is true,unearned run