Runner on base and a player hits a ball in the outfield for a base hit, with legitimate catcher's interference. What is the outcome?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
If all base runners reach their next base, and the batter reaches first, the interference is disregarded.
In this situation, if the runner did not advance, the offensive manager may elect to accept the penalty for CI. However, unless the runner was stealing, the runner isn't awarded the next base.
So, in this situation, the outcome will be that the result of the play stands.
In this situation, if the runner did not advance, the offensive manager may elect to accept the penalty for CI. However, unless the runner was stealing, the runner isn't awarded the next base.
So, in this situation, the outcome will be that the result of the play stands.
quote:Originally posted by IEBSBL:
Runner on base and a player hits a ball in the outfield for a base hit, with legitimate catcher's interference. What is the outcome?
What does "legitimate catcher's inteference" mean?
Was interference called?
Yes Catcher's interference was called. What I meant by legitimate was that I wanted to point out that it was contested and everybody knew it was Catcher's interference.
@3fingered....the runner on 2nd can he only move up 1 base? Could he score on the base hit?
@3fingered....the runner on 2nd can he only move up 1 base? Could he score on the base hit?
quote:Originally posted by IEBSBL:
Yes Catcher's interference was called. What I meant by legitimate was that I wanted to point out that it was contested and everybody knew it was Catcher's interference.
@3fingered....the runner on 2nd can he only move up 1 base? Could he score on the base hit?
The ball is not dead on catcher's interference. Play is allowed to continue. R2 could score.
Once catcher's interference is called you can be as agressive as you want on the bases, because worse case, the manager can elect to have the batter go to first and any forced runners move up. Otherwise he can take the result of the play.
No. Take for example a runner on second and the batter reaches first base safely. Once R2 reaches third, the conditions to ignore CI have been attained, and the offensive coach has no option to ask for a CI penalty to be enforced. If R2 is thrown out at the plate or returning to third, he is out.
So the coach's option is to take a condition that might be considered "worse" than the CI?
For example R2, successful sacrifice bunt with CI, coach chooses to have runner at third with the out instead of R1, R2?
For example R2, successful sacrifice bunt with CI, coach chooses to have runner at third with the out instead of R1, R2?
Well, in those instances where an option is permitted by the rules, almost always one of the options is worse, right?
Perhaps, you're thinking that CI should carry some penalty which would always be more severe than accepting the result of the play. In reality, the great majority of baseball rules are not punitive-- the rules just try to reach equity. Of course there are some exceptions; the NFHS malicious contact rule is an example.
Perhaps, you're thinking that CI should carry some penalty which would always be more severe than accepting the result of the play. In reality, the great majority of baseball rules are not punitive-- the rules just try to reach equity. Of course there are some exceptions; the NFHS malicious contact rule is an example.
My goal in reading and 'contributing' to this forum is to simply improve my understanding of the rules.
In my experience I can't remember ever seeing CI on a ball put in play at the HS or lower level where a dead ball wasn't called immediately or when the play was properly allowed to continue resulted in any kind of meaningful play there after. Most were foul balls or weak ground balls that resulted in the CI being enforced.
At the higher levels, it simply doesn't happen very often because the catchers position themselves appropriately. As a result, I don't really have a lot of experience with seeing the result of the play being an option.
My curiosity in this particular rule is simply because my son, back before he became a PO, had an incredibly long swing and had several incorrectly called CI's on hits that were ruled dead immediately.
Call it morbid curiosity more than anything else...
In my experience I can't remember ever seeing CI on a ball put in play at the HS or lower level where a dead ball wasn't called immediately or when the play was properly allowed to continue resulted in any kind of meaningful play there after. Most were foul balls or weak ground balls that resulted in the CI being enforced.
At the higher levels, it simply doesn't happen very often because the catchers position themselves appropriately. As a result, I don't really have a lot of experience with seeing the result of the play being an option.
My curiosity in this particular rule is simply because my son, back before he became a PO, had an incredibly long swing and had several incorrectly called CI's on hits that were ruled dead immediately.
Call it morbid curiosity more than anything else...
Yeah, if they were killing it on the interference then they were wrong. It should be announced when it occurs but the ball is left live.