OK, how 'bout this situation ...

First of all....LOL....how in the world could this happen....wouldn't exactly call it a squeeze w/ two outs......anyway....

I'm certainly not an umpire but this could be fun....interesting scenario....

I'm going to say it is a balk. Pitcher kicked and obviously threw the ball to the plate. Ball never crossed the foul lines so it cannot be a ball or strike.

I would compare it to a pitcher kicking to deliver a pitch (w/ men on, obviously) and he trips and the ball never crosses the foul line. Balk, Run scores, Game over.

Right or Wrong?....

I'm not an umpire, but my guess would be that it was a balk, although I have no idea how it could happen. I also don't get why anyone would call a squeeze with 2 outs. The point of the squeeze is to get the run in and take the out at first. If they got the out at first you'd be headed to extra innings. You would need the baserunner to be safe at first for the run to score.

It isn't a balk, rather it is obstruction. NFHS 2-22 lists one example of obstruction as "catcher or fielder hinders a batter as in 5-1-2b, 8-1-1e, 8-3-1c, and 8-3-2." The usual event is the catcher's glove is hit by the batter's swing, but sometimes a catcher will move up and catch the pitch before it reaches the batter. Either way is obstruction in NFHS, or "catcher's interference" in OBR.
In NFHS, the batter is awarded first, and all forced or stealing runners get one base. OBR is similar, except if R3 is stealing home, all runners advance one base.
The basic principle here is that the batter is entitled an opportunity to hit any pitch.

I was told of this situation the other night from the a friend who is a coach in the RCBL, they said it was on a "rules" test from some time ago.

I was told that it was "balk" and "obstruction"

Thought it would be a neat one to throw out there.

I said that it was a "balk" because the pitch never reached homeplate.

Was not a true situation, it was a question on some rules test many moons ago.

This is obstruction under the terms of 8.1.1e and not a balk because there was no infraction by the pitcher.
The ball is dead when the first baseman touched the ball. The batter is entitled to an unhindered attempt to hit the pitch. The first baseman hindered his attempt when he caught the legally delivered pitch therefore the first baseman is guilty of obstruction. The ruling would be the same if the catcher stepped in front of the plate to cut off the pitch and attempted the tag on the runner.
The runner was attempting to score by steal or squeeze play so award the runner home and award the batter first base.
Ref NFHS Case Book Page 60, 8.1.1 SITUATION G

Agreed 100 %... no balk, definately obstruction......you award bases, and the ball game is over........

Wouldn't "interference" be the case instead of "obstruction"?

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
Agreed 100 %... no balk, definately obstruction......you award bases, and the ball game is over........

Piaa,

Your interps are valued. I have a couple of questions.....don't run me...LOL LOL

On what basis do you "award bases" if there was not balk?

How can "obstruction" be the case when the catcher nor first baseman never blocked the plate w/o the ball?

Interference I could possibly see.....

What a weird play....LOL

LOW337,

I'm not trying to answer for PIAA (he knows way more than me) but just to substantiate my previous post:

This particular violation is obstruction and not interference simply because that is the way the rule book refers to it.

NFHS Rule 8-1-1...A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home bases in the listed order when: e. the catcher or any other defensive player obstructs him.

NFHS Case Book Referrence...8.1.1 SITUATION G:
R1 is on third. After F1 winds up, R1 starts home as in a squeeze play. F3, who is playing close for a bunt, cuts off the pitch and tags R1. RULING: This is defensive obstruction. The ball becomes dead when touched by F3. R1 is awarded home and batter is awarded first. (5-1-2b/dead ball, 8-1-1e/obstruction, 8-3-1c/base awards)

As usual, Pilsner nailed the explanation....and the reasoning behind the term obstruction versus interference......

As a rule you can define it this way....

Offense Interferes
Defense Obstructs

As an example, we often hear umpires call "catchers interference", but in reality, the rule book correctly identifies it as catchers obstruction.........In this instance the first baseman has obstructed the batters right to hit a pitched ball.....this is a dead ball when touched by F1....and then you apply the base award....hand the balls to the home coach and head to the parking lot.....that game was over...

Low......Ive never tossed anyone for asking for a rule clarification..........

Good call Pilsner....
Good Call 3fingeredglove as well.....

Thanks guys....

Is the rule the same in pro ball?

Yes, it is.....

A third world play for sure!

FVB.....was thinking that exact thing myself when it was asked...can you imagine the reaction if that was posted on a few of the umpire sites we both frequent?.......

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
FVB.....was thinking that exact thing myself when it was asked...can you imagine the reaction if that was posted on a few of the umpire sites we both frequent?.......

lol, just thinking about it...

it amazes me what some rule book junkie will come up with to put on tests. As an example I was at a football rules clinic a while back and there was some play presented where the ball was pitched backward to a guy who could levitate and he floated 30 yards down the field and through the uprights where he spiked the ball out of bounds. Then we were asked if it was a TD, safety, or a touch back and we worked though the different interwoven rules to come up with a solution. TWP! lol, by the way in my football sitch it is a touchback IIRC.

I am not sure about high school but in OBR isn't this just 7.07?

Pitcher would be charged with a balk, batter gets first on interference and the ball is dead.

(BTW- this problem appears nearly word for word in Knotty problems of baseball - see my other post)

Interesting that OBR and NFHS are not in alignment in the use of the terms "interference" and "obstruction".

In 2.00 (Definition of Terms)from OBR, it states,
"(b) DEFENSIVE INTERFERENCE is an act by a fielder which hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."

and

"OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

So by OBR, it appears that this situation is interference, not obstruction. Apparently NFHS would consider it obstruction.

Wouldn't it be nice to have just ONE set of rules!

quote:

Originally posted by RPD:
Wouldn't it be nice to have just ONE set of rules!

LOL, YES that would be a dream come true! Then again do you really want HS players trying to take out the SS all the time?

quote:

Originally posted by 08Dad:
I am not sure about high school but in OBR isn't this just 7.07?

Pitcher would be charged with a balk, batter gets first on interference and the ball is dead.

(BTW- this problem appears nearly word for word in Knotty problems of baseball - see my other post)

OBR contradicts itself: 7.07 is in direct conflict with the comment following 6.08c and rule 7.04d. The below thread from the Official Forum (in 2001) gives a pretty good exposition on the subject.
Here's just one aspect of the thread: Applying 7.07 to the situation where the batter's swing just nicks the catcher's glove but the batter manages to hit a home run anyway leads to a ridiculous result-- if R3 was stealing, then 1 run scores. If R3 wasn't stealing, then as many as 4 runs score, because the conditions for 7.07 aren't met, and 6.08c allows the offensive coach to take the result of the play.
7.07 versus 6.08c

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
FVB.....was thinking that exact thing myself when it was asked...can you imagine the reaction if that was posted on a few of the umpire sites we both frequent?.......

and having re-read the old thread from officiating.com referenced here you can see where the discussion would go. lol