Umpire Interference

Nope - just tough luck. Ball is still live and runners can advance at their own risk.

Based on the ball 4 call, or would you reach the same conclusion had it been a called strike?

First let me say that I'm not an umpire and the real ones will be along shortly to explain better. I'm basing this on something I remember reading on here before on a very similar play. I could be wrong but this is what I'm thinking I remember.

I don't think what the pitch is matters unless it's strike three with two outs - inning is now over. The rest of the time it's a live ball no matter what.

As for it being ball 4 it gets slightly tricky. The result of it being ball 4 means the runners are protected until they take possession of the next base. So if the throw would have beaten the runner then no tag results in an out until he touches the bag and then steps off. Since the ball is still live the runner can continue to advance if the throw ends up in the outfield. This part I'm certain I have right.

The part I'm unsure of is the umpire part. Umpires can't disappear from the field when a play is going on. A lot of people make the mistake of applying the basketball rule that if a loose ball hits a ref then you play it to baseball. They think if the ball hits the umpire you contiue to play it but you don't - the play is dead IF a fielder hasn't had a chance to make a play. We are also talking about a batted ball and not thrown one.

Since the contact was body to body and not with a ball then it totally changes things. Without a better knowledge of the rules that's the best I can give you.

Like I said the guys who actually know what they're taliking about will be here soon with a real answer.....and I'll probably look dumb - again.

Thanks for the insight. Rule 5.09(b) defines umpire interference as having occurred when a plate umpire interferes with a catcher's throw attempting to prevent a stolen base... ;runners may not advance.

My assumption is that since the pitch was not a called strike, that the runners were entitled to the base, and thus this is not viewed as a stealing attempt.

Difficult situation for the catcher, waiting to throw for a call on a close pitch.

quote:

Originally posted by 226:
Situation: Runners on 1st and 2nd; 3-1 count; runners leave on first motion; pitch at top of strike zone; catcher collides with umpire on throw to third; throw is off line and missed by third baseman; runners advance on E2.

pitch called ball 4

Umire interference yes or no?

There are two types of umpire interference--one in which a batted ball strikes an umpire before passing an infielder other than a pitcher, and one in which there is interference with the catcher attempting to make a throw to get a runner out. Obviously, the second one applies here.

The problems here are that A) there has to be the ability to put out a runner, which is not the case given the walk, and B) the remedy for umpire interference with a catcher, if it were to occur, is to return the runners, also not possible due to the walk.

Therefore, I see no basis in the rules for calling interference here, and no remedy. I can see a CSFP interpretation of not allowing the runners to advance, but I'm still leaning towards the former.

See I told you the smart guys would show up with an actual answer.

Welcome to the site and make sure to poke around in the other forums for some great knowledge, wonderful people, great stories and let's face it - a few jerks. Keep coming back and post everywhere.

I'm going to the be dissenter in this. I'm calling umpire interference and leaving the runners at their advance bases given by the walk.

quote:

2.21.2 SITUATION: With R1 on second base, the umpire inadvertently interferes with catcher’s throw back to F1 and R1 advances to third base. RULING: If, in the umpire’s judgment, his interference permitted R1 to reach third base safely, the umpire shall send R1 back to second base. (5-1-2c)

In this situation, the umpire interfered with a throw back to the pitcher, which then allowed a runner to advance -- the throw to the pitcher is not a play. In OP's situation, if I judged my interference caused the ball to be thrown away, I'm using this case play. As Matt said, the runners can't return to their TOP base due to the batter being awarded 1B, so they'll advance ONLY to the base they would have achieved with the walk.

Andrew:
My first thought was the same but with a ball four there is no out that could be made so no interference. Now if there were a R2 only and he was stealing then certainly get the interference.

I'm still disagreeing. 2-21-2: "It is umpire interference when he inadvertently moves so as to hinder a catcher’s attempt to throw, or when a fair ball touches an umpire as in 5-1-1f, or thrown ball as in 5-1-1g."

I think it would be better written:

It is umpire interference when:
1. he inadvertently moves so as to hinder a catcher's attempt to throw, or
2. a fair ball touches an umpire as in 5-1-1f, or
3. a thrown ball touches an umpire as in 5-1-1g

There are three times umpire interference can be called, and OP's situation meets the first.

A throw is defined as "the act of voluntarily losing possession through having the ball leave the hand for a purpose other than a pitch." In other words, attempting to get it to F5 by removing it from his hands is a throw.