What's the call?

Why they squeezing with two outs? 

 

If the catcher had a legitimate chance at the play then it would be interference and you got a third out inning over.

 

If the catcher doesn't have a legitimate chance then no harm no foul in my opinion.  Out made at first then run doesn't count and the fans get free baseball.

 

All up to who the umpire decides to protect on the chance to field the ball.

Based on this, I have a run scored. I'm not even going into protected/unprotected fielder issues here. I'm reading that F2 was at the plate. I'm assuming that R3 touched the plate before contacting F2. Once he touches the plate, he has legally scored (pending the outcome of the play.) For it to be interference by a legally scored runner, there has to be intent to interfere. I don't see the contact as being an intent to interfere, and the play stands.

 

Matt I can understand what you're saying about the not protecting the fielder aspect because of it being a had to be there play but what I quote above from the OP is why I'm saying there might be a chance.  As I read it the catcher is hauling butt out to field the ball to throw to first to end the inning because if the force out is made then the runner can tap dance on the plate all he wants.  This changes a normal squeeze situation where the catcher would set up to possibly block the plate and now possibly have obstruction.

 

In my head I can see a play where it's an athletic catcher coming out with the best chance of making the play getting taken out by the slide.

 

I think realistically either corner IF or the P will make this play the vast majority of the time but I wouldn't give up on protecting the catcher right away.  Does this make sense or am I just totally wrong here?

If the runner slides across the plate is he most likely going to score first, or contact the catcher moving to field the ball first?

 

If he scores first, then intent is an issue.

Most likely nothing, it's possible that F2 is the protected fielder but unlikely. Sounds like game over. 

+1

Intent is irrelevant.  Even if R3 scored before the interference, the batter is out and the run comes off the board.

How is the batter out?

He is the only runner on the bases.  R3 has scored (retired runner).

Let me clarify. How has the batter been put out?

It's interference with a fielder on his initial attempt to field a BATTED ball.  In this case, the interference is by a retired runner (R3, assuming he has already scored) otherwise R3 would be out.  If another runner could have been put out, that runner is out.  In this case, that runner is the batter/runner.

Interference by a scored runner has to be intentional, as he is no longer a runner, and 7.09j does not apply.

First of all, it was a H/S tournament so FED 8-4-2-g applies (intent not required for INT on a batted ball).  Secondly, the pro rule is the same.  See 7.09(e).

 

7.09e is a huge stretch. 8-4-2g does not apply to a runner that has scored.

7.09(e) specifically deals with interference by a runner who has just scored.  Where is the stretch?  You need to read all of 8-4-2-g.  That rule also specifically applies to a runner who has just scored.

Hard to claim that there's a play under 7.09e. 8-4-2g mentions nothing of scored runners.

1.  The batter has just cleared the box, and the catcher is moving to field the batted ball 8' away when he gets wiped out.  You don't think the sliding runner has impeded the catcher's play on the B/R?

 

2.  8-4-2-g refers to a retired runner.  Read the definition of "Retired Runner" on page 22 of the FED rules book.

Op say's F2 is on the plate, when contact was made... Ball game.

 

Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

***If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty

shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two

out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

A runner cannot "legally occupy" home plate.  When he touches it, he ceases to be a runner and is then treated as a retired runner.  This rule only applies at 1st, 2nd and 3rd base.

 

7.09(e):  It is interference when ... any runner who has just scored hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.

 

FED 8-4-2-g:  ...If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgement of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out.

 

FED includes a runner who has just scored in the definition of retired runner.

 

N.B.  Intent is not required for INT under OBR or FED.

A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score

a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points.

 

Home base: shall be a 5 sided...

 

Why not?  The int. rule exempts a runner when he's touching or "occupying a base",  F2 gets everything else.  

 

      

 

 

Are you suggesting a runner can legally occupy home plate after he has scored?  I thought I had heard them all.

 

BTW:  What's your take on FED 8-2-4-g?  After all, the OP was FED based.

Well if you think I'm suggesting a player may remain on HP, dodge pitches and swinging bats, all while giving the HPU room to see the slot, no. 

I am suggesting a player while touching a base is exempt, as long as it's not intentional from Int. 

I scrolled through the FED stuff and see no such exemption, so in FED my initial reaction would be to ring up any runner for int. whether touching a base or not, Is that correct?  If it's not correct and the same exemption is allowed in FED, I would suggest treating HP the same as any other base concerning "contact with and contacting the D". 

I don't, never have and pretty sure I'll never do FED. so apologies. 

 

And understand the written word is sometimes hard to differentiate between; thought provoking ideas/thoughts, questions or cold hard statements.  My comparisons are always concerning the differences and or similarities of the two disciplines. 

So I ask again: is there an exemption for BR's contacting the D while in contact with a base in FED as there is in OBR?  If no, ring em up. 

 

If yes consider HP the same as any other base IMHO.

 

I would not consider an about to score nor an already scored runner the same as a scoring runner, if that makes any split second sense.     

 

FED does not have the exemption in OBR 7.08(b).

 

However, this exemption from unintentional INT cannot occur at the plate.  Merely touching a base is not enough for the 7.08(b) exemption (and I will grant you that the plate is a base).  The runner must have contact with a legally occupied base.  The plate cannot be legally occupied.  Once a runner touches it, he has scored and is no longer a runner.

 

I know you don't buy that, so let me try this.  If a runner could legally occupy home plate, he could legally return to 3rd base right?  For example:  R3 scores after the batter hits one in the gap.  F2 yells "Appeal 3rd!" hoping to decoy R3 into thinking that the ball was caught.  R3 falls for the ploy and is tagged out as he tries to return to 3rd base.  Is R3 out and does his run come off the board?  The answer is no.

+1 .

I'm trying to visualize this play in a manner that incorporates all the details provided by the OP.

 

The home plate circle has a diameter of 26 feet, so the ball described as being on the grass was at least 13 feet in front of the plate.   

 

OP says the runner had a "huge lead".  Even with a huge lead, it's hard to imagine the runner reaching home before the catcher attempting to field a ball would be clear of the plate if he was in fact attempting to field the ball at the location described by the OP.  

 

If the catcher is still at the plate when a) the batter-runner has already cleared the area, b) the runner from third has already reached the plate, and c) the ball has reached the grass at least 13 feet in front of the plate and come to a stop, I have a hard time considering him a fielder attempting to field a ball.  

 

Seems more likely he's covering the base than fielding the ball, which is what the catcher usually does when trying to defend against a squeeze play.

The OP said the catcher was coming out to field the ball, which was approximately 8 feet away.

 

I don't understand why you guys are so bent on ignoring a rule which is very clear, in both codes.

He also said it was on the grass, which means it was more than 8 feet in front of the plate.

And he said the ball had come to a stop, which means the catcher, if he was in fact trying to field it and was still at home plate, was moving at a truly glacial pace.

The distance and the timing are inconsistent with the assertion that the catcher was attempting to field the ball.

The interpretation of that rule is that the runner needs to be occupying "his base" as in a pop up right over the base.  You cant make the runner move because then he would be in jeopardy of being "doubled off" the base.  So hes allowed to stay as long as he doesn't intentionally interfere.

Because the rules regarding runner interference with a batted ball weren't written with this situation in mind. With baseball rules, parsing the detailed wording of a rule is only useful when the situation was anticipated when the rule was written.  

 

A similar issue can arise with the batter runner, if the ball is hit slowly along the first base line.  The runner and catcher may end up in the same space.  If we insist on following the rule as written, the batter runner would be out for interference with the catcher.  But this is a relatively common situation, and the MLBUM covers it.  It's neither interference nor obstruction.  

 

In the OP, I have the runner scoring, and no interference.

 

The rule deals specifically with a runner who just scored, interfering with a fielder  on his initial attempt to field a batted ball.  What other situation did they have in mind?:

 

When the coach comes out and says: "The catcher was about to throw the batter out at first base by 40 feet.  How is that not interference?"  How do you answer him?

No matter what the proper call would be, common logic in this situation is the catcher would set up at the plate for a play.  That might be why he was still on top of the plate when the runner scored.  That alone would eliminate any interference unless the runner did something deliberate. 

 

These type plays seem so strange. It takes a lot of bad baseball for this to event happen.  For the runner to get to the plate and run into a catcher at home plate trying to field a bunt 8 feet in front of him, he would have start running at the beginning of the windup.  In fact, was he trying to steal home?  For the pitcher to still throw a pitch good enough to bunt it would have taken everyone to be asleep. Also, the hitter obviously was bunting for a base hit with two outs.  Strange play by both sides.

 

i'm not an umpire, but I call it game over based on stupidity. The argument should be between the third baseman, catcher, pitcher and everyone else that fell asleep.

 

I'm not sure how many baseball games I have seen in my lifetime, but it's a lot.  It always amazes me how a play can come up that you have never seen or even thought of. The play mentioned here would be one of those for me.

Anywhere besides home. The lack of case play treatment is telling.

Wow, not sure I have ever seen this much debate over a rules interpretation before.  On this board or anywhere else.

 

Not sure though how a coach can claim that the batter would have been thrown out by the catcher by 40 feet in this situation AND be interfered with by the R3.  OP states the ball was bunted 8 feet in front of the plate.  Even if the catcher laid down, stretched out to field the ball, the R3 still could not have interfered with him.  Unless the catcher was over 8 feet tall   Obviously, the catcher had not reached the ball yet. 

Kind of wish the OP would come back into the discussion to clarify a few things. 

The catcher is busting out to field a batted ball 8 feet in front of him, when the (scored) runner wipes him out.  The batter is at least 50 feet from 1st base.

 

The rule says:  "if a runner who has just scored interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out."

 

What is so hard about this?

 

bballman:  A fielder need not have reached the ball to be protected from INT.

You mean a runner who has just scored interfering at 3rd base?  WTF???

 

The lack of case play treatment means it's obvious.

In J/R, their language regarding possible interference by a runner who has just scored is one who is now coaching following runners. In other words, from an interference point of view, a player is still a runner even after scoring until he has had an opportunity to do something else.

In your opinion or J/R's?

Could you tell me where that is?  My edition is 2008 and I can only find this:  "A runner is not exempt from interfering because he has touched or passed home.  Such runner can still cause the out of another runner."  I seem to remember something about a scored runner assisting another runner but I can't find it.

The OP specified two outs.  The proper action for the catcher would be to ignore R3 and make the easy play on the batter/runner at 1st base.  The interference prevented him from doing that.