You make the call - 2

Taking a stab at it...

The second the ball is in play, the batter becomes a runner. And the runner (who is supposed to be heading towards first base) interferes with the catcher's ability to field the ball. The ball is now dead. At this point, the batter is called out, and the runner who is most likely to be put out by a fielder will be called out, and based on the description, it seems as if the catcher had a play on the runner coming down to home. Assuming this is the case, the runner coming home is called out as well.

Regardless, would've loved to see this play.

MLB rules for batters 6.06 (c) He interferes with the catchers firlding or throwing by stepping out of the box or making any movement that hiders the catchers play at home base. Exception: the batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out or if the runner trying to score is called out for batters interfence.

Link this with Rule for runner being put out 7.08(g) He attempts to score on a play in which the batter interferes with the play before two are out. With two out the batter is put out and no run scores.

So if interfence is called the runner is out and in this scenario if interfenece was called the runner is out and the batter is retired at first on the play. Double play. If no interfenece is called the play was called correctly.

Dislaimer: Fed rules could be different than MLB on this play.

Wish I had my rule book with me. This is a batted ball. My thought is similar to joemtkg but I thought that the ball would be dead, the batter out and all runners would have to retreat to their bases. Caveat, was it a squeeze play? If so, it might be that the runner from third is called out because of the interference and the batter bats again.

NFHS Book:
7-3.5
b - stepping out of the box
c - making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner.

That's pretty clear. Penalty is:
"For infraction of Art. 5, When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and a runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball is alive and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead & the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a 3rd strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play, two may be ruled out...

Seems pretty clear to me, but of course, HTBT.

I will give you a hint. No one so far has correctly guessed how the umpire called the play.

You mean vs. what he should have called?

Let's see - he called the catcher out, ruled the pitcher made an illegal slide, had the runner out of the lane, and called the batter safe at home for a home run...

Close?

Heh.

Do over

Actually the way you made this sound I am going to guess obstruction on the catcher. The run scored and the batter was awarded 1st base.

Please don't tell me he called obstruction. The next thing you will tell us is he called a balk (as in the Verlander incident).

He called the batter out at first on the throw down by the catcher. He called both runners safe, one at home and the other at second.

The coach was obviously going nuts talking about interference. The umpire told the coach, I was standing next to the fence and they were on the other side, that the batter lost his balance and did not "mean" to end up in the opposite batters box so it wasn't an intentional interference so "no foul".

I was a little upset since he had, just the inning before, called my son out for interference. He had swung at a very low outside pitch trying to protect the runner on a hit and run and the swing had caused him to step out with his back foot on the follow thru and end up in front of the plate. Catcher had plenty of room for the throw and in-fact did make a throw but the call was correct. He did interfere. My point, if I had been the coach, was that he had not "meant" to interfere either and I could probably make more of a case for him being where he was rather than a kid bunting and winding up in the opposite batter's box... Anyway, I've never seen that happen before and I can easily say that I was stunned and wondering what the hell happened when the batter took 3 steps towards 3rd base. LOL

Thought you might say the umpire called the batter out for giving himself up - ie walking toward the dugout.

So how did the protest go?

(FWIW, there's no "intention" clause in 7-3.5)

That intent business is a cop out on this one. Tons of plays that does not matter. Runner gets hit by a batted ball he's out, running out of the lane is an out, sliding over 2nd on double plays etc.

A better explanation would have been that in his attempt to bunt the ball he crossed the plate and then went straight to first. If you are old enough to remember the 1975 World Series the play with Ed Arbrister and Carlton Fisk is the best example I can think of.

Our coach asked him about things and was told that it wasn't a cut and dry call but rather a judgment thing, I talked to the coach tonight, he asked him why he had told him differently the inning before when it was our guy who got called out but not sure if he actually got an answer. Coach never asked for help on the call and the other ump told him afterwards that if he had asked that he would have called interference. We were getting beat pretty handily at the time so I think that it was simply not one of those battles we wanted to wage at the time. Didn't really matter in the whole scheme of things I guess...

Understandable on your coach's part, but for an ump to claim that interference is a "judgement" call is just... wow. Cest la vie, I guess.