Retired Batter's Run to 1B Ruled Interference - Mechanics and Rules Review of a Dutch League Play
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- During a KNBSB (Netherlands) game, umpires ruled Hoofddorp Pioniers batter Jair Bogaerts out on an uncaught third strike and teammate Randolph Oduber out for retired batter's interference as Bogaerts ran to first base anyway. Article: www.closecalls...
We review the Official Baseball Rules to determine what the rulebook says about retired batter or runner's interference, as well as what penalties are prescribed. We also clarify why runner's lane interference does not apply to this play and where baserunners should be placed if an INT call is to be made.
Finally, we review the umpires' mechanics along with what an umpire should do immediately upon an uncaught third strike occurring with less than two out and first base occupied in the future. This play was sent in as an Ask the UEFL question.
More in-depth analysis and full rule citations are available via the full article at our website: www.closecalls...
This is why I love baseball because you can literally see something new everyday
As someone who sees plays like this more regularly at youth levels, I really don't think this should ever be called interference. I prefer to make the immediate hand signal and then repeatedly verbalize "batter's out" loudly and clearly. Then if the catcher wants to throw the ball around, it's his right to do so, but we let the run score.
As the umpire, I don't think you need to call the batter out any louder or repeat it over and over again for the benefit of the defense which may mistakenly believe that they must still put out the runner. Simply signal him out. It's the responsibility of the defense to know that the batter is automatically out. Just because the runner takes off and all the fans are screaming, "Run! Run!" shouldn't make the umpire call the batter out any differently than he normally would.
Even if the batter also mistakenly believes that he can run because of an uncaught third strike, that doesn't relieve the defense from the burden of knowing that the batter is already out. This is not interference on the part of the batter. What are you going to do - call him out a SECOND time?
The batter did not interfere with the defense's attempt to make a play on another runner. If he had, then the runner on whom the defense was making a play would be out. But, in this case, the defense was NOT making a play on any of the other runners. They were making a play on a retired batter. That's on them.
I don't think any flaw with the umpire's mechanics was the problem. The problem was that the defense didn't know the rule.
In my opinion when the U2 calls time at the interference he prevents a play from being attempted on R2 going to home. There fore R2 should be placed back on 3rd, R1 placed on second, batter is out, and U1 should take ownership of not making the out call right away. I have been there on a dropped third strike you call the strike and then react to the catcher moving to get behind you and it slips your mind there was a runner on first. But in that situation the runners can advance at their own peril.
That seems the fairest outcome, because had the plate umpire signaled and vocalized promptly, the two runners likely would have reached third and second on the passed ball/wild pitch in any case.
I’m not sure you can rule out the possibility that the plate ump signaled a third strike, but didn’t rule the batter out. He may have forgotten that rule. I say that because both the batter and catcher reacted at the same time, both seeming to think that the batter had to be retired. The batter took off for first, and the catcher threw to first. Both were looking at the plate umpire, and had the ump vocalized, “batter is out” (or however that is said in Dutch), the batter wouldn’t have taken off, and the catcher likely would have held the ball, keeping the runner on third from scoring.
The whole point of the rule regarding the batter being out in this situation is to protect the offense. The catcher could deliberately drop the ball, pick it up, and get an easy double play, possibly even a triple play. But because of the delayed call, the defense wound up getting a double play. There is no specific rule which covers this error on the plate umpire’s part.
That being the case, and since the play was killed by the base umpires, I’d put the runners on third and second, and the batter would be out on the strikeout.
@@MH-Tesla people brain fart all the time. Batter takes off running, catcher probably just goes into 'i gotta throw' mode. Just like Craig when running down Baez in the Cubs game. Sometimes you just lapse.
@@MH-Tesla You might know better than we do, but I admit I dont think most of us know what level of play 'this level' is. Is this professional?
@@davej3781 @Scott Kirkland If you call interference, I think someone has to be out for it. Either you kill the play and call out a runner or you call nothing. I don't see how you could call time and not call anybody out.
I'd go 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, yes. The batter is already out, so the throw is extraneous, but at least there would be technical "interference" on that throw, and THAT kills any further advancement.
From the body language, the batter didn't know the rule; the catcher probably did but was looking to the HP umpire for confirmation, which came late.
Where does the end of the first part, "play being made on a runner," come into play. There was no interference with a play being made on a runner.
Especially if the argument against RLI is "the batter never became a runner, so you cannot have runner's lane interference" the same should go for the play being made on a runner. Batter never became a runner so there was no play on a runner at first base so there was no interference.
The retired batter may only have interfered with a throw to an unoccupied base, and I don't think there's a rule against that.
BR is out by rule, not by call! so the catcher is left on the hook to know not to throw the ball to 1st! courtesy wise the hp umpire should call him out.
This is also a good example of a misplay by a (probably new) umpire. As soon as the D3K happens with
At the end you asked what the PU was doing (with multiple umpires doing signals at the same time)? He was indicating that the red team (offense) was now playing the game under protest (by signaling the "P" to the booth)
What a cluster!!!
not really, umpires did a great job.
@@deankirkpatrick7658 Plate umpire should have made it clear the batter was out but the catcher should have also known the rule and not thrown to first.
Not boring at all. A rich gold mine of learning. Plate umpire did not comment and didn’t take his mark off. When he finally did remove his mark he did it with his right hand.
What NOT to do all around here. I like the no call choice.
If they are calling the lead runner out on the interference it makes sense to allow R1 to stay on second. If R1 were required to go to first then R2 should be at second using time of pitch logic. Basically a no call. Calling interference we go to time of interference and Runners should keep what they have gotten with closest runner to home being out. Since the runners can go on a dropped third strike I like that best.
I worked for an association that had 140 members at it's peak. Not once did any of us verbalize a swinging strike or verbalize an out call on a swinging third strike, merely made a normal strike motion like we would on any other swinging strike.
The players have to take some responsibility and know the basic rules. For a catcher, knowing when the batter can run on an uncaught third.strike is basic. He should not look to me for help about his lack of rule knowledge. He'll never get it while the play is ongoing.
BTW,, I have a no-call on this play.
It's called preventative officiating, at the point the runner breaks for first, verbalize the call.
@@beedevil11 Nope. Never. It's not my responsibility to help either team. By verbalizing the out call when the batter breaks for first you have given the defense an advantage in case they were stupid enough to not know the situation. Our job is not to give either team an advantage because we want to avoid an argument because they lack rule knowledge. That's the coward's way of doing things.
@@garygemmell3488 I kinda agree with you on this. Its almost a form of coaching. But, I personally do verbalize and try to make sure everyone knows "batter is out" just so I dont end up with a shi% show lol
I love Gil!!! “If you think this is RLI, STOP IT!”
I like these discussions, but I think we get too bogged down in the "what ifs". Players and coaches should know the rules. With or without a signal or a verbal call, that is a dropped third strike with a runner on First with less than two outs. I have the batter out and a live ball with Runners advancing. Okay now my partner is killing the play. I'm assuming that he has some sort of interference. I make a note of where the runners are. After conferring with my partner it is clear that he has interference by a retired Runner. We are going to have an out on the lead Runner for that interference. We agree that the second runner had reached second base before the interference. So now we have outs one and two with a runner on second base, play ball.
Having said all that, I believe that it should have been a no-call.
I have the Umpire in the middle of the field actually calling the Interference (not mimicking the call of the 1st base umpire). Because he is calling the Interference in my estimation, that is why he calls R2 out at home.
And yes, completely agree about the Umpire at Home; NEED to make that OUT call clear and quickly. When I have this happen, I audibly say "Batter is OUT" and give an Out hammer sign, since there was no available base in this instance. That generally clears up confusion in case the Batter wants to turn into a BR and cause confusion.
I’ve had this happen as PU. I’m making the out mechanic multiple times and saying “Batter’s out! Batter’s out! Batter’s out!” If the catcher still throws, it’s on them if they screw it up.
Isn't it on the catcher anyway. Runners on 1st and 2nd, less than two out. Not up to the umpire to school the players on the rules. The players are required to understand the rules whether they do or not. That is their responsibility. The catcher did not do what he should have done which is make a play on the batter-runner when he's out. Very bad play.
My call, absent intentional interference: No interference, batter is out. R2 scores. R1 ends up on third.
@@robertbrown7470 yes, but the batter had no right to run either and did interfere with a throw. So, you have 2 players making the wrong mental play, but thats not up to the umpires to factor. THey must make a call o what happened, and you have a retire-batter interfering ....on interference, someone has to be called out. Can't call the batter out again....so, runner on 3rd is out
@@mptr1783 I'll have to watch this again to see what you're saying.
@@mptr1783 If the Retired batter-runner interfered with the play at 1st, especially if he intentionally interfered by throwing his hands up, yes, he is a retired runner that interfered. If he did not interfere with the play, it is nothing. R2 scores.
The catcher screwed up twice. Once because he should have known the batter was out. The second time is when the PU tells the catcher the batter is out but the catcher throws to first anyway.
This is the problem. What the hell is the catcher throwing the ball to first base knowing, absolutely, that the batter is out and having two runners on base.
Personally I think they were both playing games.
It would be interesting to know the REAL reason the catcher threw to first. To manufature an interference call so the runners can't advance or if he hits the jackpot the lead runner is called out.
The crux of the whole thing is whether the retired batter-runner intentionally interfered with the throw.
It's a shit show.
Obstruction by F5 by the way, not that it matters in this situation.
@@mptr1783 So, as in my original post, I come to the same conclusion:
My call, absent intentional interference: No interference, batter is out. R2 scores. R1 ends up on third.
If he was retired on the K, is he really a batter-runner? My call would be dead on the interference, put runners on last occupied base.
Basically, if the Batter walked to the dugout, and some guy ran in and tackled the catcher... I'd just call the play dead. This is umpiring for the sake of umpiring. Batter out, runners at 2nd and 3rd is what SHOULD happen.
At about 6:45, we state that a retired batter is not a batter-runner.
Great breakdown and thus is a situation I am surprised doesn't happen more often. The fun thing for me is that there is no precedent for this as there are 2 (or more) solutions. It would be great of there was a MLB codex for situations that have prexedebrs for to go to uphold continuity. Anyways, good stuff.
This is even stranger than called out in the video.
The batter is out, but the ball is live, runners can attempt to advance. There's NO PLAY to be made at first base, so there's no interference at first base. The interference is on the attempt to throw the runner out at home, because now the player on the field illegally is impeding the fielder trying to get the ball for a play at home.
A more interesting question is if R2 had stayed at third, is there interference that harms the defense at all? IDK, probably not. Sure, the ball is dead at that point, but that actually helps the defense, so there's no equity in a penalty. However, this is where the nuances of the rules come in, and R2 might be out anyway, IDK.
A total mess, but this is how you end up with R1 at second--because R1 legitimately advanced to second (on the WP/PB, whatever it was), the interference happens AFTER the base is taken on the WP/PB. R2 is out because of the interference on making the play at home (there's no interference at first because there was never a play at first--the retired batter's interference prevents the play at home).
Scoring this would be even more of a headache. PROBABLY:
Batter: K, put-out to 2 (by rule)
R1: advances on WP*...catcher's bad throw to first is actually defensive indifference but WP trumps that
R2: advances on WP, CS at home on offensive INT, 3-2 (the play that would've been made if not for the INT)
*might be PB, can't really tell
I feel this is a common, clear cut play but yet I didn’t get a definitive answer to whether this should be called interference, and how to make that judgment (and why someone might think this no call). Is this interference?
@@davej3781 Thanks for the reply and info. I remember that play and the runner was not out because at that time the rule only mentioned a runner advancing. The rule was changed the following year to include a runner retreating.
I believe 6.01(b) (full rule posted at the bottom) is the correct ruling, leaving runners on 2nd and 3rd.
I do admit I don't like the wording here because the only requirement stated is hindering a fielder from catching a thrown ball, omitting whether or not a play is required, while the penalty then includes declaring the runner on which the play is being made out. In this situation I would consider the requirement met and apply the applicable parts of the penalty, ball is dead and all runners return to last legally occupied base at the time of interference.
If wrong then I'm going with my initial thought that it should have been no call with the ball remaining live and in play. 6.01(b) is the only possibly applicable interference call, no others apply in this situation, and even it is slightly questionable due to its wording and lack of further context or explanation by rule comments or notes.
6.01(b) Fielder Right of Way
The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.
Just FYI, in all levels except the pro’s we (umpires) are taught to see the play, replay it in our mind, then make the call. This helps prevent premature calls immensely. You saying the plate ump should have made a quicker call is misleading a tad imo. I think his timing was alright, it is the responsibility of the players and coaches to know the rules just as much as the umpires.
Other than that, I love this vid and all the vids u post!!! Keep it up! Ur doing a great job helping inform the fans and I speak for all of us in saying that we greatly appreciate it!!!
I think you do have a point. But everytime you learn a rule, there is an exception, right? lol But, overall I do agree with the 'ump taking a sec to make sure they know what they are about to say/do.
Thats right. We are taught to PAUSE, READ, and REACT.
I agree with the two possible outcomes, No call or dead ball, interference, out. The one counterpoint I would suggest at 3:08 (6.01(a)(5))is to see if the rule takes in to consideration the umpire's judgment to the intent of the batter, which imo it does not. If it said 'if the batter, in the umpire's judgment, intentionally hinders or impedes', it is a lot different than, 'if the batter hinders or impedes'. See obstruction and interference, where intent is not relevant. So whether or not you believe the batter ran because he thought he was out, or to try to intentionally deceive the defense or because he's a dumb a$$, should have no bearing on the umpire's call. Good stuff
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you had an analysis of a different video stating that a retired batter became a batter-runner the instant the ball broke the strike zone, and thus a further rule was applied stating that as such status of being a retired batter runner was entitled to such penalties. Thoughts, or am I completely off base (definitely possible).
I was taught, make the fist, make the call for out. Then step back and let the game proceed.
Blame the plate ump
Did you see the retired batter put his hands up as the throw was coming from the catcher?
Why R1 is going to 2nd base instead of 1st base? My offered comment- interference (as called by umpires in this play) ocurred while R2 was already past 3rd base and went home anyway at the time while R1 was already safe at 2nd base at the time. I'm basing this on the graphic shown of the applicable rules [OBR 6.01(a)(3) "...all runners shall return to the last base legally touched at the time of interference..."]. Perhaps the umpires felt that in dispensing the appropiate penalties per runner they saw R1 run at his own risk but reach 2nd base safely while R2 decided to go home instead of turning back so in applying the interference call on the play places R2 as a required called out. Just a player opinion.
No interference. Why is interference called? What did the batter do that casued interference? He can't be called out because he ran to first because that is the rule. That act alone is NOT considered interference. So the real question is, "What did the batter-runner do that caused interference other than running to first which is not considered interference?" Did the batter-runner put his hands up and intentionally interfere with the throw?
yes........he threw both hands up as he was about to touch 1st base and the 1st baseman about to catch the ball
Batter runner out... time was called runners placed on 2nd and 3rd... that's my call
The problem is there is no rule for when an umpire calls time/dead ball but did so in error.
I wish baseball rules were clearer, but I was taught that interference requires a PLAY or attempted play. There is no point in this video where a player in the possession of a ball is trying to retire a runner. In fact, no one is advancing when U1 calls time. Also, there was no play at first base (no runner), so we can't have RLI there either.
No interference.
Batter is out. R2 scores, R1 ends up on third. Most likely because we don't know what happened with the bad throw by the catcher. Not only that, if I'm not mistaken, the plate umpire signaled out to the catcher before he threw the ball. If so, the catcher very seriously screwed up - twice. Not only not understanding the rules but throwing to first after seeing and maybe hearing the plate umpire call the batter out. Wow, what a screw up. Maybe the catcher should be paying attention to the runners?
The runners including the batter-runner are not guitly of anything.
Catcher screwed up. Runners did what they were supposed to do but the Offense got screwed on this one. Unless the batter-runner intentionally interfered with the throw to first base.
Strike three (that's only part one)
Batters out (that's the rest of the call)
It helps a great deal if the umpire makes both the visual and aural call. Still the catcher needs to know what's up but it's Netherlands what are you going you do?
Schrodinger's batter: if the batter strikes out, doesn't know hes out, and the umpire doesn't call him out, is he safe or out?
So I am just trying to understand your breakdown. It is ok for the batter to run to first and that act alone is not grounds for interference. But him getting not being invisible and getting in the way of a throw resulting from him running to first is interference?
The general standard is that if the retired player in advancing or retreating engages in usual baseball acts they would otherwise would have done had they not been retired (also assuming the retired player doesn't know they are retired), that alone is not grounds for interference. A closer look: www.closecallsports.com/2017/07/mlb-denies-bostons-protest-interference.html
@@CloseCallSports so if that is the case how is r2 out an acceptable outcome? Or when you say two acceptable outcomes do you simply mean based on what they called on the field, these are the acceptable outcomes depending on whether the interference is upheld after the umpire conference or not without stating whether the interference SHOULD be upheld.
@@richpaul6806 Yes, the "by rule" outcomes.
@@CloseCallSports Ok. Thanks for the clarification
Question R2 had barely left third before the field umpire calls time. How does that factor in this?
I don't think you can have both: 1 run counts and runner on third, and runner out and no runs score, as permissible outcomes to one play.
Edit: Just rewatched this, and I agree, though I have the philosophy that players should be expected to know the rules and how they apply to a specific situation. This leads to a conundrum: batter should not be running to first, but catcher should also not be throwing to first (because both of them should know the situation). I do not think this should result in an out, though. I view this similarly to the play you reviewed in a girls fp softball game when the batter interfered with the iff. Similar to that play, there would have been no play at home if not for the catcher's throw to first, so how can the batter interfere with a play that would not have existed otherwise?
Basically was being said is 1 run counts and runner on third is the call if there is no interference and runner out and no runs score is the call if there is interference. Interference is a judgement call (I believe, possibly should find a cite but I'm not a baseball guy) so either is a permissible call, depending on what the first base umpire saw with his much closer than camera view. Does that make sense? If not, perhaps you could specify which bit is confusing you.
Once the batter reached first base, even though he should have never ran in the first place due to being out on the dropped third strike, the first base umpire aggressively calls time... THE BALL IS DEAD! That means no runners can advance! On a dropped third strike, the base runners can advance at their own peril. Both runners reached the their next base unimpeded, however, the umpire called the ball dead by calling time. The runners reached their bases before time was called. The batter is out, the runners go back to 2nd and 3rd because they reached their bases before time was called.
In my eyes, the call should be 1) out on strikes 2) time called by first base ump 3) runners placed back on 1 and 2 with 1 out. HP Ump should take responsibility for kinda "fouling" this up.
looks more like the ump in the middle of the field is ejecting the catcher for having his hands up - catcher probably shouting WTF or something.
I thought the ump on the mound was pointing at home, as in signaling the batter was out.
umpires ruled Hoofddorp Pioniers batter Jair Bogaerts out on an uncaught third strike and teammate Randolph Oduber out for retired batter's interference as Bogaerts ran to first base anyway. My spellcheck just crashed
The batter becomes a BR immediately after strike three happens, then he is immediately out. So the point around 7 minutes of no BR ever existing isn’t quite right
@@davej3781 I didn’t realize that that wasn’t the case across the board. Thank you!
Wait a second, here. I thought, on a 3rd Strike, if the Catcher "fumbles" the ball, even though it's still a 3rd Strike, the Batter could "steal" 1st Base, and still get on. You see it occasionally happen in MLB, so what's the rules there, on when the batter can "steal" 1st Base, regardless of a 3rd Strike?
But not with 1B occupied & > 2 outs.
@@mikeinhubcity7433 While I did miss/forget about a person at 1st Base blocking it, what do you mean with the Outs? Are you saying you can only try to "steal" 1st Base if you already have 2 Outs? What about 1 Out versus 0 Outs?
@@kendog52361 When there are less than two outs, and 1st base is OCCUPIED, the batter is AUTOMATICALLY OUT on a dropped third strike. Even in the majors.
@@Godfather19704 Yeah, I got the part about 1st Base being occupied, meaning that the batter is out, regardless. I was asking, specifically, about how the number of outs applies to "stealing 1st Base" on a 3rd Strike?
@@kendog52361 With 2 outs, at all levels, a batter can attempt to advance to first on a dropped third strike whether first base is occupied or not. With 0 or 1 out and first base occupied he cannot.
Incorrect analysis. Watch the first base umpire and the 3rd base umpire and plate again. They DO NOT call time until the retired batter interfered with the throw/Catch at first base. R1 had reached 2nd when the interference had occurred, so that is why he was returned to 2nd. see 4:34 you see the batter hitting the glove of the first baseman, with R1 clearly on 2nd, and R2 was at 3rd. With U1 signaling out and no other umpire making a signal... 4:38 you see the interference being called, and in 4:38 time frame you see R2 headed for home. SO I do not fault the umpires for getting R2 out, though probably should have been on 3rd - where he was when the interference had occurred. Over all a great job by the umpire crew. Also one other note, yes players ARE expected to know the situation and the rules. Should the umpire have signaled batter out, - he did when the catcher looked at him. but both the catcher and the batter and both teams ARE expected to know the rule here.
Calling the runner out at home makes no sense. There cannot be interference here because there was no play at first to be interfered with. With the batter being retired on the strikeout with no dropped third strike option, the fact that he ran to first is irrelevant. This catcher's mistake should not be negated by the umpires. The catcher should know how this rule works as should the umpires! Umpires missing calls surrounding retired batter/runner situations is way too common.
did you happen to notice the runner raising his hands and making contact with the 1st basemans glove as the ball arrived at the 0:17 second mark? That alone is interference, and since the batter can't be called out again, then the runner closest to home is out
@@mptr1783 For interference to occur there must be something to interfere with. With no play at 1B, was the runner interfering with no play? To call this interference defies logic. The umpires simply blew this call!
@@dogpatch75 the runner threw his hands up and interfered with the 1st baseman receiving the ball. With a runner starting on 1st base hes allowed to throw it there...interference, can't call him out again, so runner closest to home is out
I do see the interference, the catcher was dumb for throwing the ball to first and the runners can advance on pass throws
Excelente.
My take: Batter is out immediately at the time of the strike/passed ball whether called by the U1 or not just like an infield fly rule can be called later. Retired batter running to 1st draws a throw from the catcher. Just the retired batter acting as a Batter-Runner is justification for interference by causing the catcher to act on that action similar to a fake tag. If the catcher had not thrown to 1st base, R1 would have been held at 3rd base. R1 was continuing to advance towards home. Because of the interfence the most advanced runner (R1) is out whether time was called or not!
Take this one and try again. U3 made int call. U1 mirrored. Other way around.
Also you said since no BR established runners go back to base at time of pitch. Incorrect. It’s time if interference since no BR.
Hope this helps.
You got this all wrong. Should have been a no call. If you do call interference for throwing a wild throw to an unoccupied base, then runners return to base occupied at time of pitch. No play was made on the runner, so therefore no runner can be called out.
Agreed
This was a crap show lol,,,,,, thanks for great explanation.
Wtf is wrong with these guys? The batter is out. Home plate umpire calls out. Crew chief calls time. All done