Any interference

[ureout]

2 scenarios---- runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out, batter hits a pop up and as the 1st baseman is attempting to make a catch in fair territory he is interfered with by the runner on 1b the ball drops and rolls foul before passing 1st base--- and would the call be the same if the ball rolled foul after 1st base---

also since it was a dead ball does it matter whether the ball ended up rolling fair or foul

I know it's a dead ball the runner who interfered is out but can a 2nd out be called on the batter or the runner on 3rd?

I know the runner on 3rd has to stay at 3rd--- but with 1 out and the base runner not tagging/staying on the base and interfering with the catch if in the umpires judgement the fielder could have caught the ball and then got to 1B or tagged the runner for not tagging could I have 2 outs

 

[NCASAUmp]

Hang on... was the runner on 1B still in contact with 1B? If so, what did he do to interfere?

 

[EAJuggalo]

Doesn't matter where the ball ends up. Play is dead as soon as the interference occurs. The only way I'm calling a second out is if the runner does something stupid, like really stupid. Or I suppose if it were painfully obvious that there was going to be a DP on that play.

Speaking USSSA, where the runner is when they interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball is irrelevant. The base offers no protection from interference in that scenario.

 

[irishmafia]

2 scenarios---- runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out, batter hits a pop up and as the 1st baseman is attempting to make a catch in fair territory he is interfered with by the runner on 1b

Assuming there was an act of INT regardless of the runner's location

the ball drops and rolls foul before passing 1st base--- and would the call be the same if the ball rolled foul after 1st base---

also since it was a dead ball does it matter whether the ball ended up rolling fair or foul

I know it's a dead ball the runner who interfered is out but can a 2nd out be called on the batter or the runner on 3rd?

I know the runner on 3rd has to stay at 3rd--- but with 1 out and the base runner not tagging/staying on the base and interfering with the catch if in the umpires judgement the fielder could have caught the ball and then got to 1B or tagged the runner for not tagging could I have 2 outs

Dead ball on INT & runner (R3) ruled out. If the umpire believed the ball would have been caught with normal effort, and I am assuming this is the case, the BR is also ruled out.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Guys, where I’m getting hung up is where the OP says F3 was interfered with “by the runner on 1B.” If the runner is still on 1B, then in order for them to be called out, it would have to be an intentional act of interference. Otherwise, play on.

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

Guys, where I’m getting hung up is where the OP says F3 was interfered with “by the runner on 1B.” If the runner is still on 1B, then in order for them to be called out, it would have to be an intentional act of interference. Otherwise, play on.

I believe he mean's the runner was the runner from 1st base and was off the base when interference occurred.

 

[ureout]

I believe he mean's the runner was the runner from 1st base and was off the base when interference occurred.

yes F3 was about 15 ft off the line and moving in to make the catch-- the runner had no idea where the ball was hit to and bumped into him thinking there were 2 outs

 

[ureout]

so then runner is out for INT. out #2 -- and if in the umpires judgement they could have had a double play on the no tag and that the catch could have been made with normal effort then the batter is also out?

what if the runner was heading back to the bag realizing where the ball was and knew there was only 1 out when the INT occurred -- the runner would be out #2 and would you put the batter on 1st?

 

[irishmafia]

so then runner is out for INT. out #2 -- and if in the umpires judgement they could have had a double play on the no tag and that the catch could have been made with normal effort then the batter is also out?

what if the runner was heading back to the bag realizing where the ball was and knew there was only 1 out when the INT occurred -- the runner would be out #2 and would you put the batter on 1st?

In all cases the interfering runner is called out and if the umpire judges the ball would have been caught, the BR is also ruled out

 

[NCASAUmp]

I believe he mean's the runner was the runner from 1st base and was off the base when interference occurred.

I figured, but I had to be sure when answering.

Irish has given the correct ruling - the runner who committed the interference is out, and if the

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

In all cases the interfering runner is called out and if the umpire judges the ball would have been caught, the BR is also ruled out

If I'm not mistaken, this is the only time an umpire will "assume" an out.

 

[ureout]

If I'm not mistaken, this is the only time an umpire will "assume" an out.

the words think and assume were 2 words I was told never to use while umpiring... I was told they always holler less on calls if you say in my judgement...lol

 

[Country469]

I was always told, to ask "is it routine"

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

the words think and assume were 2 words I was told never to use while umpiring... I was told they always holler less on calls if you say in my judgement...lol

We aren't umpiring here...just having a discussion...right?

 

[RNRPLZ]

the words think and assume were 2 words I was told never to use while umpiring... I was told they always holler less on calls if you say in my judgement...lol

I like your comment. We live by the, in my judgement....and by the rules. Never assume an out. It’s like saying, I think I saw it...if you didn’t see it. It didn’t happen. It was not mentioned the runner was attempting to go back to first. Going by what I read. Interference by runner two. And runner 3 is out. Definitely sounds like a easy double play had no interference happened.