Ask the UEFL - Batter's Interference with Uncaught Third Strike in NCAA Game
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 ноя 2024
- During a UConn-Virginia NCAA game, a batter's interaction with a baseball turned into an Ask the UEFL question pertaining to potential interference. What's the call, the rule, and the result? Article:
Although college baseball recently introduced a new rule 7-11-h regarding uncaught third strikes wherein a batter-runner hinders the catcher in the catcher's attempt to field the ball, we ultimately determine that this rule does not apply to this play where the batter, by virtue of swinging and missing at an uncaught third strike with less than two out and first base occupied, never actually becomes a batter-runner (instead, is declared out for the aforementioned third strike).
Instead, we find NCAA 6-3-b and 7-11-f-EXCEPTION-3 specify a penalty for this unique situation in which a retired batter unintentionally interferes with a catcher attempting to make a play, which, namely, states that if the batter strikes out, the runner is also out.
Retired runner rules actually refer to both runners and batters who have been put out and also runners who have crossed home plate. They can all be charged if they affect continuing play. The runner closest to home plate (lead runner) is declared out and other runners are returned to the last base touched before the interference occurred. Retired runner interference is an unusual event and is often confused with more common types of batter, batter-runner, and runner interference. 🤔
great way to explain it, thanks gil
Great analysis, great explanation !
Man, baseball is the easiest most complicated game ever invented
Had a similar play but slightly different and therefore had to apply rule 6.2.d. Note 1. R2 only and dropped 3k that F2 couldn't handle and went back to backstop. As F2 made a movement to try and catch the high inside pitch, the batter made contact with F2 on his follow through. This rule penalized the offense even though if it would have been a normal catch of the pitch not requiring F2 to stand up, there most likely would not have been contact.
Great video and great explanation. As I see this is a NCAA (colleague league). Would this situation be ruled the same way in the MLB? In my country we don’t have colleague league so we always follow MLB rules. Thanks a bunch.
Wouldn't this be interference by a retired player? Runner closest to home is out. Same outcome in this situation, but if runners started on first and third, the runner on third would be out.
Thanks. I definitely have a softball POV.
Is this in NFHS?
Hi Gil,
I found this video searching for something similar, but I'm not sure I'll find it anywhere. Perhaps you or your readers have thoughts.
I recently saw this very weird play.
Same set up: 1 out, runner on first, the runner is going, strike three is not caught, and the runner runs to first anyhow. But here, the catcher (perhaps inspired by the mistake of the retired batter) throws to first... and into right field. I can't remember if R1 ended up scoring or at third.
BUT... the umpire sent R1 back to first saying that the retired batter caused the problem by running to first. He might have even used language suggesting deception.
What is the right call?
There is no "deception" rule in NFHS that is connected with the batter running on a dropped third strike with less than two outs with 1B occupied. Older catchers should never fall for that. Although it may be an added rule in youth leagues, it shouldn't be. What better way to teach young catchers rules and situations than for them to fall for it a couple of times. A batter who runs in this situation does, however, set themselves up for possible retired runner interference should the catcher attempt a pickoff on R1 (unlikely, but possible).
Gil, it seems that this new NCAA rule is designed expressly for moments where the batter is out on the uncaught 3rd strike (not more than one out). If your "he's not a batter-runner, because he's out" distinction is relevant, then it renders the new rule impossible. While it is obvious that this batter never becomes a runner because he is out, the rule might actually be intended to deal with this exact play - and need a slight text edit.
No, Gil confused me a bit, but saved it at the end.
The distinction here is this is not a drop 3rd strike, 1st was occupied, batter is out because of that and not the result of his foot hitting the ball. If the runner was on say second and first was unoccupied than the new rule applies that the batterrunner would be out and R2 would return to 2nd.
It is a lot to unpack, so give Gil a break. Except for, hey Jagr, get a haircut 🤣
AR - you are correct. The "Note" specifically applies only to "h" - dropped third strike, runner on first, less than two outs. So while the reference to the batter-runner is confusing, the runner should clearly be returned to first.
See Rule 7 Section 11-f and Exceptions 3.
When a batter or batter Runner is out
The better intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher's feeling of throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders a defensive players action at home plate.
Penalty for f the batter is out and all Runners return to their faces at the time of the pitch.
Exceptions
3) if the better also should strike out on the play it is a double play
6-3-b ("If the batter strikes out, the runner is also out") and 7-11-f-EXCEPTION-3 ("If the batter also should strike out on the play, it is a double play") contradict that. If NCAA wanted its new Note to apply to a situation in which the batter has struck out in lieu of becoming a batter-runner, it should have deleted 6-3-b and 7-11-f-EXCEPTION-3.
Instead, we have a fairly blatant IF strike out THEN double play situation.
Good one! Thanks for the clarification
Is it the same rule in the mlb rulebook?
retired runner interference.... so you have to retire another runner
6.3.b references a catcher's play "at home base." Wasn't this meant for plays on a runner advancing to home? Otherwise, why reference "home base" at all? It should simply read "the catcher's play." Period.
👏🏽 Great stuff
Interesting!!! very interesting