Please explain

This happened today during our HS game. No outs runners on 2&3, the batter hits a fly to rf and runs and rounds the first base. The RF catches the fly ball and base umpire calls out before she reaches the first base, but the hitter still rounds the first base. The RF throws the ball to cut and the cut decides to tag the batter out who is now in between 1&2nd base. In the meantime girl on third tags and scores and the girl on second base scores during the tag play between 1&2nd.
The opposition coach appeals after the play was over and the umpire calls the offence interference on the batter and calls girl who scored from 2nd base out and says that's 3 outs and ends the innings.

Where did the third out come from?

Umm, batter better be running or she will find herself on bench.

Once she is called out she needs to stop and leave field.

(Cool, triple play. need to read better.)

The first out is the flyball to RF. 2nd out is the runner closest to home on the interference of the batter/runner. Should only be 2 outs. My guess is the umpire screwed up and applied an out to the total when the cutoff tagged the batter/runner who was already out. Too bad your coach was not paying attention.

This is a timing play. From the sound of it the ball was hit deep enough for the runner to tag and score easily from 3rd. Unless the umpires judged the runner on 3rd left early????

Did the lead runner's run count?

Maybe MTR can answer this. Can interference be applied after the completion of a play? Interference is an immediate dead ball. The fielders should know where the runners are at on the bases.

Well, it's definitely a blown call since the rules don't call for both runners being called out. I'm positive of that.

All I could find on interference by a retired runner is that the runner closest to home is out if interference prevented a double play anywhere. Other runners return to last touched base at time of interference.

But I'm not convinced the runner did anything illegal. She didn't draw a throw. The fielder just wasn't paying attention and chose to tag her. But that seems like something of a judgment call, and maybe you had to be there.

I don't see how any of this is subject to appeal, unless you just mean the coach came out and asked about interference and the umpires conferred and decided there was.

She was called out before she hit first.

Sparky Guy said:

The first out is the flyball to RF. 2nd out is the runner closest to home on the interference of the batter/runner. Should only be 2 outs. My guess is the umpire screwed up and applied an out to the total when the cutoff tagged the batter/runner who was already out. Too bad your coach was not paying attention.

This is a timing play. From the sound of it the ball was hit deep enough for the runner to tag and score easily from 3rd. Unless the umpires judged the runner on 3rd left early????

Did the lead runner's run count?

Maybe MTR can answer this. Can interference be applied after the completion of a play? Interference is an immediate dead ball. The fielders should know where the runners are at on the bases.

Click to expand...

Yes the lead runner's run was good and she was safe.

Continuing to run and drawing a throw CAN be considered a form of interference. Key word is CAN, not is interference. The defense should have been more than well aware the batter/runner was put out on the catch. If all the batter/runner did was round first and was not continuing to run when the defensive player chose to tag her that is on them to be aware of the situation and make the appropriate play. As for the rest of the play, umpire messed up, base on his call there were only 2 outs and should have been a runner on 2nd.

I did see a play the other night in a high school game with a very similar situation which was very close to being interference by a retired runner drawing a throw. Runners on 2nd and 3rd, batter hit a deep fly ball to left. Runner on 3rd tagged on the catch and there was a throw home for the play at the plate. Throw was late but the catcher immediately threw to 3rd to get the runner advancing there. As soon as she threw, the runner pulled up, started walking and headed to the dugout. I couldnt figure out what was going on until I looked back and saw there was still a runner standing on 2nd. The batter/runner had run full speed even after being put out, passed the runner at 2nd and was advancing to third and drew a throw. Ultimately it did not advance any runners, but could have easily been called interference if it had allowed a runner to advance.

quincy said:

She was called out before she hit first.

Click to expand...

Yes she was called out before she hit first. But she did not get in the way of the throw. The 2nd baseman, who was the cut off, decided to make the tag instead of throwing the ball to either the catcher or third base. The play was at either third or home, because the runner was tagging from second and was at third by the time the cut off got the ball.

Phandle said:

Yes the lead runner's run was good and she was safe.

Click to expand...

OK, so I re-read your post and I'm even more confused by the ruling.

So the runner on third tagged up, scored, and they allowed that run to stand? So they just made up a third out? Batter was out 1, runner on 2nd was the questionable out 2, and out 3 was...just because?

Wow, that's bad. I assumed that both runners were called out, which would be wrong but at least you could point to who was out.

Did the umpires think there was 1 out when the play began?

It's impossible for anyone here to say why the call was what it was. It apparently may not have been right, based on the info we have been given, but we really can't know what the umpires were thinking or why they ruled the way that they did.

Are you sure there weren't any outs to start with?

What coach worth his salt allows an extra "phantom" out to be charged to his team without talking to the umpires to see what's going on? Nobody piped up? No scorekeeper, no assistant coaches, no players, no fans? No one was screaming about there being only two outs?

Frankly, that seems way less likely than "there was really one out to start with".