Batter interferences with catcher on wild pitch. Does runner from 3rd score?

[jacman]

If I understand what happened here, it may be the worst call ever. If I'm wrong, those in the know, please enlighten me. I can take it.

NCAA D3 Conference tournament yesterday. I witnessed this personally, and filled in a few pieces from player accounts (I know players on both teams). And for full disclosure, my DD plays for the Red team, though wasn't on the field at the time this took place.

Three man umpire crew. Red team (visitors) is ahead 2-1, and on defense in the bottom of the 7th. 1 out, bases loaded, 2 balls and a strike on the batter. Red pitcher throws a wild pitch in the river at the feet of a righty batter (Green team) that squirts left of the catcher about 8-10 feet. Green batter moves out of the batters box, getting between the ball and the Red catcher, nearly knocking the catcher down. Not intentional, but they are tangled up all the way to the ball, which prevents the catcher from reaching the ball until after Green runner at 3rd scores and called safe by home plate umpire, Green runners at 2nd and 1st each move up one base.

Red coach challenges, so the umps get together and debate, deciding to let the run stand. Red team is angry, Green team elated. But there's more!

As the home plate ump starts back to the plate, he hears the Green batter tell the Red catcher she actually did interfere and she was sorry. So the home plate ump calls his crew together again and now overturns the call, now charging the Green batter with interference. He claims this is due to new "3rd party evidence" from a source he won't reveal. (The Red catcher gave account of her conversation with the Green batter after the game.)

Here's where I need help.

If that's interference, the play is dead at the moment of the interference and the Green runner advancing to score is therefore ruled out. Isn't this correct? I think then (but I'm not certain) that the other Green runners return to their original bases. The Green batter, being a batter and not even a batter-runner, isn't out, but would return to the plate, now with a 3-1 count. There would now be 2 outs on the Green team, with Green runners at 1st and 2nd.

This is what actually happened. Umpires declared interference and took the run off the board, keeping the score at Red team 2-1 ahead of the Green team. The Green runner from 3rd was returned to 3rd and the bases were loaded just as before the wild pitch ever happened. Essentially (my interpretation) they just called a do-over, like we used to do on the playground when we couldn't agree on anything better to do. Play resumed, except that even though they reset the play, they didn't reset the count from 3-1 back to 2-1. The next pitch was a ball, walking in the run and tying the game.

So those with knowledge here, please verify the umps did the right thing, or clarify what they should have done.

 

[Comp]

If they ruled interference, someone has to be out. If they ruled interference on the batter, the batter should have been out and runners returned to last base occupied at time of interference.

Would have to see it, but if the wild pitch chased the batter out of the box while attempting to avoid it, you got to give them some leway if they end up around the ball.

 

[CHSUmp97]

There is an NCAA case play that may shed some light on what to rule here. Here's the play:

A.R. 11-32. There’s a runner on third base with one out. The batter attempts contact, but misses the pitch, on a suicide squeeze play. The catcher drops the pitch and it rolls forward in front of home plate but within reach. The runner stops their advance, retreats and is about to re-touch third base as the batter makes contact with the catcher. Is the penalty for the batter interfering Rule 11.20.2 or Rule 11.20.2 EFFECT Exception (1)?

RULING: The ruling will depend on the context of the contact. Since the runner was about to re-occupy third base, they were no longer advancing so Exception (1) does not apply. The umpire could rule interference or not make any call since no play was being made if the contact was judged to be incidental. (Rule 11.20.2 EFFECT and Exception (1))

The last sentence in the ruling is key here. The umpire could judge that the contact between the Green batter and the Red catcher was incidental, and allow the play to stand. That's what I feel should've happened.

As for changing the ruling because the Green batter said she did interfere, an umpire should not be swayed by that and change the call. They have to base the call on what they saw and judged. Just because the batter said she interfered, that doesn't mean she actually violated a rule. Players and coaches don't always know the implications of words they may use in conversation with each other, so to suggest that an umpire should change a call because a player said she did something that the umpire judged she didn't do is a inappropriate.

So either it was incidental contact which means the results stand as played out, or there was batter interference which means the batter is out and runners return. It cannot be a "do-over".

 

[Crabby_Bob]

No video? Didn't happen. Oh wait...



at about 7;29;00. Be disappointed. The bug obscures some of the action and the camera pans in the wrong direction.

Batter interference in NCAA softball is very different than in the alphabets. Depending on circumstances, it could be the batter, a runner advancing towards home, the runner closest to home, or the runner being played on would be out. It's also a delayed dead ball and an option for the defense to take the play.

The only thing clearly right is the count.

Ugly way to finish a game.

 

[The Man In Blue]

LOL . . . I was waiting for an insect to cross the lens . . . Wrong bug!

I have nothing; play stands. Batter's interference occurs when a catcher is prevented from catching or throwing. Although I don't think the pitch drove the batter from the box (she reacted to the WP by turning, and running out), she was vacating for a play at the plate. The catcher was neither catching nor throwing.



If interference was ruled, in NCAA the runner coming home would be out (fewer than two outs, the runner coming home is called out; with two outs the batter is called out).

The only wrong answer is . . . well, what they did.

In NFHS, you could justify an interference call under "hinders action a home plate after the pitch reaches the catcher". Batter is out, runners return. (7-4-4)

 

[jacman]

Crabby, nice job finding the right game! I wish the video showed more of the play. I believe I described the contact pretty accurately, although reviewing the video, I see I had the count wrong when play resumed. Sorry about that.

I'm intrigued by the thoughtful responses. If I try to put them together I get something like this:

There doesn't seem to be a clear rule about whether this was interference, as the "interference" took place in foul territory and away from the batter's box. So since it was not intentional (I do believe the batter was trying to get out of the way, even though she managed to get completely in the way), there isn't really a defined infraction here, so there can't be one called. Am I on the right track here?

Further, if interreference WAS called (whether it should have been or not), then the runner should be out, since that's where a play was trying to be made. However, other options might have been used depending on the umpires' interpretation of the play.

So the closest thing to the correct call was to let the original play stand, since it resulted from unintended, incidental contact between the batter and catcher in foul territory away from the plate. And that there is not anything that allows the umps to simply reset the play as if it didn't happen.

How did I do?

Additional thought: It seems odd to me that interference with the catcher appears to be so tightly confined to throwing or catching while the batter is in the box. Isn't there something more general that would cover this incident, inasmuch as the catcher is still a defensive player? Incidental or accidental contact in other situations would still be considered interference. Does the specific rule quoted by Man in Blue have precedence over such a possibility?

 

[clarity]

This makes it sound like the if catcher drops the pitch, the batter could just kick it away since the catcher is not in the act of catching or throwing. And I know that can't be true, so there must be something else that would cover it, right?

 

[MoJo]

Man, 3 college umps sure messed up pretty big.


Interference - (NCAA, USSSA, USAS, NSA ) Interference is an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field. The act may be intentional or unintentional, and the ball must be playable.

NCAA 11.20 - The batter shall not hinder the catcher or any other fielder from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter’s box, or intentionally hinder a player (for example, on a steal/pickoff throw or a play at home plate) while standing within the batter’s box. EFFECT—Delayed dead ball is signaled. The defensive team shall choose either the result of the play or the batter is out and each base runner must return to the last base that, in the umpire’s judgment, was legally touched at the time of the interference. Exceptions: (1) If a base runner is advancing to home plate and there are fewer than two outs, the base runner, instead of the batter, is out. (2) If the batter strikes out and, while still in the batter’s box, interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw out a base runner, the base runner also is out. (3) If the catcher is not making a play on a base runner but the batter or umpire interferes with the catcher’s return throw to the pitcher and the base runner, consequently, advances safely, the umpire should suspend play and return each base runner to the base occupied at the time of the accidental interference.


NFHS 7-4-4 - The batter is out when interferes with the catcher....by failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away. PENALTY: The ball is dead immediately (the pitch still counts however as it already took place). Runners must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

USAS RS. 32 B. - Batter interference occurs while the batter is at bat and before the ball is batted. It occurs in fast pitch when the batter interferes with the catcher’s throw on an attempted steal or when the batter interferes with the catcher on a play at the plate.

USSSA 7.12 - A batter shall not interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate, by stepping out of the batter’s box, by making any other movement which hinders action at home or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner, or by failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away. PENALTY: Dead ball; the batter is out

NSA 11.m. (Batter Is Out ) - When the batter interferes with a play on a runner at home plate. Effect: Ball is dead, batter is out, runners return to last legally obtained base.

 

[The Man In Blue]

There doesn't seem to be a clear rule about whether this was interference, as the "interference" took place in foul territory and away from the batter's box. So since it was not intentional (I do believe the batter was trying to get out of the way, even though she managed to get completely in the way), there isn't really a defined infraction here, so there can't be one called. Am I on the right track here?

The rule seems to be very clear. Remember, we are looking at the NCAA rule for this play.

1. Did the batter hinder the catcher? If you believe so, keep going in this logic flowchart.
2. Did the batter hinder the catcher from catching or throwing the ball? NO, no interference on this clause.
3. Did the batter intentionally hinder a player while standing in the batter's box? NO, no interference on this clause.

Where is the interference?

So the closest thing to the correct call was to let the original play stand, since it resulted from unintended, incidental contact between the batter and catcher in foul territory away from the plate. And that there is not anything that allows the umps to simply reset the play as if it didn't happen.

Correct.

 

[jacman]

Thanks for additional clarification.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why NCAA 11.20 would replace the general rule on interference as quoted by MoJo above: "Interference is an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field. The act may be intentional or unintentional, and the ball must be playable."

Foul territory is part of the playing field and the catcher was denied the opportunity to make a play. Are we sure that 11.20 isn't simply a careful delineation of activity in the batter's box, and isn't applicable to an incident like this one being discussed? NCAA 11.20 does seem to contradict the general rule defining interference in this case.)

For those keeping score, the word is that the conference suspended two of the three umpires working the tournament were suspended through next season. I haven't been able to verify that independently, but there was a new three man crew for the final game, which was played last night, along with a conference rep and and someone who appeared to be an umpire supervisor or observer on hand. The new umpires were definitely an improvement; the problems with the previous crew were myriad, and not limited to the play I described above. All teams were affected by it throughout the tournament.