Someone please explain this to me.

[CoachBroker]

We were playing in a tournament this weekend and had something happen that I did not understand.
Runners (us) on 2nd and on 3rd, two outs. Batter hits a ball to 3rd baseman who struggles to pick up the ball and make the throw to 1st. Runner on 3rd scores, throw to 1st is late and the batter is safe. Runner who started on 2nd is heading home. 1st baseman throws to catcher as runner is coming in. The catcher positions herself in front of the home plate in the baseline before the throw. As runner comes in, the catching is blocking the plate, then makes the catch and applies the tag. Runner out, 3rd out....so we think. The PU then calls Catcher Interference and gives the two options.
First scoring runner (runner originally on 3rd) scores and the second runner is out or we can put all the runner back on base (bases loaded) and continue batting but the score is removed.

I could not understand why the first run would not count if it happened before the catcher interference either way? Why is the second runner not given home plate making 2 runs?

Someone please explain if this was the correct ruling or did the umpire make a huge mistake.

For what its worth, we chose to load the bases, lose the scoring run, and then the next batter up was thown out at first to end the inning with no runs. (first inning by the way). We end up losing by 1 run.

 

[James Smith]

I do not know what happened.

Runner #1 scoured, that play is over and done with.

Runner #2 scoured because of interference.

It should not have been unwound like it was. Runner #2 is out or safe because of interference, they do not go back on base.

(Options? You do not get any options. You can yell at the ump all you want but you do not get options.)

 

[MountieSB]

If how you state this is actually how it happened, your umpire must have been drinking between innings. Both runs should have counted.

 

[Comp]

First off, its not interference its obstruction. Before getting into anything else, have no idea where the umpire pulled his ruling from but it certainly wasnt the rule book.

As to the play, you say the catcher is blocking the plate, makes the catch and then tags the runner for the out. There is no restriction on where the catcher can stand, just that they cannot impede the progress of the runner. Did the catcher impede the runner without posession of the ball? Not sure I can see how a runner from 2nd could be that close to home plate if the ball was thrown to 1st on a close play and then immediately home. Without seeing what happened in person it may or may not have been obstruction. If it was obstruction, and in the umpires judgement the runner would have scored absent the obstruction the runner should be awarded home. If she wouldnt have reached home, then she would be placed back at 3rd. There is no way the 1st run that had already scored would be taken away and the runner put back on base.

 

[TimothyJ]

Sounds to me like we're talking about catcher interference on the swing (bat hit the glove), not on the play at the plate.

Hence, the offense was given the choice of taking the "results of the play" ( runner scores, 2nd runner out)

Or...

Taking what would have happened if there was no play.

(Runners returned to their bases, batter awarded first)

Does that sound right? (Umps, help me out)

 

[Comp]

Sounds to me like we're talking about catcher interference on the swing (bat hit the glove), not on the play at the plate.

Nothing in the description ever mentioned the batter hitting the catchers glove. Even if it had, the correct term still is not catchers interference, it is catchers obstruction. If for whatever reason it was catchers obstruction, once the batter/runner was safe at 1st and both other runners advance 1 base safely, the catchers obstrution is cancelled.

 

[TimothyJ]

Nothing in the description ever mentioned the batter hitting the catchers glove. Even if it had, the correct term still is not catchers interference, it is catchers obstruction. If for whatever reason it was catchers obstruction, once the batter/runner was safe at 1st and both other runners advance 1 base safely, the catchers obstrution is cancelled.

Gotcha. It is referred to as "interference" in the LL rulebook, which is why i thought it was the bat hitting the glove.

Regardless, you're correct that when the runner reached first safely it's negated anyway.

If that's even what happened.

 

[Amy in AZ.]

Wasn't there a second umpire? What a strange call.

 

[CoachBroker]

Timothy, I will check back with our HC and ask if that could have been the case. I never heard anything said about the catcher interfering in the batters swing howver that would make more since to how this was handled. I do know that the PU specifically stated Interference and not Obstruction.

 

[Comp]

Offense interferes defense obstructs. If the umpire used the word interference with regard to something the defense did he would have been using incorrect terminology. I cannot think of a single situation which could have occurred to come up with the ruling the umpire invented.