Baseball Q -- Baserunner Interference

[Billdo]

Last night I was at a minor league baseball game, and one crazy at bat left me a few questions about interference on the basepaths.

With the bases empty, the batter hit a grounder to the shortstop. The throw to first was offline, and the first baseman stepped off the bag try to to catch it. The ball got past the first baseman and flew into foul territory.

The first baseman turned toward the foul line to get the ball, and the batter turned toward second, and the two of them smacked squarely into each other. After stopping each other’s progress for a moment, they each moved around each other and continued on their way.

The batter rounded second (despite the third base coach signalling furiously for him to hold up), and headed for third.

The batter slid into third as the third baseman lunged for the throw. The third baseman landed squarely on top of the batter’s back, with the two players forming an X across each other. Despite his efforts, the third baseman missed the ball, and it bounced into foul territority.

At this point, the batter could have run home if the third baseman wasn’t pinning him down. Several times the batter tried to lift himself and throw the third baseman off his back, and the third baseman agressively kept himself atop the batter to keep him from running. The defense retrieved the ball before the batter could get free, and play stopped.

The basepath ump, initially let the play stand. The hitting team’s manager protested to the umps. After the umps had a private chat for several moments out of earshot of everyone, they ruled that the play would stand, with the batter on third, much to the dismay of the crowd. It was unclear what the basis for their ruling was.

With that setup, I have a few questions:

1. In the situation at first base, could there have been either offensive or defensive interference when the players ran into each other? Would it have been different if one or the other had been knocked down, or otherwise seriously interfered with?

2. In the situation at third, was it legal for the third baseman to intentionally pin the batter down to prevent him from advancing (if he was indeed intentionally pinning the batter)? What if the pinning was inadvertent? What if the umpire just didn’t see what was going on?

3. If the third baseman had been ruled as interfering with the baserunner, what would be the result? Would the batter have been awarded home and the run?

4. As the play stood, there was an error recorded (I presume the missed throw to first). If the second missed throw to third had allowed the runner to go home (assuming no interference issue), would there have been two errors recorded, or just one? If the batter were awarded home due to interference, would there be an error recorded?

Thanks.

[saoirse]

I’m assuming that the Minor League teams were playing by Major League rules

If the batter had been interfered with on his way to first, he would have been awarded second and the ball would be dead. What the fielder did probably would have constituted interference, but the Umpire has to call or signal interference. It sounds like he didn’t do this. The third baseman was probably taking advantage of some incidental contact and pushed it a little too far. Or not, since he didn’t get caught. If he had, the runner would havce scored, and an error would have been recorded, so the pitcher’s ERA would be unaffected.

I’m asuming this was the Cyclones and not the Muckdogs game.

[BobT]

@Billdo

With the bases empty, the batter hit a grounder to the shortstop. The throw to first was offline, and the first baseman stepped off the bag try to to catch it. The ball got past the first baseman and flew into foul territory.

The first baseman turned toward the foul line to get the ball, and the batter turned toward second, and the two of them smacked squarely into each other. After stopping each other’s progress for a moment, they each moved around each other and continued on their way.

The batter rounded second (despite the third base coach signalling furiously for him to hold up), and headed for third.

The batter slid into third as the third baseman lunged for the throw. The third baseman landed squarely on top of the batter’s back, with the two players forming an X across each other. Despite his efforts, the third baseman missed the ball, and it bounced into foul territority.

At this point, the batter could have run home if the third baseman wasn’t pinning him down. Several times the batter tried to lift himself and throw the third baseman off his back, and the third baseman agressively kept himself atop the batter to keep him from running. The defense retrieved the ball before the batter could get free, and play stopped.

The basepath ump, initially let the play stand. The hitting team’s manager protested to the umps. After the umps had a private chat for several moments out of earshot of everyone, they ruled that the play would stand, with the batter on third, much to the dismay of the crowd. It was unclear what the basis for their ruling was.

With that setup, I have a few questions:

1. In the situation at first base, could there have been either offensive or defensive interference when the players ran into each other? Would it have been different if one or the other had been knocked down, or otherwise seriously interfered with?

2. In the situation at third, was it legal for the third baseman to intentionally pin the batter down to prevent him from advancing (if he was indeed intentionally pinning the batter)? What if the pinning was inadvertent? What if the umpire just didn’t see what was going on?

3. If the third baseman had been ruled as interfering with the baserunner, what would be the result? Would the batter have been awarded home and the run?

4. As the play stood, there was an error recorded (I presume the missed throw to first). If the second missed throw to third had allowed the runner to go home (assuming no interference issue), would there have been two errors recorded, or just one? If the batter were awarded home due to interference, would there be an error recorded?

Thanks.

1. There could have been interference called on either the fielder or batter-runner if the umpire felt that someone deliberately got in the way. But that just sounds like one of those plays where the two guys ran into each other.

2. No, the fielder cannot pin down a runner to keep him from moving on. That is obstruction, not interference, technically. I’m surprised the umpires let the guy get away with it.

3. If the umpires had ruled obstruction on the third baseman, the runner would have been allowed to score.

4. Interference and obstruction are considered errors.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

First, a note on terminology: When the offense impedes the defense, it’s called interference. When the defense impedes the offense, it’s called obstruction (with the single exception of when the catcher tips the batter’s bat, which is called catcher’s interference). Obstruction is very much a judgment call, so it’s hard to say anything definitive without having seen the play. With that in mind . . .

@Billdo

1. In the situation at first base, could there have been either offensive or defensive interference when the players ran into each other? Would it have been different if one or the other had been knocked down, or otherwise seriously interfered with?

Definitely not interference. Probably not obstruction, because the first baseman was attempting to field the throw and the contact was brief and apparently unavoidable.

2. In the situation at third, was it legal for the third baseman to intentionally pin the batter down to prevent him from advancing (if he was indeed intentionally pinning the batter)?

Absolutely not. That is obstruction.

What if the pinning was inadvertent?

It would still probably be obstruction–“OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.”

What if the umpire just didn’t see what was going on?

Obviously, they can’t call what they didn’t see. The default call is no call.

3. If the third baseman had been ruled as interfering with the baserunner, what would be the result? Would the batter have been awarded home and the run?

The umpire imposes such penalties as “in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction”. If he thinks the runner would have scored without the fielder pinning him down, he should award the run.

4. As the play stood, there was an error recorded (I presume the missed throw to first). If the second missed throw to third had allowed the runner to go home (assuming no interference issue), would there have been two errors recorded, or just one? If the batter were awarded home due to interference, would there be an error recorded?

Yes, two errors–extra bases awarded due to obstruction are always scored as an error.

[Billdo]

@saoirse

I’m asuming this was the Cyclones and not the Muckdogs game.

Actually, it was Tri-City at Staten Island.

Thanks for the answers, guys.

[Jeff_Lichtman]

There are two cases for obstruction. First, if it happens while a play is being made on a runner, the ball is dead and the runners are allowed to advance to the bases that, in the umpire’s judgement, they would have reached without the obstruction. The obstructed runner is always allowed to advance at least one base in this situation.

Second, if obstruction happens on a runner that the defense isn’t making a play on, the umpire calls “obstruction” and allows play to continue. When the play is over, the umpire calls “time” and then figures out where the runners should go to nullify the act of obstruction.

It sounds like both the collision with the first baseman and the third baseman landing on the runner fall into the second case, where no play was being made on the runner. Since the runner was safe at third after the collision at first, I wouldn’t think the umpire would award an extra base for this instance of obstruction - in other words, the runner wouldn’t have scored had this obstruction not occurred.

For the obstruction by the third baseman, as you’ve described it the fielder only fell on the runner after the ball got by him. That is, the fielder wasn’t trying to make a play on the runner at the time the obstruction happened. The ball isn’t dead, and the umpire has to decide whether the runner could have advanced without the obstruction. I didn’t see the play, so I can only speculate, but if the pitcher was backing up the play at third the runner might have had no chance to advance.

[Billdo]

@Jeff Lichtman

For the obstruction by the third baseman, as you’ve described it the fielder only fell on the runner after the ball got by him. That is, the fielder wasn’t trying to make a play on the runner at the time the obstruction happened. The ball isn’t dead, and the umpire has to decide whether the runner could have advanced without the obstruction. I didn’t see the play, so I can only speculate, but if the pitcher was backing up the play at third the runner might have had no chance to advance.

I’m not exactly sure what “making a play on the runner” means.

The batter was the only runner on the field, so all of the play was directed at him.

When the third baseman dived for the ball, he was trying to make the catch and tag the batter out. He fell on the batter at almost exactly the same time he would have caught the ball, if he had been able to catch the ball, so I would think that would be considered trying to make a play on the runner.

Once the ball got past the third baseman, did that change things so that there was no “play on the runner”, but rather a chase for the ball? I wasn’t really focusing on who was backing up third, or picked up the ball (I assume the pitcher was over by first, having backed up the first baseman on the original grounder).

From what I saw, if the batter had been able to get up immediately, he would have had plenty of time to make it home before the ball could have been run down and thrown home. I’m pretty sure that the umpire didn’t call “obstruction.”

As this was a single A minor league team, it had single A minor league umpires, and I didn’t see them consulting a rulebook. It is certainly possible that they either missed seeing the play or blew the call. On the other hand, there is no way that it was possibile that they saw something different being right there on the field than I saw up in the stands.

[Jeff_Lichtman]

@Billdo

I’m not exactly sure what “making a play on the runner” means.

My understanding is that it means the defense is in the immediate act of trying to put the runner out. Here’s a really clear example: suppose a runner on first tries to steal second, but is obstructed by the second baseman while the catcher makes a throw to the shortstop covering the bag. In this case the defensive team is making a play on the runner, the ball would be dead and the runner would be awarded second base (which is one base beyond the one he last legally touched before the obstruction occurred).

Now imagine a different case of a runner from first attempting a steal of second. This time there is no obstruction by the second baseman, but the catcher throws the ball into center field. As the center fielder is going after the ball, the runner tries to advance to third but is obstructed by the shortstop. In this case there is no play being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction. The second-base umpire will call obstruction but let the play continue. Let’s say the runner is then tagged out trying to get back to second base. The umpire will then decide whether the runner would have made it to third if the obstruction hadn’t happened. If so, he would nullify the out and send the runner to third - if not, he would nullify the out and keep the runner at second.

When the third baseman dived for the ball, he was trying to make the catch and tag the batter out. He fell on the batter at almost exactly the same time he would have caught the ball, if he had been able to catch the ball, so I would think that would be considered trying to make a play on the runner.

It sounds to me like he didn’t obstruct the runner as he tried to reach third, but did obstruct him after he reached the base. As long as the runner’s path to the base wasn’t impeded, there was no obstruction.

Once the ball got past the third baseman, did that change things so that there was no “play on the runner”, but rather a chase for the ball? I wasn’t really focusing on who was backing up third, or picked up the ball (I assume the pitcher was over by first, having backed up the first baseman on the original grounder).

Yes, that’s what I’m saying: there was no obstruction on the runner as he slid into third, but there was obstruction as he tried to go home. Since the defense was retrieving the ball they weren’t in the act of making a play on the runner, so the ball wouldn’t be dead and the umpire would have to decide where the runner would end up when the play was over.

By the way, it’s usually the catcher’s job to back up first on a grounder to short.

From what I saw, if the batter had been able to get up immediately, he would have had plenty of time to make it home before the ball could have been run down and thrown home. I’m pretty sure that the umpire didn’t call “obstruction.”

It’s possible the umpire blew the play. You wouldn’t necessarily know whether the umpire called “obstruction” if play is allowed to continue. It’s a verbal call, something you could easily miss from the stands, especially with all the fan noise on an exciting play like this.

[Saint_Cad]

@BobT

2. No, the fielder cannot pin down a runner to keep him from moving on. That is obstruction, not interference, technically. I’m surprised the umpires let the guy get away with it.

I’m not surprised. Remember in the 1987 World Series during a pickoff play, Kent Hrbek literally grabbed the Cardinal runner and pulled him off first base. The ruling? Runner out!

-Saint Cad

[BobT]

@SaintCad

I’m not surprised. Remember in the 1987 World Series during a pickoff play, Kent Hrbek literally grabbed the Cardinal runner and pulled him off first base. The ruling? Runner out!

-Saint Cad

Except that happened in 1991 and the runner called out was Ron Gant of Atlanta. The umpire in that case ruled that Gant came off the bag on his own and Hrbek didn’t push him.

It was wrong, but that’s the way the umpire saw it.

[Saint_Cad]

@BobT

Except that happened in 1991 and the runner called out was Ron Gant of Atlanta. The umpire in that case ruled that Gant came off the bag on his own and Hrbek didn’t push him.

It was wrong, but that’s the way the umpire saw it.

Thanks. I couldn’t remember which one (1987 or 1991) it was, but Cardinals seemed more right than Braves. That was one of the worst calls that I have ever seen in baseball.