This one's being discussed on various other boards:
The only thing I can think of is that someone didn't give WP all of the details. Otherwise, I can't believe they got it wrong!
It was not obvious to me that a protest went to WP. Looks like, at most, it was a discussion between the PU and the TD--and that's probably not kosher either.
Anyway, it looks like they ruled a PIROOMA because B2 did interfere with the play.
Need some help from you as to what you believe was the wrong call?
1)---the batter's interference call on the catcher?
2)-----the baserunner having to return to 1st base?
I don't believe the protest, per se, went to WP; what they got from WP was a belated affirmation that the rulings/calls made at the venue were correct.
As for the baserunner having to return to 1st base------that is not spelled out in the rulebook---[looking at Rule 6.06(c)--and "The Right Call"].... where both publications define batter's interference but makes no reference as to how a batter's interference call would impact a baserunner who advanced to a next base during the action at home.
For a batter-runner having to return to last base legally touched once a batter's interference call is made----that IS covered in The RIM.....Instructor's Comments, bottom of page 48.
The missed call was that when you have INT by a Batter AFTER he strikes out the runner is called out, you can't penalize the batter as he is already out on the strikeout. If this had happened with 1 strike then the Batter is out and the runner returns, but with the K you penalize by calling the runner out.
I saw it on TV (NESN) and replayed a few times and they did in fact pick up the phone after asking the manager if he wanted to protest. The managers mistake was once he said Yes, I want to protest he walked away looking for, and finding the rule book.
Lesson: If you protest you need to be in on the conversation to make sure they explain it properly. It was a very quick call and a quick ruling and I'm with Manny, they only got half of the story.
No harm in this game, but at a crucual point it could have been a disaster if the runner came around and scored the winning run.
Your explanation makes sense.....but where, in any LL publication, is there a reference/support spelling out making the call as you described? The Rulebook-- [Rule 6.06(c)]--"The Right Call"---and "The RIM"---offers no help in that regard.
[possibly I'm not looking at the correct rule]
Also--I think the question went to the local Regional rep in attendance at the game--as the Chain of Command calls for-- and then a phone call to WP for the belated affirmation. I do believe I saw Corey Wright, Assistant Eastern Regional Director, in a TV shot, behind the officials enclosure, standing to the right of others seated.
Sort of bending over, hatless, chewing gum----in one of the last shots of the clip Manny presented.
[Going to the rulebook was no help in that situation.]
"The RIM" does go a bit further, as I noted in my 1st reply, but absent any reference to a 3rd strike on the batter impacting the call on a base-runner.
At one earlier clip shot, Corey had sunglasses on.
Also noted......at one point after the call was changed from the runner being ruled "out" by a person at the table spoken to the PU; then that ruling was challenged and changed, correctly---at least by the RIM--- to the runner having to return to 1st base. The term heard spoken from within the officials enclosure was obtaining a "double check" from WP on the return to 1st base ruling made at the venue. Looked like it was Corey on the phone to WP, with his sunglasses on. That "double check" term spoken, as it related to the phone call made to WP prompted my comment that WP's reply was a "belated affirmation" of the final ruling made at the venue.
I agree, that possibly WP did not get "all the details" as Manny and BHanlon said was the case. What they probably got was the batter interfered with the catcher and nothing about it being the 3rd strike on the batter.
But what was, and is available in LL print addressing that scenario Nothing---that I can find!
Lacking any other LL print reference...the final ruling at the venue, i.e. the runner being returned to 1st base being on the same page as "THE RIM's" Instructor's Comments---absent any other written LL printed verbiage to the contrary.
hmmm, interesting, Rich. Good point for discussion!
IMO--That opens up another "can of worms"-- semantic wise.
By that I mean; LL Rules Series 6.00 deals with batters. Rules Series 7.00 deals with runners.
In this thread we are talking about a batter being "out" as a result of a called or swinging 3rd strike, he doesn't become a runner--- the batter's only possible interference call would be his interference with the catcher---as was in the original scenario, this thread.
As still only a batter..6.00 series applying!
I'm reading 7.09(e) as applying to a batter, for example, who BECOMES a RUNNER on a fair batted ball; and is either tagged out enroute to 1st base, or "put-out" at 1st base---who then subsequently interferes with a defensive player, say F3, making a throw to F4 on a base-runner-(R1)- enroute to 2nd base.
As now, a batter becoming a runner..7.00 Series applying!
I think what we had was Garden Variety Interference by the Offense, in this case, a player who was already retired. Thus R1 should be called out. Whether or not said offensive player happend to have been a batter is moot.
However, my question is how much "intent" do you have to judge? In the video, there was contact, and F2's throwing motion and his play at 2B were interfered with. Enough to judge intent? (I think so......)
Here's what I saw:
The crew saw INT on the retired batter, and called R1 out. Agree, or disagree with that judgement call, it doesn't matter.
The O manager questioned whether the out was proper.
WP said send the runner back.
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot on what WP did. You have two choices, Out, or play on. They decided on a new, King Solomon approach.
Frank - a batter who becomes a runner is referred to as a "batter-runnner"
7.09(e) says "batter" who has just been put out, not the "batter-runner" who has just been out so is definitely means the poor slob who just struck out. You can't use rule 6.06 and call the batter out because he's already out. Thus rule 7.09(e) is there because, with the batter out you need to have someone else to call out on the interference - thus the runner.
Stop trying to justify the call. Here and eveywhere else that it's being discussed you are the only one trying to use 6.06
You wrote and asked that I... "Stop trying to justify the call"
Rich, I will stop trying to justify the call when the powers-that-be governing this board tell me I can't express my opinion on any issue that comes before us. Without differing opinions these boards would be sleep inducers!
If I am wrong, so be it----wouldn't be the first time! I am not the only one using 6.06------are you forgetting the final decision rendered on the issue being in concert with THE RIM's Instructor's Comments under 6.06(e)? In the past, how often have you, and others, cited the RIM to support an opinion and/or disputing another's opinion?
Relax, enjoy the multi-dialogue "action"------express your opinion, but don't tell me I can't express mine----good, bad, or indifferent.
One more belated thought---via an edit!
6.O6(e)---SPECIFICALLY mentions, for emphasis, the interference ACTION involves a BATTER and CATCHER, as in the CASE at hand,----with no printed declared PENALTY "out" on a base-runner being mentioned or assessed. The RIM states the only penalty, as a result of the batter's interference with the catcher, shall be a base-runners return to his last legally acquired base----that legally acquired base being a judgment call!
I am not the only one using 6.06------are you forgetting the final decision rendered on the issue being in concert with THE RIM's Instructor's Comments under 6.06(e)?
Frank, that's where I think some miscommunication took place. If there was a phone call made to WP to verify that the decision made by the booth officials was correct, I believe they failed to inform WP that the batter was already out due to the strikeout.
As you point out, 6.00 deals with batters. This kid, by virtue of striking out, is no longer a batter. So you cannot use 6.06. That rule starts out by saying, "A batter is out for illegal action when..." He was already out when he performed that illegal action. He cannot be called out twice.
In fact, the RIM under 6.06 states, "If, however, ?the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter." Are you suggesting that had this catcher thrown out the runner, the batter who just struck out would still be up? I know your answer would be No.
Since you cannot use 6.06 here, the only available rule is 7.09(e). It clearly states, "Any batter who has just been put out..." In this case, he was just put out by swinging and missing a pitch for strike three. The booth officials should have known to use this rule (which, BTW, the umpires correctly used after they conferenced), and WP should have known if all the play particulars had been conveyed to them.
Put me in the 7.09(e) camp.
Umpire ruling was correct, batter out on strike 3 and runner out due to interference by the previously retired batter.
Now, if it had been strike 1 or 2 then 6.06 would be the correct basis for the ruling.
In one of my past posts here I did agree, IMO---that WP (probably) did not get all the ALL the details; and opted to suggest that the batter had in fact being called "out" via a 3rd swinging strike---was part and parcel of that "overlook."
let's say they WERE told ALL the details-----the bigger question, rhetorically, would they have still agreed with the decision made at the venue; i.e. the base-runner being returned to 1st base? We will never know!
In fact, do we know FOR SURE that WP was NOT told that the batter had struck out!?!? ...and knowing that, still agreed with the local venue,s decision to return the base-runner to 1st base as opposed to calling him "out."