Manny:

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.

Mike CVUA

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.

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.

Frank!

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!

Frank!

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.

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!  

Frank!

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.