Interference by Runner? What's the call?

A runner scores sliding into the catcher and then causing him to fall again while leaving the area. Is the catcher correct? Did the runner that just scored interfere with him attempting to retrieve the ball? What should the umpire call? What would you call on this play if you were the umpire?
Links to OBR (MLB), Little League, NCAA and NFHS rules:
www.littleleague.org/playing-...
umpirebible.com/OBR16/home.htm
umpirebible.com/fed/default.htm
www.ncaapublications.com/p-46...
Affiliate Links to products used while coaching:
6-8 Year Old - PowerClose glove - amzn.to/3bmkQ8T
9-11 Year Old - Youth PowerClose glove - amzn.to/3Efw791
Youth PowerClose CATCHER’S glove - amzn.to/3S51dFX
Mizuno MVP Prime: Intermediate CATCHER’S glove - amzn.to/3Kcusoo
Total Control Heavy Balls - amzn.to/2On8nZA
Total Control Heavy Whiffle - amzn.to/3v6qp33
Tanner Tee - amzn.to/3l8KJMr
Bownet commander large catcher bag - amzn.to/3EgPIFK

[@novumfidelium5575]

Agree with "Whole lotta nothing", the runner had set his path, slid to avoid tag, throw pulled catcher into the runner path.

[@baseballumpires6901]

It’s after the throw when the runner gets up and circles around with the catcher going for the ball. I still have nothing. Looks to me like the catcher trips himself off balance.

[@ericjohannsen]

When and in what manner did the runner slide?

[@ButchRahman]

Clean! Catcher has no right to be in the runner's way without the ball. Runner was sliding into home exactly as he should have. Umpire nailed the no-call.

[@quadparty]

I think the concern is the second run. First runner: safe, but then once home, he interferes(?) with the catcher trying to refield the dropped ball.

[@kaisterfg7847]

@@ButchRahman it looks to me like the catcher ran into the runner who scored, hence why he tripped and fell. I’ve got interference

[@ButchRahman]

@@kaisterfg7847 I rewatched yet again and...you may be right! It was minor, but I think the first runner did brush the Catcher.

[@austinbarnthouse630]

I got nothing, that’s a baseball play. Keep on keeping on.

[@jordanissport]

​@@ButchRahman tangle, untangle, no interference

[@theburnetts]

Seems like most people in the comments here don't understand what the possible interference here is. It isn't on the throw home. The possible interference is on the first runner that scored. The question is - after he scored did the first runner interfere with the catcher's ability to retrieve the ball?

[@craigdupree1687]

The relevant part of the definition of interference is "making a play." Is the catcher making a play? No, he is chasing after a poorly thrown ball that bounced off his glove.

[@theburnetts]

@@craigdupree1687 so you are saying there can’t be interference because the catcher isn’t making a play? So by that logic any time a ball gets away from a fielder a runner would be allowed to kick the ball away right? I mean he’s not making a play on the ball right?

[@TheHockey12]

@@craigdupree1687 The Catcher's actions are still part of a play, since the ball remains live. However, I think this is a good no-call.

[@guerro327]

And the answer is no.

[@2yutes]

Interference by the runner that scored would have to be intentional (unlike obstruction or interference by a runner on a fielder making a play on a batted ball). I don’t see intent and neither did the umpire, so good call.

[@jessdtruth3251]

As a HS umpire, I'm already frustrated that we're at the 3 1/2 hour mark of a 7 inning game. My back hurts and it's past time to go home..... we don't get paid by the hour. So the firsts guy scores and then interferes.... 2nd runner is out. Now finish this chit and let's go the hell home!! 🙄

[@82celica]

Looks like contact with the first runner to the plate and when the catcher is going to retrieve the ball. Catcher touches the runner already scored toward the third base dugout. Is that the interference?

[@mitchbaker3230]

Wow. What a tough play at real time. Slow it down and there was an inadvertent trip by R3 of the catcher after R3 scored. Interference by R3. At real time, great call.

[@austinbarnthouse630]

I’d say even upon video review good no call. Base ball play through and through.

[@ipfreely1812]

R3 what is he supposed to do disappear in thin air?

[@mitchbaker3230]

@@ipfreely1812 It's funny, I've heard that argument before and also made calls based on that idea. But, the rule book, afaik, doesn't mention this argument for this scenario. So, yes, it is interference. As I pointed out in my original post, at real time, in that moment, I think the plate umpire did a great job. On the flip side of this argument, lets say the first part of this play happened at third base instead of home. The fielder was not in possession of the ball. Would it have been obstruction? You could easily say, 'you can't expect the fielder to disappear into thin air'. In my opinion, interference and obstruction are opposite sides of the same coin. The idea is to not grant an unfair advantage to the other team whether it is intentional or not. Just my opinion.

[@29proto]

@@ipfreely1812 i haven't looked it up but in my mind he is supposed to retreat to his dugout, same as a runner who is called out on the bases. returning to the plate to signal his runner is not retreating to the dugout. i might call interference here. tough to say in real time tho.

[@ipfreely1812]

@@mitchbaker3230 damn that was a whole essay! good thing you’re not a baseball coach or umpire.

[@garygemmell3488]

The catcher should do what I did the last game of my Senior year of HS baseball. We weren't going to make any playoffs so our head coach gives the lineup card to our centerfielder and tells him to make the lineup at this last away game. Everyone is playing out of position except me, because I'm the only catcher on the team. The area around the plate is a mix of clay and chalk and would be quicksand if you added water to it. Runner at 3B and the centerfielder is playing third base. Batter hits a grounder to third, runner takes off for home. Our CF\3B throws home and the throw is two feet short. It hit this powder surrounding the plate and I see nothing but a cloud of clay\chalk flying everywhere until I see metal cleats coming out of the cloud. The runner made a head first slide and his legs were bent at the knee, putting the his feet in the air and the underside of his cleats aimed right at me. His cleats raked my face and opened up two minor gashes. I made a comment to him about his throw and reminded him that it's 90 feet between bases. The guy the catcher needs to talk to is his third baseman. My third baseman and I have remained friends nearly 45 years later. If I ask him how far it is from 3B to home he'll reply "88 feet".

[@KevinQuinn81]

I didn't notice it at first and on second glance I see that the umpire wasn't even looking at it either because he was watching R2 come around third but there might have been some contact between R3 while getting up and the catcher which might have prevented the catcher from getting the ball to try and throw out R2. If I had seen it real time I would have had R3 scoring cleanly as it sounds like everyone else does but I would have also had interference on R3. Not sure of the penalty for that in this instance though.

[@ipfreely1812]

😂 SAFE!

[@jakemillsaps5512]

(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see Rule 6.01(j));

[@MH-Tesla]

​@@jakemillsaps5512But the catcher wasn't making a play on another runner. He was making a play to retrieve the ball, but did not have any possibility of making a play on a runner, so that rule you quote doesn't apply here. The most you can get on this is to call interference, kill the play, send the second runner that scored back to third and the batter back to first. You can't get an out in this situation.

[@teebob21]

No call is the correct call. Both players are doing what they should be doing, and the actions of the runner who already scored did not impede F2 from making an additional play.

[@jstr9569]

Right at 0:38 it seems the initial runner who was safe then gets in the way of the catcher... maybe something of interference could be called there? Regardless bad throw by 5, or more likely great base running to stay in line with the throw to home.

[@EagleRun23]

Not sure what the question is. I see 2 runs score. Catch was maybe early with out a ball if anything. HS rules may vary. Not sure.

[@theburnetts]

The question is did the first runner that scored then interfere with the catcher who was attempting to retrieve the ball. The first runner slides in and then runs in front of the catcher who is trying to go after the ball and the catcher even trips and falls possibly from contact by the runner who just scored.

[@EagleRun23]

@@theburnetts I dont think the catcher can be there wo the ball though. Runner has the right of way. Catch played it bad I guess.

[@ag7898]

My major issue is that PU has NO IDEA about this contact cause all he is doing is staring directly at home plate. He has no idea where the ball is, how far away it has gotten, and if their was any meaniful and callable contact.

[@cloudwatcher724]

not true. check out 0:39. the plate umpire's primary attention is on the second runner scoring and any potential play at the plate. but he gives an appropriate quick glance to his left to track the ball. i think he handled the play well, with one exception: mask should have been taken off and stayed in his left hand.

[@deankirkpatrick7658]

​@Steven FitzGerald not true. Runner was rounding 3rd while. Ball, catcher and r3 went in the same direction. It is the PU responsibility to see any interference here. He should have repositioned towards first base side to sget a good look at the action at by the catcher/r3, and been in position to get the touch at 3rd and play at home.

[@lanky2592]

Everyone talking about how the runner slid into the runner coming home but not about the intereference after that play where catcher made contact with runner lol Honestly when first watching it I hesitated to call the intereference thinking "would the runner who scored last got to the plate even if the catcher got to the ball without the contact with the runner who already scored" but at the end I think I would've called interference by runner who scored. The first run would score and all runners will be placed where they should've been, in this case I'd place runners at 1st and 3rd.

[@MH-Tesla]

After giving this some thought, I would have ruled the same as on the field. I then checked case books and couldn't find anything that addressed this specific action, but if someone else does, I'd love to see it. This is similar to the Armbrister tangle/untangle, but not with the batter-runner. Another clue in the case-book 8.4.2 (K) R1 attempts to steal 2nd, Batter gets strike 3, F2 attempts to throw out R1 and is interfered with by the batter. Ruling: Batter out on strike 3 (obviously), "IF in the umpires judgement R1 would not have been out on the throw absent the interference, then R1 is returned to first, but not called out." So you have an interference called on a retired runner that does not result in an out. In this video, R2 was going to score regardless. One might have a case for returning BR back to 1st? Like I said, if I were the umpire having to act in real time, I'd end up where this guy did. I just wouldn't necessarily be able to explain it as well as I'd like. There should be NO case where R2 is called out for the interference (if you call it that) of R3. That would not be inline with the spirit of the game. F5 had the opportunity to make a good throw and F2 had the opportunity to catch the ball. And R3, after scoring, is doing what he is supposed to do on this play. Just because he's no longer a runner does not mean he a) disappears, or b) should fail to continue with his player duties, which is directing the following runner still advancing home. Umpire may have served himself better by pointing to the contact and then signaling safe a second time for "that's nothing." The catcher's post play actions I am totally fine with. Expecting players to lack any emotion or not argue their case is silly and unhelpful. The umpire did a great job waiting for action to end, and then calmly addressing the catcher's complaint.

[@davej3781]

After a runner is retired or scores, he has no duties within the rules other than to remove himself from the playing area and not interfere with the on-going play. While we allow players not (or no longer) involved in the on-going play to approach the plate area and direct runners, there is no NEED for them to do so, and in so doing they must not interfere in any way. A retired runner can't be expected to disappear or become non-corporeal, so we may make _some_ allowance for conflict after a play at the plate as the runner and catcher are extricating themselves, but once the retired runner is free he must vacate the area and not interfere any further in the play. In this play R3 gets up and clears the catcher, THEN runs around in a circle and collides with the catcher going after the ball. That he was moving to direct the next runner does not matter, he must not interfere with the play while doing it. While F2 had no reasonable play on R2, the retired runner's interference denied any opportunity at all and further allowed BR to take 2B (though the catcher stopping play to plead his case to the umpire also clearly helped, but had the umpire ruled properly there'd have been no need to plead his case). This is Interference by a Retired Runner, OBR 6.01(a)(5), NFHS 8-4-2g. The ball is dead at the moment of the interference, and as the defense had no play on R2 or BR the runners return to 3B and 1B respectively. Calling R2 or BR out for the interference by retired R3 would be a bridge too far here, but we must not allow further action after the interference.

[@davej3781]

... or if you prefer non-interference rule section, try OBR 6.01(b) and NFHS 3-2-3 - failure to vacate. Retired R3 may have tried to vacate, but he did not succeed.

[@richverost6416]

@@davej3781 you cant just decide to put runners back and not call an out if you call interference. Otherwise,what exactly did he interfere with? The penalty for Interference is an out. If you don’t know who the catcher was going to play on, you call out the runner closest to home. You either call R2 out for R1’s interference or it’s a big “That’s Nothing”

[@davej3781]

@@richverost6416 sure I can. the question of whether the retired runner interfered is entirely separate from whether he interfered with the defense making a play on a runner. the ball is dead because of the interference, but if the defense had no play at the time of the interference then no one is out. this is well supported both by the language of the rule, as well as by published case plays

[@davej3781]

also, the runner closest to home condition is not for when the defense had no play; instead it is for when the defense had multiple potential plays, but the nature of the interference prevented the umpire from discerning which runner the defense was going to attempt to play on. in that case the runner closest to home is put out.

[@danjohnson1727]

I mean I guess I understand why he's complaining, but it was clearly unintentional and very minimal. I would not have called interference

[@remcoump19]

I think that te R3 tried to avoid making interference at home plate by going out of the way. By doing this he makes unintentional contact with the catcher but I doubt that if there was no contact the catcher would have a change to get R2 out. The catcher is not playing the ball anymore because he missed it and therefore not protected by any rule anymore. The R3 has already finished his at bat by scoring and is not anymore in the play. To give him interference it have to be intentional.

[@micahsilverman5284]

None of this is true you just completely made it up and doesn't reflect the rule book lol. From the way you wrote this it's very obvious that you aren't familiar with the actual text of the NFHS rulebook

[@quadparty]

Everyone seems convinced the first run is safe. I agree. But I don't think the catcher is complaining about that. I think he's only complaining about the second run. I'm gonna call interference by the retiring runner. Mostly to be slightly contrarian, as I think there's more to the play than other comments acknowledge. I think there was even some light contact but certainly he crossed the path of the catcher trying to re-field the ball, which I will assert contributed to the stumble. But I'm not a rules expert, so maybe it doesn't count as interference for some reason I don't know about.

[@kaisterfg7847]

I agree. It looks like the catcher ran into the runner with his left shoulder. Interference

[@ag7898]

@graeme, so now that you called retired runner INT. What are you doing next with the other runners.

[@quadparty]

@@ag7898 not an expert in any respect (we don't watch much baseball in New Zealand!), but I'd guess the answer is: first runner scores, second runner out for interference, and assuming that wasn't the final out, batter-runner held at first.

[@bridgettedrelling4663]

Absolutely no interference from the runner!

[@deankirkpatrick7658]

This is type of play is why umpires are hired. To get it right. Ignoring the potential contact after the score is simply beginner level. It should have been acknowledged, as was nothing by signal and verbiage, or it should have been called. No other option is acceptable at high school varsity or above.

[@cloudwatcher724]

ok, for those of you who are commenting that the initial scoring runner "interfered" with the catcher retrieving the ball: what else was he supposed to do? stay lying on the ground? he got up immediately, it certainly appears that he was making every effort to get out of the play, and he even adhered to the (relatively) new rule of getting outside of the dirt circle before signaling to the following runner. his only other reasonable alternative would have been to get up and proceed in a straight line (third baseline extended). looking at 0:36, it appears as though the runner sees the ball in foul territory and there is nothing directly in front of his completed slide path. so yes, that probably would have been the most legal thing to do. but in the "heat of the moment", i do not believe his actions rise to the level of interference. in fact, at 0:38, it could be interpreted that the catcher's left shoulder initiates more of the contact than the runner does. just my opinion.

[@micahsilverman5284]

The "what was he supposed to do" line isn't a valid defense

[@cloudwatcher724]

@@micahsilverman5284 it is when the options are limited by time and the rulebook.

[@67L48]

1) I'd upload this play again with some voice-over to direct people to the actual play in question. Much fewer than half of the comments are discussing the correct play ... most of them are discussing the slide into home. That's the wrong action and I think you'd do well to redirect folks to the actual play in question. 2) I don't know the interference rule here. For example, interference in the field is basically automatic -- if the defensive player is interfered with, it's interference. There's no judgement on whether he would have "made the play." Merely interfering with the ability to make the play is enough. If that same burden is here, then this is interference. The player who slid into home does indeed make contact with the catcher and causes him to stumble a bit. So, if the strict interpretation of interference applies, then this is interference and the 2nd player who came home is out. If there is judgement allowed, then the umpire must decide whether the contact made by the runner affected the play. In this case, I'd rule an easy, "No." That catcher wasn't making a play on that loose ball. Ever. Run is safe and no interference ... **IF** judgement comes into play. 3) Umpire doesn't even glance sideways to see where the catcher is going. A lion could've leapt onto the field and eaten the catcher and the PU wouldn't have known about it. PU never broke his transfixed gaze at the plate. So, there's really no way he could have adjudicated this play, regardless of how (2) breaks above.

[@auzmo]

Obstruction by the catcher 😀 on the initial throw

[@nathangarciamuro]

Perfect call by the ump. No interference by Runner who slides the way it should be. The catcher moves into the lane due a bad throw but he does not catch the ball

[@eiupanther2012]

did you watch the video...? The question is about the second runner and the catcher making possible contact and tripping. that is what the question is about. not the first runner.

[@29proto]

yeah, retired runner interfered with catcher after scoring. he can avoid being liable even if there is contact by heading straight to the dugout (i think?)

[@pauledge1621]

There is a clear argument for interference by a retired runner.

[@ericjohannsen]

I have an illegal slide (given this is a high school game). "The runner MUST (2-32-1): Slide feet first (i.e., at least one leg and buttock on the ground)... before reaching the base or contacting the fielder." At 0:35, he's in contact with the catcher with a buttock in the air (his buttock is not on the ground once his foot reaches the plate either).

[@jonathonervin7845]

have fun with that call, you're probably the only person who would ever call that

[@ericjohannsen]

@@jonathonervin7845 If I'm the only umpire who will correctly apply a rule designed to protect players, so be it.

[@jonathonervin7845]

@@ericjohannsen I don't believe you would have seen that in real time but you do you

[@ericjohannsen]

@@jonathonervin7845 Why would you think that? You don't know me.

[@jonathonervin7845]

@ericjohannsen you're the only comment out of hundreds that even mentioned this. You were looking at the slow mo and determined that after looking at it several times. I don't need to know you looking at the stats of the comments

[@gturcott1]

I think it’s not enough to be interference by R1 catcher really flopped to use basketball term

[@walkingtheemmausroad4216]

R3 safe at home Interference with catcher R2 out on r3 int BR to 1st

[@jfejapan2829]

That was the definition of a legal slide directly into the plate by the runner.

[@Elsanta666]

THE CATCHER WAS ARGUING INTERFERENCE BY THE RUNNER WHO SCORED THE RUN, HE WAS NOT ARGUING THE SLIDE OR THE RUN, THE FIRST RUNNER PREVENTED THE CATCHER FROM GETTING THE BALL AND GETTING THE SECOND RUNNER OUT..PROPPER CALL SHOULD BE CALLING THE SECOND RUNNER OUT

[@guerro327]

Wrong answer.

[@wenner0101]

So we can all decide the first runner was safe. He chose his open lane, and it was the catcher who (legally) initiated contact when the throw brought them into the runners lane. The question then becomes did he interfere with the catchers ability to make a play on the next runner. I say no, mainly because he was practically 100% out of the catchers way by the time the catcher went for the ball. To me this looks like a catcher who knows the rules and is trying to draw an interference call because he know he has 0 chance of getting the out by playing the game, so he tries to play the metagame instead. You could argue that the runner maybe slowed the catch down by like a quarter second, but practically speaking he was out of the way and I don't sympathize with fielders who get upset that runners don't instantly disappear, especially after you flatten them to the ground. The runner had no way of knowing that if he went the other way, he wasn't interfering with the pitcher, and when he got up and moved the catcher wasn't even moving yet. And again, he was out of the way of the catcher... who leads with his shoulder into him to try to draw an interference call because the runner is already halfway home by the time he started moving. Good no call, safe. 2nd runner had home made by a mile and we don't just take that away because you could find a path to the ball where you brushed into someone.

[@homerhaulman1113]

he moved into runners path without the ball. Obstruction. Runner made alegal slide. What was catcher arguing about? That he slid into him? I wonder?

[@wolfgangvonscheisskopf545]

Runner changes his path/line to the plate to make contact with the catcher. Watch it again and you will see that right before he goes into his slide he crosses the baseline to interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play on the ball.

[@XXelpollodiabloXX]

I think the catcher may have hammed it up a bit, but there was contact, and there is definitely an argument to me made that he was hindered.

[@gavinvelicevic1907]

The first play was ruled correctly by the Home Plate Umpire.

[@SLC-Smudge42]

Ok I’m putting my opinion before watching the rest of the vid….looks like a clean slide in real time. One of those unfortunate bang bang plays for the catcher. Edit- ok yeah, my call stands! Frustrating for the defense , but that’s baseball baby!

[@Lrs12359]

I’m English so don’t know all the nuances but it looked like the first runner was inside baseline and so interfered with the catcher getting the throw?

[@jeremyfrazier4733]

That would be a no. In NFHS, the catcher can not block the plate until he has possession of the ball.

[@Lrs12359]

@@jeremyfrazier4733 but is the runner allowed to run inside the base blocking the throw in cricket he would be out obstructing the field

[@jeremyfrazier4733]

@@Lrs12359 the runner establishes his base path. He absolutely can run inside the third base foul line.

[@Lrs12359]

@@jeremyfrazier4733 ok thanks for the info

[@wolfgangvonscheisskopf545]

@@jeremyfrazier4733 Can the runner alter their path to hit the catcher as was done here. Look at the play again and you will see the runner alter his path to go inside and slide in to the catcher. He was outside the line until right before the slide.

[@erikpaullive]

Clean slide, safe at home. R3 then interfered with the play on R2 by tripping the catcher, whether intentional or not, he interfered. R2 is out by R3 interference.

[@gturcott1]

That’s what I also think!

[@chuck8974]

Safe.

[@angc214]

Absolutely a clean play. Catcher is just butthurt.

[@jamesford3443]

there is no interference as the catcher had already missed the throw before the runner made any contact with him. Good no call by the umpire. Catcher simply made an error and wanted to blame runner interference for his own mistake

[@guerro327]

The runner did not, in fact, cause the catcher to "fall again" while leaving the area. Video shows this.

[@kevinmorris1152]

safe, the throw home was terrible.

[@CGCampbellJr]

To top it all off, the catcher starts arguing his point before the play is done, and if he'd have continued the play, he might have thrown out R1 attempting to take 2b. Make your point once the play is done, not before.

[@wolfgangvonscheisskopf545]

Since the catcher didn't have the ball he would have a hard time throwing the runner out at second. Also the first runner gets up and steps back in front of the catcher instead of getting out of his way by moving forward.

[@metsr18rhq]

The runner was doing exactly what he's supposed to do. The throw took took the catcher into the runner. Good no call. The catcher should have paid attention to the other baserunner (the batter) and not complain to the umpire while the play was still live. Was there a slight touch when the catcher tried to get to the ball? Yes, but there was no play on that second runner at the plate at all.

[@lanem4304]

Could you call Interference? Sure, you could call it with the phrasing used in the rule of "Impede", that can stretch a ways IMO. Here, the catcher slightly touches the player right after scoring, but I think the catcher embellishes any contact to try and get a call, rather than continue playing the game. Could you call it? Yes, you could, on the other hand, could you not call it and be completely comfortable as the HPU? Yes, absolutely you could. Again though, the umpire has to actually see the interference, not just rule on a catcher trying to convince him something happened. I had a young boy ask me about interference/obstruction after a Varsity HS game last week (while I was waiting on my partner at the bathrooms before going to the parking lot); he asked me "Would it be" and I think he was referring to some contact on a player/sibling that may have happened during the game that my partner nor I called during the game when bases were loaded and some craziness ensued. I answered him "It absolutely could have been, the hard part about those calls is that we have to actually see it to call it; and with so many other things going on during a game that demand our attention, sometimes we miss things, especially when lots of runners are on base."

[@ronaldmead7643]

The first guy that scored interfered with the catcher trying to get the ball

[@jho7781]

Safe

[@timhartsock9942]

Catcher tripped himself and thought it was by the guy who had already scored. Catcher never got his feet under himself after he fell so he fell on his own trying to rush to the ball.

[@cloudwatcher724]

first of all, any player at that age level that gets in my face and continues to argue, especially demonstratively, is dq'ed. if the coach wants to "discuss" the call, that's fine. but no player (i'm assuming from all appearances this is high school baseball) gets that level of disrespect to me without consequences. notice, at 0:44, his arguing even costs his team the batter/runner advancing to second base. regarding the initial play at the plate, i completely agree with the call made. catcher gave access to the plate, legal slide by the runner, then legal entangle/disentangle by both players. play on.

[@wolfgangvonscheisskopf545]

First just because he is "that age" doesn't mean that he cannot talk/argue about something you may be ignoring because you are too insecure to listen to another point of view which also makes you a terrible umpire. Second is he DIDN'T have the ball as he had already obviously returned it to the pitcher which makes me wonder how many calls you miss when you umpire games.

[@cloudwatcher724]

@@wolfgangvonscheisskopf545 the hell it doesn't. ask ANY NHSL certified umpire if that would not be an automatic dq by the NHSL rulebook. my opinion of his actions have NOTHING to do with it. it is a dq by rule; not by judgement. as i said, i'll listen to a legal, professional, calm discussion from a coach for any reasonable amount of time. two other things: (1) i never said he had the ball in my initial post; and (2) i am a damn good umpire. come watch me sometime.

[@rseg2707]

Looks good. He wouldn’t have made the play anyway.

[@bigdurf19]

I guess an argument can be made for retired runner interference, but I think that's a pretty weak one. He stumbles over the lip in the grass, not the runner. I don't see this as hindering the fielder's ability to make a play on a runner.

[@quadparty]

I'm pretty sure that's all(?) the catcher is complaining about. First run is safe, second run and guy on second possibly interfered when the retired runner moved toward the ball instead of away from it, and maybe interfered with the catcher's ability to refield. (Edit, watching again, I also think the stumble is before the lip of the grass)

[@hippokrampus2838]

I have the same thing, either the catcher fell on his own accord or was trying to draw a call (I'll assume fell on his own). I wouldn't call this either, especially with him trying to argue to get a call instead of actually trying to finish the play.

[@auzmo]

I think it probably was technically retired runners interference but pretty tough call to make considering there is no way they were getting the 2nd runner at home and pretty much no high school umpires are making that call in that situation.

[@jonathanpalmos2911]

R2 out. Umpire missed the interference on non-runner (used to be R3). R3 was safe at home. R3 now not a runner, interferes with F2 at 1:17. In my judgement, it is too close to call if R2 would have made it home easily. With that being said, with R3 no longer a runner, you cannot declare him out which then you would declare R2 (technically the new R3 because he had acquired 3rd) out.

[@bloodwrage]

Nah, that was just heads up baserunning by the second runner who scored.

[@deankirkpatrick7658]

R3 scores, r2 out on r3's interference after R3 scored. R1 returns to first base (position he was at at time of incident). If you have no interference, then leave as is, though the umpire should be pointing and declaring that was nothing. Last angle appears catcher possibly tripped over runner. It doesn't have to be intentional. If it was 3rd out, R3 still scores, end that 1/2 inning.

[@ButchRahman]

By the book, that is correct. But few would enforce it that way.

[@deankirkpatrick7658]

@@ButchRahman but by the book is all we really should be ruling in this case. This is a good learning video to evaluate position and focus. The umpire didn't recognize he should be focusing on the aftermath at the plate, though in 2 man he still has touch at 3rd - which it appears he was looking at. The aftermath at the plate should have been priority since the ball (remember keep your eye on the ball), F2, and the scoring runner all went in the same direction. If the umpire has no interference he should have pointed - verbally said "that is nothing" and singled safe, then focused on the runner headed home. (Why was he standing there just holding the safe signal? Speculating that may have been his "That is nothing" - but it doesn't appear so by the video.

[@floridaorbust5038]

Catcher blocking plate without the ball.

[@wolfgangvonscheisskopf545]

Actually the catcher was above the plate until he went for the throw and the runner slid inside the playing field and changed his path to hit the catcher. Could be runner interference twice because he also steps in front of the catcher when he gets up.

[@steveknowlton4632]

Meh. The tripping of the catcher is minor, unintentional, the former runner (now merely a teammate) is evacuating the area. I'm not sure what we expect him to do.

[@ardbuijsen8735]

2nd runner is out for interfering the catcher trying to get to the ball.

[@umpireva5440]

That's a big fat nothing.

[@davesharpe8923]

nothingburger. looks like the ball thrown home from 3b hit the runner? Or the catcher dropped it, then reacted with some interference claim. Either way clean play all the way around.

[@wayneegli8379]

Other than not ejecting the catcher, everything looked to be correct.

[@tw1nn319]

this is a whole lotta nothing, maybe instead of complaining to PU about nothing the catcher should've helped his team keep the runner at 1st

[@Merica_dadgarage]

Catcher didn’t have ball in his possession. Safe!!!

[@andymcpherson8448]

this is nothing.. Thats a great FLOP by the catcher. In college basketball, that would earn him a Technical foul for flopping. Good job by this guy, other than letting a 16 year old kid get in his face.

[@jonnybaze7449]

Nice try on the flop. Good no call.

[@kerrytodd3753]

Nothing except a terrible throw by the 3B……

[@stevej2947]

What is this catcher arguing? He is there is the way BEFORE he had control of the ball. So I got nothing, SAFE !

[@hous3ofpain453]

R3 ran into fair territory. Runners out.

[@awedee.0]

interference should be called

[@ipfreely1812]

SAFE!!!!!