Runner steals home stumper.

[HarleyDog]

Gentlemen, don't over think this. There is only one possible way this could be an out. I will add, the guy who asked me this question was an attorney. I only had about 5 minutes to decide which I only got because I said I had to take a piss and said let me think about this while I pissed.

[jfkbengals]

Did the batter back out of the batter's box and then swing at the pitch?

[HarleyDog]

(09-05-2017, 10:09 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Did the batter back out of the batter's box and then swing at the pitch?

No. But that was one of my guesses as well.

[rezolve11]

Can you give us the answer?

[Stonyhands]

(09-05-2017, 08:12 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Was talking to a gentleman and he asked me a trivia question which I thought for sure I would get because I know baseball. However, I couldn't guess it and he said he couldn't either until the answer was revealed. So here it is:

Bottom of the 9th. Trailing by 1, two outs, full count and runner on third. Batter in the box waiting for the pitch. 3rd base runner takes off and heads for home. Throw comes, batter gets a base hit and runner scores tying run. While batter is on 1st base, home plate umpire walks to him and asks him one question. Upon hearing the answer from the base runner, HPU calls him out, run doesn't count, game over, team loses.

Without googling it, What happened here?

Seems like the answer hinges around the pitcher's actions. If the pitcher stepped off the rubber first and threw home its batter's interference and he's out. Not sure why the ump would ask the batter this though.

[BMK]

This is a stumper...don't give the answer yet!
Seems to me that the key is that the umpire went to the runner and asked him something. That's the only thing not "normal" here. Why would an umpire do that, and what answer could have been given to change the call?

Thinking...thinking...

Quick question...if a catcher brushes the batter while defending the plate on a steal, is it still interference against the batter...even though initiated by the catcher?

[Goalpost]

(09-06-2017, 12:11 PM)BMK Wrote: Seems to me that the key is that the umpire went to the runner and asked him something. That's the only thing not "normal" here. 

The other thing not normal is that on a 3-2 pitch with two out, the runner from third runs to home.  If the bases were loaded then sure.  Everyone would take off.  But he is not forced to run at that point, so he must be attempting to steal home.

[HarleyDog]

(09-06-2017, 12:11 PM)BMK Wrote: This is a stumper...don't give the answer yet!
Seems to me that the key is that the umpire went to the runner and asked him something. That's the only thing not "normal" here. Why would an umpire do that, and what answer could have been given to change the call?

Thinking...thinking...

Quick question...if a catcher brushes the batter while defending the plate on a steal, is it still interference against the batter...even though initiated by the catcher?

The umpire already new the answer. I believe he wanted to ask the batter in a manner to make sure he understood what happened. As far as catcher brushing the batter, at this very point, there would have been no call for interference on the catcher. Yet under normal circumstances, the catcher would be called for interference. That is another clue.

(09-06-2017, 01:20 PM)Goalpost Wrote: The other thing not normal is that on a 3-2 pitch with two out, the runner from third runs to home.  If the bases were loaded then sure.  Everyone would take off.  But he is not forced to run at that point, so he must be attempting to steal home.

He is stealing home. Batter was in the box.

[HarleyDog]

(09-06-2017, 10:14 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: Seems like the answer hinges around the pitcher's actions. If the pitcher stepped off the rubber first and threw home its batter's interference and he's out.  Not sure why the ump would ask the batter this though.

Exactly. Great job! Pitchers foot was not on the mound, so the delivery to the plate was not a pitch, but a throw/play at the plate. The batter hitting the ball was interference and therefor caused the 3rd out and the game.

[BMK]

(09-06-2017, 01:34 PM)HarleyDog Wrote:

Exactly. Great job! Pitchers foot was not on the mound, so the delivery to the plate was not a pitch, but a throw/play at the plate. The batter hitting the ball was interference and therefor caused the 3rd out and the game.

Ahhh,  because the pitcher's foot wasn't on the rubber, it wasn't a pitch...and because the runner broke for home, it wasn't a balk either, it was just an attempt to throw out the runner. Anything the batter would have done, other than stand still, would be interference.  Good one.

Though the umpire taking the time to walk to first base and explain it to the batter is a bit odd, but I can see how it could help diffuse the pending argument from the at-bat team.

[Bengalzona]

(09-06-2017, 01:34 PM)HarleyDog Wrote:

Exactly. Great job! Pitchers foot was not on the mound, so the delivery to the plate was not a pitch, but a throw/play at the plate. The batter hitting the ball was interference and therefor caused the 3rd out and the game.

Ah yes!

I forgot about the pitcher having to step off the mound to pick off a runner on the bases. Show's how much I've forgotten about baseball (I pretty much gave up on the sport after 1990 and the ensuing strike).

Good stumperr, Harley. :andy:

[grampahol]

This was a fun read and I wouldn't have guessed the correct answer. 
For reasons unknown I got to thinking about a play where they were issuing an intentional walk and the batter reached out and hit the ball and got a base hit and won the game. 
That batter was none other than Peter Edward Rose Sr. I don't remember who they were playing against, but do remember that hit and how excited I was at the time.. Rose took advantage of the pitcher and catcher's inattention to details and left the ball almost out over the plate.