My position has always been that if the catcher made a bonafide attempt to throw, but she aborted it because she bumped into the batter while the batter did something other than just stand in the box (e.g., she took a step back, she leaned, she exited the box to look for the next sign, etc.), then I have interference. I don't need to see an actual release of the ball from the catcher's hand.
Now, if the catcher just stood up and looked in the direction of third with her hand in the air as if she's thinking of throwing and doesn't, I would say there is no interference in that case. But the benefit of the doubt goes to the catcher. The onus is on the batter to essentially stand still in the box.
To me, it's easy to convince the coach that the catcher made no attempt to throw when she's trying to go to first base, the batter-runner is 45 feet away outside the lane, and the catcher hesitates or aborts her throwing motion. But with the batter right next to the catcher when the catcher pops up and takes that step to third cocked and ready to bring that arm forward? I have a hard time believing there was no interference there, especially if there's physical contact between the two.
Oh, and to answer your question, I'm not guessing if the throw would have led to an out or not at third base. There is no requirement for us to judge the possibility of an out. Who knows; the runner could be sliding into the base when the catcher tried to release the ball, but the runner could come off the base.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Last edited by Manny A; Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 08:36am.
|