Batter interferes with catcher

just another ref · #1 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 01:37am

13-14 year old boys, runner on 3rd ball goes off the mitt and rolls out behind the batter, but not all the way to the screen. As the catcher starts after the ball his path is parallel to the path of the batter as he backs out of the box and they lock up for 2 or 3 steps. I described it later that "they did a little dance together" and the plate umpire agreed with me. This contact certainly impacted the play, probably realistically taking us from a slim chance (25%?) for an out to certainly no chance at all and the run scored. As luck would have it, this was the young guy behind the plate's very first game in that capacity, so I chose not to ask him for the call, instead turning to our vet in the field and asking,
"What about an interference call on the batter on my catcher?" He said, "What about a what?" (He didn't see the play.) I said, "Never mind." Now, as I read 7.08 (g) somebody is out, either the runner or the batter, (I believe there were 2 out when this occurred.) whether this interference was intentional or not. Is this correct? More importantly, at this level, how would some of you have handled this situation? If I press the issue with the "crew chief" and he gets the young guy to confirm my description of the play, might he make a call? Or should this be a case of: They're kids playing ball. He didn't do it intentionally. Let it go.

mcrowder · #2 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 10:08am

This was PU's call, and PU's call alone, regardless of who the crew chief is. If you had a question, you should have brought it to him. You say it was his first game, so it's conceivable that he misinterpreted a rule - to determine that, you need to know what he saw. If he truly did see the same thing you did, and simply misruled - a simple request that he confirm that he understands that particular rule correctly (if phrased calmly and appropriately) would likely result in a discussion between PU and BU. However, it's possible he saw things differently than you did, and ruled correctly within the framework of what he saw - at which point you should simply walk back to the dugout.

In any case, BU should not comment to you at ALL on this play, even if he saw it clearly, and even if he is crewchief. This is PU's call. Period. If he needs help - it's his decision (not yours) to ask for it.

Note - if he explains to you that he saw the same thing you saw, and refuses to discuss the possible misapplication of a rule with his partner, you can protest. It would be a tough one to win - you're relying on PU's story mirroring yours, but it's an option.

just another ref · #3 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 10:37am

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
This was PU's call, and PU's call alone, regardless of who the crew chief is. If you had a question, you should have brought it to him. You say it was his first game, so it's conceivable that he misinterpreted a rule - to determine that, you need to know what he saw. If he truly did see the same thing you did, and simply misruled - a simple request that he confirm that he understands that particular rule correctly (if phrased calmly and appropriately) would likely result in a discussion between PU and BU. However, it's possible he saw things differently than you did, and ruled correctly within the framework of what he saw - at which point you should simply walk back to the dugout.

In any case, BU should not comment to you at ALL on this play, even if he saw it clearly, and even if he is crewchief. This is PU's call. Period. If he needs help - it's his decision (not yours) to ask for it.

Note - if he explains to you that he saw the same thing you saw, and refuses to discuss the possible misapplication of a rule with his partner, you can protest. It would be a tough one to win - you're relying on PU's story mirroring yours, but it's an option.

Thanks for the response. This is the answer to the situation based upon the letter of the law. In this case I should clarify that this young guy behind the plate is not really an umpire at all but an apprentice, if you will, just beginning to learn the game. Normally on this field we have the one "real" umpire behind the plate and a volunteer in the field, often a parent of one of the players involved in the game. The veteran umpire is accustomed to leading his partner by the hand in the simplest of matters. For example, he came from behind the plate to make the call that a runner was out for being out of the base line in a rundown between first and second. He would have let the volunteer, who was right on top of the play, make the call on a tag, but he made the call himself when the play became ever so slightly complicated. In the case in question, I did not want to intimidate the young guy by asking him for a call that I suspect he had absolutely no knowledge of the rule, so I went over his head thinking his boss in the field would ask him what happened and sort it out. What I am interested in now is if this is a call that is ever made in a regular season game at this level, or simply a case of "the kids ran into each other, play on."

wobster · #4 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 11:02am

That is tough to call. Did the kid look like he was trying to get out of the way and happened to block the catcher, or did he purposely follow the catcher trying to block him. With 2 outs, and batter interference, the batter is out. No run scores. You might talk to the kid in a polite manner. Chances are, he will listen.

just another ref · #5 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 11:17am

Quote:

Originally posted by wobster
Did the kid look like he was trying to get out of the way and happened to block the catcher, or did he purposely follow the catcher trying to block him.

There is no doubt in my mind that there was no evil intent.
The batter was trying to get out of the way but his path just happened to cross the path of the catcher. The batter did extend his arms in a reflex action to disentangle himself, which did make the contact much more noticeable from across the field, and I thought more likely to qualify as interference.

wobster · #6 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 11:22am

The way I have always called it is if it is incidental and the batter is clearly trying to get out of the way, that's just baseball. The push, might put me over the limit, though.

Rich · #7 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 11:26am

Quote:

Originally posted by wobster
The way I have always called it is if it is incidental and the batter is clearly trying to get out of the way, that's just baseball. The push, might put me over the limit, though.

It's not just baseball. Interference does not need to be intentional and the batter is not protected when he moves into a fielder attempting to make a play. The batter moving into a fielder is not incidental contact. This sounds, from the description, like a textbook case of interference.

wobster · #8 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 12:17pm

I should have rephrased that.....when I called town league, that is how I called it. For the better kids, I would probably call it the same as you, Rich, but I haven't ran into it yet.

Patrick Szalapski · #9 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 12:21pm

Quote:

Originally posted by wobster
The way I have always called it is if it is incidental and the batter is clearly trying to get out of the way, that's just baseball. The push, might put me over the limit, though.

I definitely agree with Rich. The batter here is doing something weird. The catcher has a right to field that ball, but the batter is not experienced enough to know what to do. "That's interference!"

Coaches need to teach the batters. "Ball's near, stay still here. Home plate play, move away." This batter should have waited until the catcher and ball went away, then moved in some other direction to allow the defense to try to play on the runner at home.

P-Sz

wobster · #10 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 12:26pm

That is true, Patrick. As I stated before, town league kids and coaches in my area, are not the best. The coaches don't know to teach the kids where to go. In 1/2 pint, 1/4 pint, or some other traveling league I might do, the calls would be different.

Patrick Szalapski · #11 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 12:30pm

Quote:

Originally posted by wobster
That is true, Patrick. As I stated before, town league kids and coaches in my area, are not the best. The coaches don't know to teach the kids where to go. In 1/2 pint, 1/4 pint, or some other traveling league I might do, the calls would be different.

I used to umpire a lot of the bottom rung 13-15 year old Babe Ruth--they were a bunch of uncoordinated clueless boys, and stuff like this happened all the time. It is indeed a shame. Thank God for the ten run rule.

P-Sz

wobster · #12 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 12:46pm

yep. I have to invoke that on 3/4 town league games. It is a real shame when you see talent in a player, but no coaching, so the talent is wasted.

mcrowder · #13 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 01:56pm

Poor kids. Coaches won't coach them properly, and umpires not helping them out (in the long run) by calling it properly.

Anyway, back to the sitch at hand - I understand your point about the vet ump and the apprentice at home. So in this case, let's assume then that the BU really DIDN'T see the play. Your proper action is still to talk to PU to ascertain what he saw. If he was positioned wrong, was looking wrong, etc - and simply didn't see what you saw, then you just have to live with it. If you learn, after talking with PU, that he DID see what you saw, but just ruled wrong, I'm sure that if you let him know in a polite manner that he should go tell BU what he saw so that they could rule properly, you'd have gotten your call.

PS - I was PU (and area-UIC) in a sitch with a brand new 16-year old BU who truly wanted to learn (he's getting better each week). There was clear interference by R2 on F6 right in front of him, but he didn't remember exactly what to call. He obviously knew SOMEthing was wrong, but didn't vocalize. I went out and simply asked him what he saw, explained the rule to him, and let HIM make the proper call. We were ALL better off this way.

jumpmaster · #14 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 03:37pm

It's great that you talked this out with the kid at the time. This kid will never forget this lesson and he made the right call for the good of the game. 99% of the coaches I know appreciate this.

Carl Childress · #15 (**permalink**) Tue May 18, 2004, 03:50pm

Gentlemen:

There seems to be a feeling among most of the umpires in this thread that because the kids are young, or uncoached, or accidentally act a certain way: Because of all those factors the umpire should not penalize infractions.

Nothing is further from the truth. The best time to take care of most infractions is at the beginning of the kid's career as a player.

If a runner goes in front of a fielder and interferes, call him out and return other runners unless forced to advance because the batter was awarded first.

If a batter retreats from the batter's box and interferes, even inadvertently, with no evil intent, somebody is out, depending on the number of outs if the play is at the plate, or the batter if the play is at a base.

You do players a disservice when you overlook such occurrences.

Some calls do depend on the age or training: balks (at the beginning of a season); the strike zone, which certainly varies by age (at least according to most veteran, trainined umpires).

Do your teaching with your umpiring, not with your heart. "I'm sure the young man..." is a feeling that does not belong in an umpire's "arsenal."