Batter Interference?

[Dougster45]

Two outs. B4 at the plate, R3 on 3rd base. Passed ball. R3 breaks for home. B4 steps bckwards towards 3rd base dugout and out of box so pitcher can can make a play at home plate. Ball has rolled toward 3rd base side of backstop. Catcher recovers, but instead of turning and making a good throw, flips the ball behind him toward home plate. Ball hits batter in the back. Ball had a good chance of being caught by pitcher before the runner crosses home plate. Runner crosses the plate. What's the call? What is the rule reference?

Thanks

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Dougster45
Two outs. B4 at the plate, R3 on 3rd base. Passed ball. R3 breaks for home. B4 steps bckwards towards 3rd base dugout and out of box so pitcher can can make a play at home plate. Ball has rolled toward 3rd base side of backstop. Catcher recovers, but instead of turning and making a good throw, flips the ball behind him toward home plate. Ball hits batter in the back. Ball had a good chance of being caught by pitcher before the runner crosses home plate. Runner crosses the plate. What's the call? What is the rule reference?

Thanks

Let's see, what are our choices? We can penalize the batter for the catcher making a poor throw. Nahhhhh.

We can penalize the runner for the catcher making a poor throw. Nahhhhhh.

Unless the batter intentionally interfered with the thrown ball, how about we let the catcher live with the consequences of making a poor throw?

[DG]

Originally posted by GarthB

Let's see, what are our choices? We can penalize the batter for the catcher making a poor throw. Nahhhhh.

We can penalize the runner for the catcher making a poor throw. Nahhhhhh.

Unless the batter intentionally interfered with the thrown ball, how about we let the catcher live with the consequences of making a poor throw?

It wasn't a poor throw if it "had a good chance of being caught by the pitcher before the runner crosses the plate". I can see an interference call here, but I would have to see it (classic answer for interference calls).

[GarthB]

Originally posted by DG

It wasn't a poor throw if it "had a good chance of being caught by the pitcher before the runner crosses the plate". I can see an interference call here, but I would have to see it (classic answer for interference calls).

Let's reveiw. The orginal post said: Catcher recovers, but instead of turning and making a good throw, flips the ball behind him toward home plate. Ball hits batter in the back.

So INSTEAD of turning and making a GOOD THROW, the catcher flips the ball behind him ahd hits the batter IN THE BACK.

And you want interference on the batter?

Again, if the batter is not doing anything intentional and if, as the poster claims, the flip by the catcher was an alternative to a good throw, I've got nothing here.

[DG]

Originally posted by GarthB

Let's reveiw. The orginal post said: Catcher recovers, but instead of turning and making a good throw, flips the ball behind him toward home plate. Ball hits batter in the back.

So INSTEAD of turning and making a GOOD THROW, the catcher flips the ball behind him ahd hits the batter IN THE BACK.

And you want interference on the batter?

Again, if the batter is not doing anything intentional and if, as the poster claims, the flip by the catcher was an alternative to a good throw, I've got nothing here.

Let's review again, from the post. The throw "had a good chance of being caught by the pitcher before the runner crosses the plate". Now what is the definition of a good throw? One that reaches it's intended destination in time to make a play sounds like a good throw to me, no matter how awkward it might have been delivered. So if he delivered a routine looking throw that could have been caught by the pitcher you would have interference, but if he flips the throw from behind his back and it hits the batter in the same spot as the routine looking throw you don't have interference?

[GarthB]

(sigh)

No need to try to interpret my words or read between the lines. I meant what I wrote, I wrote what I meant. (Apologies to Dr. Seuss)

[DG]

Originally posted by GarthB
(sigh)

No need to try to interpret my words or read between the lines. I meant what I wrote, I wrote what I meant. (Apologies to Dr. Seuss)

And so did I. I thought interpretation was what most posts are about.

[Edited by DG on Jun 12th, 2004 at 01:52 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG
It wasn't a poor throw if it "had a good chance of being caught by the pitcher before the runner crosses the plate". I can see an interference call here, but I would have to see it (classic answer for interference calls).

What would you have to see to judge interference? What rule (other than 9.01c) would you use to support the call?

[GarthB]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

What would you have to see to judge interference? What rule (other than 9.01c) would you use to support the call?

I'd enjoy seeing that as well. Bob.

When the catcher is making a throw, say to third or second, we expect the batter to basically freeze. However when there is a runner coming in, we expect him to yield.

This batter did that. And now after getting out of the way, the catcher decides (according to the original post) against making a quality throw and instead flips the ball and hits the batter in the back.

Though not exactly the same, what we have here is akin to asking for interference on a thrown ball. And that requires intent. As I said from the beginning, if the batter is acting in a way to intentionally interfere, get him. If not, I've got nothing.

[Dougster45]

I shouldn't have made the statement about the catch not turning and making a "good throw". It wound up being an incredible play by the catcher to flip the ball toward the plate. I should have stated that it wasn't a traditional throw.

The game officials mussed the call. They called the batter out, but allowed the score to count. My understanding of batter interference and 2 out, the batter is out, end of inning. With less than 2 out the runner is out, at bat continues.

In my opinion batter interference can be called here because even though he didn't intentionally interfere, he didn't pay attention to what the catcher was doing and he had sufficient time to make sure that he wouldn't interfere with any attempt to put the runner headed for home out. Unfortunately he turned his back on the catcher and the ball. Fortunately, it didn't effect the outcome of the game.

Thanks again for the posts!

[PeteBooth]

In my opinion batter interference can be called here because even though he didn't intentionally interfere, he didn't pay attention to what the catcher was doing and he had sufficient time to make sure that he wouldn't interfere with any attempt to put the runner headed for home out. Unfortunately he turned his back on the catcher and the ball. Fortunately, it didn't effect the outcome of the game.

Whenever the ball gets away from F2 rule 6.06 DOES NOT apply, Here's the rule that applies

OBR 7.11
The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.

The player vacated the space needed for F1 to receive the throw. In addition on thrown balls the word INTENT not "didn't pay attention" comes into play. As other s mentioned there is NO interference on this play.

General Rule of Thumb. - The rules penalize the team that erred.

Pete Booth



[Edited by PeteBooth on Jun 14th, 2004 at 03:29 PM]

[Kaliix]

Now I don't have any manuals for further guidance, but in reading the rules below, no where in the definition of interference or in Rule 6.06(c) do the rules state that there is some component of "intent" necessary for interference.

The rule simply states that batter is out when he interfers with the catchers throw by stepping out of the batter's box.

I could see not calling interference if the throw wasn't directed anywhere toward the play, but if the throw (no matter how it was made) was going towards where a play was about to be made and it hit the batter, it seems like interference to me, batter is out, runner back to third.

Is there some other interpretation in some manual I am not aware of?

Rule 6.06
A batter is out for illegal action when_(c)He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base.(emphasis added) EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference. If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference. If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

Official Rules: 2.00 Definition of Terms
INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.

Originally posted by GarthB

I'd enjoy seeing that as well. Bob.

When the catcher is making a throw, say to third or second, we expect the batter to basically freeze. However when there is a runner coming in, we expect him to yield.

This batter did that. And now after getting out of the way, the catcher decides (according to the original post) against making a quality throw and instead flips the ball and hits the batter in the back.

Though not exactly the same, what we have here is akin to asking for interference on a thrown ball. And that requires intent. As I said from the beginning, if the batter is acting in a way to intentionally interfere, get him. If not, I've got nothing.

[Dougster45]

Thanks for the clarification Pete.

[Kaliix]

Found the rule on intent:

7.09
It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(l) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball...

How do you reconcile the two rules. Interference itself does not provide for intent, neither does 6.06(c) but 7.09(l)does. Yet 6.06(c) speaks directly to the play at hand.

Hummm???

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Kaliix
How do you reconcile the two rules. Interference itself does not provide for intent, neither does 6.06(c) but 7.09(l)does. Yet 6.06(c) speaks directly to the play at hand.

Hummm???

One way to reconcile them is to accept (as Pete implied) that 6.06(c) applies only when F2 catches the pitch and immediately makes a play.

If it's a passed ball (or wild pitch), the 6.06(c) doesn't apply. It's not "batters interference" anymore; it's "interference with a thrown ball" -- and that, as indicated in 7.09(l), requires intent.