Batter Interference?

[edhern]

Baseball Heaven 14y/o playoff game. Runner on first, two out. The batter knows the runner is stealing and puts his bat out in front of the plate waist high, no attempt to swing. He makes sure he keeps the bat there without moving as the catcher has to work around it to throw to second. I ruled interference on the batter because he intended to hinder the catcher's throw. The defensive team goes nuts. They said he was in the batter's box and didn't move, it was no different than the bat being left in the zone after a bunt attempt. I told him I made the call based on the fact that the batter made no attempt to hit the ball he intended to interfere with the catcher's throw. My partner was moving to cover the steal, so he did not see the play. The umpire's I asked after the game differed on whether it was a legit play or interference. Any thoughts and any rule citations.

Ed H

[cbfoulds]

Interference. 6.06(b)

[edhern]

6.06 states the following:

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.

The batter stood perfectly still, he just made sure the bat stayed stationary over the plate.

Ed H

[C'monBlue]

If he interfered, it's interference.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by edhern
6.06 states the following:

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.

The batter stood perfectly still, he just made sure the bat stayed stationary over the plate.

Ed H

His "movement that hinders the catcher's play ..." was placing and holding the bat across the plate. Remember, you said he made no attempt to strike at the pitch, obviously intending to do what he did, namely, interfere.

[David Emerling]

edhern,

Just to be curious - what did you call the pitch? A ball or a strike? And why?

If you said that he made no attempt to hit the ball - then it clearly could not be a swinging strike because the #1 criteria for a swinging strike is that the atter "offered" at the pitch.

I'd have to see this play, but I would not be too quick to call it interference.

Another similar problem is when a batter swings SO LATE at a pitch, in an obvious attempt to protect the runner, that it becomes very borderline. Is it a swing or is it interference? It can be a gray area.

I once saw a batter swing so incredibly late that I ruled it to be NOT a legitimate attempt to offer at the ball, rather, an attempt to interfere. Maybe that's what you had.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[edhern]

I called it a strike because it was in the zone. The batter kept his eye on the bat after the pitch went by to make sure he was holding it perfectly skill as the catcher tried to throw.

Ed H