Game ending controversy...

[Atl Blue]

Let's do this again. 6.06c is meant for when the batter interferes with the catcher's "clean" play, i.e., he falls across the plate swinging at a pitch and blocks the catcher's throw to 2B on a steal. Once we have a passed ball or wild pitch, we no longer have a "batter", and 6.06c does not apply.

IF there is interference now, it falls under 7.09c, and the runner is out, UNLESS there are two outs, in which case the "batter" is out.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Kaliix

In the 2004 OBR that I have, the notes after 6.06 (c) state, "If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call 'interference.' The batter is out and the ball is dead....

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed that there was no actual interence and that runner is out, not the batter...."

At least to me, that seems to clearly state that the batter is out on interference, with no mention of outs or the runner being out unless they actually make the play on him and put him out.

Kallix:
I think you need to go back & re-read something you wrote [quoted from the RB, I think] in your 1st post:

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.

(my emphasis)

There are separate rules for INT with plays @ home and at all other bases. At home, # of outs matters.

[Kaliix]

AtlBlue,
Perhaps you should read 6.06 (c) again. It states: 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).

It seems the rule is specifically regarding plays at the home base.

cbfoulds:
You are correct in what I wrote in the first post does indicate that the runner can be called out for batter's interference. The rule I posted was cut and pasted from the MLB website.

The rule that I quoted in my later post was what I typed in from the 2004 OBR that I had in front of me which differs from what is on the MLB website. I would tend to believe the newer 2004 OBR but since there is a conflict, that is not a certainty. I would like to know which version is correct and should be followed. I will have to research it further when I get home.

[Atl Blue]

Kalix:

I don't need to re-read anything. You are back to reading the words and not the intent of the rules.

Read J/R, read JEA, read the BRD. If a batter interferes with the catcher's throw to another base in order to attempt to retire a runner, it is still an out under 6.06c. If you want to get litteral, he DID interfere at HOME BASE because that is where the catcher was. It makes no difference that the attempt was to another base.

Play: R1, going on the pitch. Batter swings and misses the pitch, and loses his balance falling out over home plate, and blocking the catcher's attempted throw to 2B. What are you going to call? According to your interpretation, the play was not at HOME BASE, so the batter is not guilty of interference. Shoot, the batter may not have even left the box, but just leaned forward as part of the swing. If so, he is still in the box and his actions were not intentional, and you going to call nothing? You had better not, this is interference under 6.06c, batter is out, and the runner returned.

But 6.06c does not apply to the original post here because one the ball got away from the catcher (i.e., not in his immediate reach), the person standing at the plate is NOT a batter, he is now an offensive teammate. IF you judged that he interfered with a play at the plate (and his actions must be blatant and avoidable to even have interference), the RUNNER is out, unless there was two outs. Granted, the person who interferes is normally the person who is out, but this is a notable exception, and the exception comes under 7.09c, not 6.06c.

[Kaliix]

For the record, the rule you quoted should be 7.09(d).

It seems you were right and I was wrong. I really hate the way the OBR are written. No wonder there are 50,000 cases, interpretations and many manuals that attempt to decipher it.

You would think that when a rule states, "the catchers play at home base" it actually meant a play at home and not him making a play from home to another base. How annoying. It seems though that you are correct.

Sorry for the confusion.

And why the hell don't they put the rules for the batter under the batters rules and not the runners anyway? Unless he becomes a runner, it should be under the batter rules. Urgh!

[Atl Blue]

Kalix:

You are correct, 7.09d, not c. Sorry, I was trying to do it from memory, and that's the second thing to go!

I'm glad you came around. Yes, the rule book is VERY confusing, which is why Mr. Childress, Mr. Roder and others can make money rewriting and explaining what is available to any of us for free on the web, or for just a few dollars in a bookstore.

Websites help, but ALWAYS consider the source, and do your own digging as well. Someone can tell me something until they are blue in the face, but until I can prove it to myself, I haven't really learned it.

I blew this one myself a few years back. R1, gets a late jump. Batter sees his teammate is dead meat, so, having never swung at the pitch, he sticks his bat out across the plate when the catcher is coming up throwing, just to interfere with the throw. Blatantly intentional act. Somewhere in my mind , I reason, "Intentional act. Punish the offense where it hurts the most", so I called the RUNNER out on the interference. I must have really sold the call, because my partner nor the coaches said a word, except for the offensive coach yelling at his own batter for doing something so obvious.

After the game, it bothered me. I got to the car and pulled out the book. Yep, I blew it. I asked my partner, and he said, "Hey, you had me convinced. I KNEW you were right." Except I wasn't.

[mcrowder]

The "Batter" section refers to things that happen to a person trying to strike at a pitch... once the pitch is over, he's not a batter.

Also - anyone else a little scared that we apparently had an umpire on the field who was not told which ruleset he was using? Kudos for handling the situation.

[Kaliix]

Don't get me started on the way the sections are laid out in terms of trying to discern between when a batter is a batter or a runner or an "offensive teammate"! Oyyy!

It doesn't scare me that he was not told the rule set before the game. I've seen coaches not really know too often for it to surprise me.

I make sure at the pre-game conference that both the coaches and umpire/'s are in agreement as to what rules we are playing under, are we playing slide or avoid, etc. It helps avoid the inevitable sh@#house that will happen later on if you don't cover it.

I have, by the grace of (insert diety here), managed to avoid that particular error.

[chuckfan1]

This is sort of a add-on to what the one poster said.
Its an HTBT, because in plays like this, each batter, catcher, and the ball, could be in a different spot.
On this, for me, If I see the batter make some, any type of effort to get out of the way, and then gets dinged by a throw, I got nothing.
Why? Well, who put the ball there? The defense. Lets see, F1 makes a wild pitch. F2, cant stop pitch, and lets it get by. Sometimes F2 tries to stop it, and it dings off him in any number of directions. Batter sees this, and his reaction is to get out of the way. On wild pitches/pass balls, I dont think Ive ever seen the batter just stand there, with a runner coming in from 3rd.
So, now F2 scambles to get the ball, which also could pinball around the backstop, which F1 and F2 put there, and flings a throw back to the plate. And it hits Batter.
The defense put the ball there, the batter did try to get out of the way, but maybe in doing so, he got into a possible path of an upcoming throw by F2. But thats because of the defensive inabilty to make a credible pitch.
If I see the Batter make enough of an effort to get out of the way, I have nothing. Not when the defense is playing slopping things up.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by chuckfan1
...Its an HTBT, because in plays like this, each batter, catcher, and the ball, could be in a different spot.
On this, for me, If I see the batter make some, any type of effort to get out of the way, and then gets dinged by a throw, I got nothing.
Why? Well, who put the ball there? The defense. Lets see, F1 makes a wild pitch. F2, cant stop pitch, and lets it get by. Sometimes F2 tries to stop it, and it dings off him in any number of directions. Batter sees this, and his reaction is to get out of the way. On wild pitches/pass balls, I dont think Ive ever seen the batter just stand there, with a runner coming in from 3rd.
So, now F2 scambles to get the ball, which also could pinball around the backstop, which F1 and F2 put there, and flings a throw back to the plate. And it hits Batter.
The defense put the ball there, the batter did try to get out of the way, but maybe in doing so, he got into a possible path of an upcoming throw by F2. But thats because of the defensive inabilty to make a credible pitch [catch].
If I see the Batter make enough of an effort [any effort] to get out of the way, I have nothing. Not when the defense is playing slopping things up.

And I'm watching the batter and telling him to get out of the way. "Get out of the way!" If he makes that attempt to get out of the way then, so sad, too bad, crappy defense.

[Gee]

"SNIP"

"And I'm watching the batter and telling him to get out of the way. "Get out of the way!" If he makes that attempt to get out of the way then, so sad, too bad, crappy defense."
______________

In this play he got IN THE WAY. Ignorance is no defense, I've got an out. G.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Is that the batter that is ignorant or the catcher for throwing the ball at the batter.

... ooohhh wait a minute! That would be a great idea then wouldn't it. Just throw the ball at the batter, then somebody's going to be out - despite our defensive error of allowing a passed ball and probably being too late to get the runner anyway. If the catcher can hit the batter then an out is assured!

BRILLIANT!

HTBThere

[Gee]

If you read the original post the writer said "I could tell that the throw was probably going to be too late, BUT it hit the batter who had backed out of the box and WAS STANDING STILL BETWEEN THE CATCHER AND THE PITCHER."

If you think that's the proper place for the batter to avoid interfering in a possible play then you've got nothing. I just happen to think it wasn't and I have an out. Simple. I'll A2D. G.

[Atl Blue]

Gee:

I could tell that the throw was probably going to be too late

If that part is true, then why would you have INT at all? The defense screwed up. Absent a "blatant and avoidable" action by the batter, this isn't interference. If the batter INTENTIONALLY gets in the way of the throw, OK. But nowhere was that even implied. The poster implied that the batter got out of the way, and in so doing, happened to get into the path of the ball that was being thrown back to the plate. It's not the batter's responsibility to watch where the ball bounces and find a spot that avoids the throwing lane. It was the catcher's responsibility to catch the pitch to begin with! If the batter makes a legitimate effort to get out of the way and just happens to wind up in the throwing lane, that isn't interference.

[mbyron]

Originally posted by Atl Blue
It was the catcher's responsibility to catch the pitch to begin with! If the batter makes a legitimate effort to get out of the way and just happens to wind up in the throwing lane, that isn't interference.

Amen. The burden of recovering from an error is all on the defense.