R1, zero outs. 1-1 count on the batter. Batter swings and misses, and his momentum moves him a little bit across the plate. He does not make contact with the catcher, but the catcher double clutches because if it, but gets the throw down to second. R1 is on the base before the tag, and it is a toss up if he would have been out without the double clutch.

a) Call nothing. 1-2 count, R2 now.

b) Send runner back to 1st. 1-2 count, R1 still.

c) Call runner out on interference. 1-2 count, 1 out.

Well, it's not (b) or (c).

Doesn't matter whether R1 would have been out. It DOES matter if R1 is actually put out on the play: if R1 is put out, then disregard interference.

Since R1 was not out on the play in your case, the call would depend on whether you judge that the batter hindered the catcher's attempt to play on the runner. J/R has a list of criteria here, but I don't have them with me. Maybe someone else could post them.

If you judge that it's interference by the batter, then the answer is:

(d) batter is out, runner returns to 1B.

If not interference, then (a). Given your description of the case, I'd call interference: answer (d).

The relevant rule is 6.06(c):
[Edited by mbyron on Apr 21st, 2005 at 11:37 PM]

Batter's action --> <U>by stumbling</U> causes interference when the catcher is hindered.--> batter out and runner back to base at TOP.

Thanks for the responses.

I was thinking for some reason that if the batter interferes, then the runner is called out instead of the batter for some reason.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

That's only at home plate with less than 2 outs.

Thanks a lot.

I agree with the other posters, it's your judgement,if interference batter is out and runner returns. If his momementum carries him a litte bit across the plate, and the pitch was away it may not be interference, but again, it's your judgement. Whether the catcher double clutched would have nothing to do with my decision.

baseball-north
 

This happened in last nights jays game it was strike three, so, the batter was out, and the runner returned.

My question is if it strike three, and intentional interference, is the runner done as well??

how about a batter attempting to bunt and bat is over plate area. This can get tricky.

As a coach I used to teach my kids to leave the bat over the plate, not giving catcher a good look. Even though we would take a strike for the actions, (attempting to bunt ball)we often made it more difficult for catcher. Batters were taught not to actually try to bunt ball, but make an attempt. I was willing to trade a strike for 90 feet.

If it's strike three and the batter interferes, the batter is out because it's strike three, and the runner is also out on the interference (otherwise there would be no penalty other than sending him back to first, and teams would try this all the time). NCAA & PRO

And how often did your batter get called for interference?

For some reason, I thought that F2 had to throw the ball to be interferred with on this type of play. I've never run into the situation where a catcher double pumped like this. I'll have to do some digging.

This is no different than the batter swing "protecting the runner" provided no interference.

Hanging a bunt out and holding it there to make life difficult while your runner steals? Perhaps I'm envisioning this wrong, but in my mind it sounds like the batter's trying to screen the catcher from making a play.

all i can say is this
 

in the jays game, reed johnson struck out on an inside curve which chewed him up, he stumpled 1 step onto the plate, Prosada double pumped then threw the ball, Orlando Hudson was safe by a week, and was sent back to 1st base.

So the runner was not called out, i believe it is an intentional/unintentional choice by the ump regarding the guy at the plate, and the penalty for the guy stealing, can someone please clarify. Maybe quote the rule OBR only please the FED SH!+ blows my poor canadian mind.