R1 stealing. BR swings and misses and his momentum carries him into the path of the catcher hindering the catchers ability to throw to 2nd.

Is there an allowance for it being deemed unintentional or is it automatically interference on the batter?

The decision to be made is: did the batter or did not the batter intefere with the catcher?

Next: did the catcher's throw retire R1 or not?

If the throw retired R1, ignore the interference. If it did not, the batter is out, R1 returns to first.

The mechanic we use locally: Plate umpire swings out from behind the catcher, points at the batter and says: That's interference!

He determines the outcome of the play at second. If R1 is out, he ignores the interference. If R1 was not put out, the PU continues: Time. That's interference, batter is out. You (pointing at R1), first base.

Garth is right on with this. Also keep in mind that if the batter stays in his box but the backswing of the batter hits the catcher, in Fed ball it is still interference and batter is out, runner back to 1st. In OBR it falls under the exception, some know it as soft interference, in which the runner is put back on 1st but the batter is not out.

What leeway does a batter have? RH batter with runner stealing third. Does the batter have to get out of the way? I assume the batter has some protection when swinging a deemed-to-be legit swing .

Is there any situation where a batter swings and his follow-through or normal batting motion , while causing the catcher to have to throw around him, and it is NOT interference?

"RH batter with runner stealing third. Does the batter have to get out of the way?"

The batter does not have to disappear. In fact, if the batter moves he then becomes suspect.

The batter can stand still and does not need to "get out of the way."

As Tee aluded, batters are not expected to evaporate, but they are expected not to interfere. If, on a throw down to third, the batter remains still in the box, and the catcher has to adust to his presence or even hits him with the ball, I've got nothing. If, however, he moves away and happens to move in a manner that shadows the catcher's attempt to move for the throw and now the throw is interfered with, that'a interference.

However, on a play at the plate, if the batter has time to move, he needs to. Umpire judgement, for sure, but plenty of opportunity for interefernce if he doesn't.

In your first example with the batter coming over the plate and in the way of the catcher on a throw to second, interference plain and simple, no intent is needed.

The primary variable in all of these is not the intent of the batter, but the judgement of the umpire.

Just want to make sure I understand this one for Fed ball:

"the backswing of the batter hits the catcher"

a) no baserunners = dead ball, strike,

b) with baserunner Stealing = batter out , runners do not advance

c) with baserunners not stealing = dead ball, strike, runners do not advance

Is this correct?

What if the backswing was preceeded by batter hitting the ball fair?

Thanks!



[Edited by carldog on Apr 30th, 2005 at 02:47 PM]

For FED, that would be nothing, maybe a warning.

Thanks
David.

I do the same thing, however consider this play: R1 and R3 bottom of the last inning score tied winning run on third no outs. R1 attempts to steal second Batter interferes with throw PU states that's interference throw goes through R1 out at second. R3 scores on the play. Never had this happen on my watch, however I think (since everyone heard you say "thats interference") you have to kill the play and put R1 back at first and R3 back to third and declare the batter out for interference.

Hey gordon30307 -

And if the exact same play happened to the opposing team in the next to last inning...

would you call it the same way?

Thanks!

Inning makes no difference.

[/B][/QUOTE]
R1 and R3 bottom of the last inning score tied winning run on third no outs. R1 attempts to steal second Batter interferes with throw PU states that's interference throw goes through R1 out at second. R3 scores on the play. Never had this happen on my watch, however I think (since everyone heard you say "thats interference") you have to kill the play and put R1 back at first and R3 back to third and declare the batter out for interference. [/B][/QUOTE]If R1 is thrown out, interferene is ignored, game over. If defense wants to play on R1 stealing with the winning run on 3rd they better be ready to fire back to the plate if he goes home. Game over.

From Evans.
 

"If the catcher’s first throw following the interference retires a runner, the interference is disregarded".

As DG said, "If defense wants to play on R1 stealing with the winning run on 3rd they better be ready to fire back to the plate if he goes home. Game over".

Why?

<i> Originally posted by Spence

R1 stealing. BR swings and misses and his momentum carries him into the path of the catcher hindering the catchers ability to throw to 2nd.

Is there an allowance for it being deemed unintentional or is it automatically interference on the batter? </i>

If the batter interfered, he/she interfered - Intent is not a requirement.

Also, F2 DOES NOT have to actually make the throw in order for interference to be called.

Pete Booth