CATCHER INTERFERENCE

[cards2323]

Can someone clarify the catcher interference. 2-0 count, 1 out. R1 attempts to steal 2nd base. Batter swings and intentionally falls in front of the plate. The catcher falls over the batter as he attempts to throw to 2nd base. Balls go into centerfield. R3 scores, R2 goes to 3rd base.

[bigwes68]

First of all, this wouldn't be catcher's interference. This would be interference on the batter. Catcher's interference (catcher's obstruction in FED) is when the catcher interferes with the batter.

The ruling: The batter is out and the runners are sent back to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch.

[cards2323]

My fault, I meant to say Batter Interference. However, if the catcher made a good throw and the runner was out at 2nd, would the play stand? Is the batter still out?

[Tim C]

If the runner was thrown out then obviously there was no interference.

[bluezebra]

"Balls go into centerfield."

Whose? The catcher's or the batter's?

Bob

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by Tim C
If the runner was thrown out then obviously there was no interference.

there still could be interference on this play. the batter would be out and the runner at second would be out if the tag was made. you could still have a double play in this situation. i believe tim c is wrong.

[UmpJM]

Originally posted by yankeesfan

there still could be interference on this play. the batter would be out and the runner at second would be out if the tag was made. you could still have a double play in this situation. i believe tim c is wrong.

yankeesfan,

This is a free country, so of course you may believe whatever you wish. However, in this particular case, the actual rules say that Tim's assertion is correct and that your "belief" is "mistaken".

JM

[aevans410]

JM and Tee nailed it.

The penalty in FED states that if the runner played upon is retired, the interference is overlooked.

[akalsey]

The penalty in FED states that if the runner played upon is retired, the interference is overlooked.

OBR states this as well.

[aevans410]

Originally posted by akalsey

OBR states this as well.

My fault, I thought I saw a FED reference in the original post, I was wrong

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by yankeesfan

i believe tim c is wrong.

You're in for it now!

I kind of hope he doesn't read this, but then again, I can't wait til he does!

[yankeesfan]

when batter interference happens it is called immediately. so what you are saying, see what happens on the play at second base and then make your call, i dont think so. you cant make up your own rules. there is a case book play that describes this exact play, the batter and runner could be out.

[Tim C]

"so what you are saying, see what happens on the play at second base and then make your call, i dont think so."

Well the NFHS Case Book Seems to disagree with your thought:

7.3.5 Situation A Page 54:

With R1 going to third, B2 steps across home plate to hinder F2 who is fielding a ball or throwing to third, or attempting to throw to third.

Ruling: If R1 is tagged out despite the hinderence, the interference is ignored, and with less than two outs, the ball remains alive. It R1 is not tagged out , B2 is declared out . . .

What we are saying is that the PU would announce, "THAT's INTERFERENCE!" while pointing a the batter.

The proper mechanic is then to wait until the play is completed at whatever base the ball is thrown DIRECTLY to . . .

If that runner is retired then there is no interference.

If, by chance, the pitch was a third strike then you could have the BATTER out. There is no automatic double play on batter's interference on a throw by the catcher.

"you cant make up your own rules"

I just don't understand how someone can be so wrong yet make statements such as this. It is saddening.

"there is a case book play that describes this exact play, the batter and runner could be out."

Just reference the play and we can all learn something today. I just read all the 2005 Case Book plays and your example is simply not there.

Please enlighten me . . . please.

Just quote one reference in NCAA, OBR or Federation books that supports your position.

We're waiting . . .

05.11.05 We're STILL waiting . . .

[Edited by Tim C on May 11th, 2005 at 05:53 PM]

[DG]

Originally posted by yankeesfan

there still could be interference on this play. the batter would be out and the runner at second would be out if the tag was made. you could still have a double play in this situation. i believe tim c is wrong.

Negative, if runner is thrown out the interference by the batter is ignored. If runner on 3B scores on the play also then the score counts.

[DG]

Originally posted by yankeesfan
when batter interference happens it is called immediately. so what you are saying, see what happens on the play at second base and then make your call, i dont think so. you cant make up your own rules. there is a case book play that describes this exact play, the batter and runner could be out.

Only on a "strike em out, throw em out" could you get two. Batter interferes while striking out, you could get the runner also, if in your judgement the interference prevented an out on the runner.