Batter interference on stealing home

[rinbee]

With 2 out, a runner from third attempts to score on a passed ball. The batter (right handed) steps about 3 feet out of the box (so he is clearly out)and away from the baseline, but he is standing directly in between the catcher retrieving the ball just to the third base side of the plate and the pitcher who is at home plate ready to receive the throw. The throw hits the batter in the back. Do you call interference because the batter failed to avoid the play or not call interference because the batter did what he was supposed to do just by getting out of the batter's box?

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by rinbee
With 2 out, a runner from third attempts to score on a passed ball. The batter (right handed) steps about 3 feet out of the box (so he is clearly out)and away from the baseline, but he is standing directly in between the catcher retrieving the ball just to the third base side of the plate and the pitcher who is at home plate ready to receive the throw. The throw hits the batter in the back. Do you call interference because the batter failed to avoid the play or not call interference because the batter did what he was supposed to do just by getting out of the batter's box?

That's BI all day long and twice on Sunday!

The batter in this case MUST avoid.

OBR 6.06
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.

[Dave Hensley]

OBR 6.06 is not the applicable rule in this situation. Once the pitch gets past the catcher, the batter is no longer a batter, and is simply an "other teammate" as defined in the rules. He is obliged to avoid intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, and he is obliged to vacate any space necessary for a defensive player to field a ball.

I generally consider a batter who has backed out of the box to have met his burden in plays like you've described. If the defense doesn't want this situation to happen, maybe they'd be better off with a catcher who can catch pitches, or a pitcher who can avoid throwing wild pitches with R3's.

Finally, consider the ramifications of calling this BI "all day long and twice on Sunday." You've created an incentive for a catcher to forget about making the difficult play to the pitcher covering the plate, and merely "soaking" the hapless batter who may still be in the vicinity. "Hit the batter, win a prize!"

It shouldn't, and doesn't, work that way.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by rinbee
With 2 out, a runner from third attempts to score on a passed ball. The batter (right handed) steps about 3 feet out of the box (so he is clearly out)and away from the baseline, but he is standing directly in between the catcher retrieving the ball just to the third base side of the plate and the pitcher who is at home plate ready to receive the throw. The throw hits the batter in the back. Do you call interference because the batter failed to avoid the play or not call interference because the batter did what he was supposed to do just by getting out of the batter's box?

Well it seems obvious that the batter had no idea where the ball was, but by the same token it was obvious that the batter DID interfer with the throw to the pitcher. "Sorry Johnnie, I know you didn' mean it, your out."

Some things just aren't meant to be fair.

Lets move on to the next inning please.

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
OBR 6.06 is not the applicable rule in this situation. Once the pitch gets past the catcher, the batter is no longer a batter, and is simply an "other teammate" as defined in the rules. He is obliged to avoid intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, and he is obliged to vacate any space necessary for a defensive player to field a ball.

I generally consider a batter who has backed out of the box to have met his burden in plays like you've described. If the defense doesn't want this situation to happen, maybe they'd be better off with a catcher who can catch pitches, or a pitcher who can avoid throwing wild pitches with R3's.

Finally, consider the ramifications of calling this BI "all day long and twice on Sunday." You've created an incentive for a catcher to forget about making the difficult play to the pitcher covering the plate, and merely "soaking" the hapless batter who may still be in the vicinity. "Hit the batter, win a prize!"

It shouldn't, and doesn't, work that way.

I see what you are saying, but I was simply refering to the play rinbee described.

"but he is standing directly in between the catcher retrieving the ball just to the third base side of the plate and the pitcher who is at home plate ready to receive the throw". That's why I stated all day long etc

Just curious, why does 6.06 not apply?

I may be wrong, but it seems to meet the guidelines for interference of the play described.

Can you quote the applicable rule that should be used here?

Thanks!

Edited to ask: 7.09 e?

[Edited by thumpferee on May 19th, 2005 at 09:37 AM]

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I generally consider a batter who has backed out of the box to have met his burden in plays like you've described. If the defense doesn't want this situation to happen, maybe they'd be better off with a catcher who can catch pitches, or a pitcher who can avoid throwing wild pitches with R3's.

I tend to agree with you here, Dave. RHB backs out of the box is avoiding the play. The problem here is old stone hands behind the plate. A HTBT by all means but from the discription, I could not rule BI either.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by thumpferee

Originally posted by rinbee

]With 2 out, a runner from third attempts to score on a passed ball. The batter (right handed) steps about 3 feet out of the box (so he is clearly out)and away from the baseline, but he is standing directly in between the catcher retrieving the ball just to the third base side of the plate and the pitcher who is at home plate ready to receive the throw. The throw hits the batter in the back. Do you call interference because the batter failed to avoid the play or not call interference because the batter did what he was supposed to do just by getting out of the batter's box?

That's BI all day long and twice on Sunday!

The batter in this case MUST avoid.

OBR 6.06
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.

As Dave mentioned 6.06 DOES NOT APPLY as the ball got passed F2.

Reference Rick Roder's Rules on professional baseball.

After a pitch goes past F2, such batter interferes with a subsequent play on a runner at the plate (batter is treated as an "offensive teammate" for purposes of requirements and penalization)

Further Rick goes on to say

It is interference by an offensive teammate (7.09(e)/ 7.11)

1. BLATENTLY AND AVOIDABLY hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted or thrown ball.

Offensive teammates must TRY to avoid a fieleder trying to field. If an offensive teammate tries to avoid, but contacts a fielder IT IS NOT interference.

Generally speaking we do NOT reward a bad play by the defense. Here we have an errant pitch and you want to reward the defense by calling interference.

We have a passed ball so now we need INTENT on the part of B1 in order to call interference. As with many of these things you would have to be there, but it sounds like B1 was making a legitimate attempt to avoid the play at the plate.

On this play as described without any further info I have Nothing unless the game is already approaching 3 hours and this OUT would end the game (Just kidding)

Pete Booth

[UmpJM]

I believe that Pete Booth has presented the best description of the rationale to be used in ruling on this play - oddly enough, I would be inclined to rule the batter Out on the play described by rinbee in the initial post of this thread. Definitely a HTBT, but, as described, I'm leaning towards an out.

As Pete & Dave correctly point out 6.06(c) doesn't really apply to this situation because the pitch got away from the catcher.

As Pete also correctly points out, the rules generally do not reward the team that makes a "misplay" - which happened when the catcher failed to control the pitch.

Finally, Pete also correctly suggests that we need Intent on the part of the offense in this situation in order to properly rule Interference.

So, if I'm agreeing with Pete about all this, why on Earth would I be inclined to rule batter OUT? What am I, stupid?!?!? As they say, "that's a subject for another thread".

First, though the defense did indeed "misplay" the initial pitch, this fact does not "permanently" preclude them from receiving any protection for the remainder of the continuous action of the play. As a matter of fact, the defense has at least begun to "recover" from the misplay and has gained "secure posession" of the ball and also has a fielder positioned to make a play on the runner attempting to advance to home. So, they are now at least protected from intentional interference by the offense.

Now "intent" is a tricky thing. No one can really "read the player's mind". So we are required to infer his intent based on what he does or doesn't do.

J/R suggests that his actions must be both Blatant and Avoidable to be judged "intentional" in this situation.

In rinbee's situation, it seems quite obvious that the batter "hindered" the defense's legitimate attempt to make a play. To me, this meets the "blatant" standard.

Was the hindrance (reasonably) "Avoidable"? In my mind, this is the HTBT part. As I'm picturing rinbee's description, it was easily avoidable.

What did the batter do? He stepped out of the batter's box by about 3 ft. - and stayed there (presumably so that hecould enjoy the vantage of his "front row seat" for the impending play at the plate). That is one to two steps out of the box. In the meantime, the F1 was able to recover from his pitching motion and run the distance from the mound to home, and the catcher was able to chase down the loose ball, control it, and release a throw.

So there was certainly enough time for the batter to do more than remove himself 3 ft. from the batter's box.

Stepping out of the box does not grant the batter the "right" to become a spectator to the play, nor does it grant him the right to become a "home base coach" for the approaching runner if his presence hinders the defense's legitimate attempt to retire the runner.

By my read, the batter's hindrance was both Blatant and Avoidable and his "willful indifference" to the action developing behind him, by "custom and practice", does meet the requirement for judging "intent" in this situation. Since there are two outs, the batter is declared out for his interference under 7.09(e), 7.11, and 7.09(d).

JM

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Standing there with a bat over one shoulder watching your teamate slide into home and then getting hit in the back with the ball is "blatant and avoidable" (intentional) interference????

It is surely not the batter's fault as to where the ball went after it passed F2. Perhaps we can say, "Well we know where the play is going to be made (home plate) and the batter stood too close to the play."

It is for this reason that I am usually yelling at the batter to "get out of the way" ... of course,right up until he gets hit in the back with the ball, he may think he is getting out of the runner's way.

As you have said, this is a HTBT situation. I, on the other hand, would be hard pressed to find fault with the batter and call him out. I would as a minimum need to understand the current game situation. What is the true importance of this situation/ruling? Is the batter beligerent and could his actions be viewed as intentional? etc...

okay, my quarter is now spent. Two-bits gone!

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by CoachJM
By my read, the batter's hindrance was both Blatant and Avoidable and his "willful indifference" to the action developing behind him, by "custom and practice", does meet the requirement for judging "intent" in this situation. Since there are two outs, the batter is declared out for his interference under 7.09(e), 7.11, and 7.09(d).

JM

That's my take, too.

The general standard (and I know that there are excpetions) is that if the batter stays in the box (on the play where F2 catches the ball and then "immediately" throws), he's protected unless he moves to interfere.

If he moves out of the box (or could move out of the box) (on the play where the ball gets past the catcher), then he must move (in an attempt) to not interfere.

[w_sohl]

what the hell is HTBT?

[UmpJM]

w_sohl,

Had To Be There (in order to actually see what happened rather than depending on another's description of what happened).

JM

[w_sohl]

thanks it was driving me nuts, I'm a little slow sometimes. For example in 6th sense I didn't figure out BW was dead till the end. My wife still makes fun of me to this day, makes the movies more exciting for me though.

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by CoachJM
I believe that Pete Booth has presented the best description of the rationale to be used in ruling on this play - oddly enough, I would be inclined to rule the batter Out on the play described by rinbee in the initial post of this thread. Definitely a HTBT, but, as described, I'm leaning towards an out.

As Pete & Dave correctly point out 6.06(c) doesn't really apply to this situation because the pitch got away from the catcher.

As Pete also correctly points out, the rules generally do not reward the team that makes a "misplay" - which happened when the catcher failed to control the pitch.

Finally, Pete also correctly suggests that we need Intent on the part of the offense in this situation in order to properly rule Interference.

So, if I'm agreeing with Pete about all this, why on Earth would I be inclined to rule batter OUT? What am I, stupid?!?!? As they say, "that's a subject for another thread".

First, though the defense did indeed "misplay" the initial pitch, this fact does not "permanently" preclude them from receiving any protection for the remainder of the continuous action of the play. As a matter of fact, the defense has at least begun to "recover" from the misplay and has gained "secure posession" of the ball and also has a fielder positioned to make a play on the runner attempting to advance to home. So, they are now at least protected from intentional interference by the offense.

Now "intent" is a tricky thing. No one can really "read the player's mind". So we are required to infer his intent based on what he does or doesn't do.

J/R suggests that his actions must be both Blatant and Avoidable to be judged "intentional" in this situation.

In rinbee's situation, it seems quite obvious that the batter "hindered" the defense's legitimate attempt to make a play. To me, this meets the "blatant" standard.

Was the hindrance (reasonably) "Avoidable"? In my mind, this is the HTBT part. As I'm picturing rinbee's description, it was easily avoidable.

What did the batter do? He stepped out of the batter's box by about 3 ft. - and stayed there (presumably so that hecould enjoy the vantage of his "front row seat" for the impending play at the plate). That is one to two steps out of the box. In the meantime, the F1 was able to recover from his pitching motion and run the distance from the mound to home, and the catcher was able to chase down the loose ball, control it, and release a throw.

So there was certainly enough time for the batter to do more than remove himself 3 ft. from the batter's box.

Stepping out of the box does not grant the batter the "right" to become a spectator to the play, nor does it grant him the right to become a "home base coach" for the approaching runner if his presence hinders the defense's legitimate attempt to retire the runner.

By my read, the batter's hindrance was both Blatant and Avoidable and his "willful indifference" to the action developing behind him, by "custom and practice", does meet the requirement for judging "intent" in this situation. Since there are two outs, the batter is declared out for his interference under 7.09(e), 7.11, and 7.09(d).

JM

Damn coach, you sure can write! You need a hobby!

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by w_sohl
thanks it was driving me nuts, I'm a little slow sometimes. For example in 6th sense I didn't figure out BW was dead till the end.

Wow, thanks for the spoiler; I was going to finally pop that movie into the DVD player tonight. Don't need to now.