Play at home

rodneyw · #1 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 12:37pm

Runner on third base, when pitcher starts motion to plate
runner takes off. Batter at plate has squared to bunt, he
pulls bat back runner slides in front of him to plate and under tag. Batter did not move and no contact between catcher and batter. PU calls him safe, then FIELD Ump wants
conference they talk and then decide runner is out because batter did not move. What is your opinion also if batter does not pull bat back would that make a difference.

Thanks for your comments

Matthew F · #2 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 01:02pm

The batter has the right to strike at a legal pitch, therefore it doesn't matter if the batter swung or not. It doesn't sound like batter interferred with the play on the runner either. Runner safe.

That being said, if the pitcher legally disengaged the rubber and threw home, there might have been a judgement call on whether the batter's action interferred with the play on the runner even if there was no contact.

[Edited by Matthew F on May 23rd, 2005 at 02:04 PM]

DownTownTonyBrown · #3 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 01:05pm

Unless the batter interfered, he has done nothing wrong. Bat movement has to do with attempt to make contact with the ball. Leaving it out does not constitute a strike unless the bat is moved toward the ball... strike or no strike, neither has anything to do with the runner beating the pitch home.

LMan · #4 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 01:33pm

FED 7-3F5: "failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away."

I would not think a batter had time to vacate on a steal of home.

OBR: "movement by the batter that 'complicates' the catchers play. But the batter is not guilty....if he remains in the box "unless he makes some movement to intentionally interfere." [BRD p 160]

HTBT, but I dont see INT here.

mcrowder · #5 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 01:36pm

I think the big question here was buried in the first response...

Did pitcher legally disengage before throwing home?

If not - there's no call to be made here ... and CERTAINLY not something BU should have had much input on.

rodneyw · #6 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 01:50pm

No pitcher did not disengage rubber. It was cosidered a
pitch to the batter.

GarthB · #7 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 01:56pm

FED 7-3F5: "failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away."

Not applicable...this was a pitch, not a throw.

officialtony · #8 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 03:42pm

Trying to visualize this, I can only see how the batter might have interfered with his own runner trying to reach the plate. If he is squared to bunt, he must be pretty close to blocking the plate from the 3rd base side. His own runner had to slide around him ( it sounds like ) and therefore may have hindered his own runner to the plate.( Not to imply that this is any violation that should be called. ) On the other hand, B1 may also have interfered with the catcher trying to make his play at the sliding R3. Having said all that, the PU was right on top of the call and if he says safe with no interference, then we have a correct call based on his judgment. The BU has no business stepping up UNLESS the PU has called to him for an opinion. Without a request for help, BU goes to A and we play ball.

rodneyw · #9 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 04:15pm

Batter had already pulled back runner had a clear path to the plate he slid in under the tag as pitch was high. BU
initiated conference with PU I am guessing he was the more experienced umpire. I believe he felt batter did not pull back from bunt as why he called interference again there was no contact between batter and catcher.

Thanks to all who commented.

Rodney

Macaroo · #10 (**permalink**) Mon May 23, 2005, 09:02pm

BU should MYOB

officialtony · #11 (**permalink**) Tue May 24, 2005, 06:05am

Quote:

Originally posted by rodneyw
Batter had already pulled back runner had a clear path to the plate he slid in under the tag as pitch was high. BU
initiated conference with PU I am guessing he was the more experienced umpire. I believe he felt batter did not pull back from bunt as why he called interference again there was no contact between batter and catcher.

Thanks to all who commented.

Rodney

Based on this statement, I am more convinced there is no interference. The batter has every right to strike at the ball to enable his squeeze play to succeed. If the batter . . " did not pull back from the bunt . . " this is a perfectly legal play and requires the catcher to make his best play - AS LONG AS B1 DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PLAY AT THE PLATE. Just being there does not constitute interference.

JRutledge · #12 (**permalink**) Tue May 24, 2005, 09:30am

Quote:

Originally posted by officialtony

Based on this statement, I am more convinced there is no interference. The batter has every right to strike at the ball to enable his squeeze play to succeed. If the batter . . " did not pull back from the bunt . . " this is a perfectly legal play and requires the catcher to make his best play - AS LONG AS B1 DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PLAY AT THE PLATE. Just being there does not constitute interference.

I do not think it matters if the batter attempts to interfere with the play or not, they can interfere unintentionally. In this play it sounds like he was not in any way "in the way" of the catcher to make a play. I think the BU overstepped his bounds on this play. He should have left well enough alone.

Peace

fwump · #13 (**permalink**) Tue May 24, 2005, 02:14pm

macaroo said; "BU should MYOB"

DITTO!

Mike