Batter Interference - Runner steal third?

[mike miles]

Baserunner attempts to steal third.

Cathcer receives ball cleanly comes up to throw (note does not "hop step" in front of plate nor does the catcher "favor the lefty batters box, hitter is right handed) and the throw hits the batters bat then helmet.

It has been my "opinion" ( I know I should no the exact rule chapter and verse) that the batters box is safe haven for the batter providing he does not intentional try to "interfere" with the catcher and it is the catchers responsilbity to avoid the batter while throwing to a base when a batter is in the box.

So "if" the batter "intentionally" interfered I would have called the batter out and put the runner back on second.

If there was no interference the runner advances, its a ball to the batter and the ball is still live.

Was I, am I correct?

Can someone reference the exact rule please. Does this vary by type or league of play? This example was Little League - Juniors (13-14).

Regards,
mm

[mcrowder]

Don't have the rules in front of me, here at work... but you are correct in all jurisdictions I've worked.

[jumpmaster]

sounds like you made the right call.

Be careful of using the term "safe haven" for the batter's box. The batter can still interfere while in the batter's box.

[Matthew F]

Correct. The batter shouldn't be called for interference unless he moves (after F2 has received the pitch) in a way that prevents or hinders F2 from making a play on the runner. I don't believe the interference has to be intentional - The batter is responsible for his movements (That's why they should be taught to just stand still in this sitch).

[David M]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mike miles
[B]Baserunner attempts to steal third.

If there was no interference the runner advances, its a ball to the batter and the ball is still live.


It would not automatically be a ball to the batter!

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by mike miles

Baserunner attempts to steal third.

It has been my "opinion" ( I know I should no the exact rule chapter and verse) that the batters box is safe haven for the batter providing he does not intentional try to "interfere" with the catcher and it is the catchers responsilbity to avoid the batter while throwing to a base when a batter is in the box.

So "if" the batter "intentionally" interfered I would have called the batter out and put the runner back on second.

Be careful when using the terminology "Intentionally" with regards to batter's interference.

The reason we need intent in your play is because the batter has the right to offer/swing at any pitch he so chooses. In addition, one cannot expect the batter to simply vanish.

Let's assume the same situation as above except this time B1 swings hard and his momentum carries him right across home plate interfering with F2's throw.

In the aforementioned, even though B1 didn't meant to interfere the fact is he did so we peanlize.

Generally speaking We do not need intent when it comes to batter's interference (assuming F2 made a clean catch of the ball)

Pete Booth

[mike miles]

Pete - "intent" was the wrong choice of words. In all fairness it should be in the "judgement" of the plate ump did the batter interfere in the catcher being able to make a play.

So what is the "chapter and verse" the points this out specifically? If anyone knows please point me in the right direction.

Not to tarnish or disrepect the forum and those present, since this is my first posting, would you consider this site an "official" site for rulings? If not, does one exist?

Enjoying our nations pastime in Maryland...

mm

[Matthew F]

6.06c covers batter interference.

[UmpJM]

mike m.,

Here's the chapter (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. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference. If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference. If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called. If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

In this case, the OBR rule is identical to the LL rule.

Here's the verse (JEA):

Professional Interpretation: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire
a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases. The batter is called out and the runner/s are returned in all cases with one exception: If a runner on third is attempting to score with less than two outs when the batter interferes, the offensive team is given the more severe penalty ruling the runner out instead of the batter. With two outs, the other penalty retiring the batter is enforced and, of course, no run is allowed. This is considered a more severe penalty with two outs since the batter is deprived of finishing his at-bat the next inning.

The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference.

A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled.

As to your final question, I would say the following. This board is regularly visited by some extremely knowledgeable umpires who provide correct answers to questions about the proper ruling virtually all the time. There are also some who post here who have a less stellar track record in correctly answering questions. You have to figure out for yourself who does and does not know what he is talking about.

On very rare occasions, even the very knowledgeable posters will come down on opposite sides of the same question.

So, no, this is NOT an "official" site for rulings in the sense of being sanctioned by any governing body of any rule set. But, it's a very good resource where, with the exercise of a little critical judgement, you can find correct answers to 99%+ of your questions. To my knowledge, there is no publicly accessible site that is "official".

JM

[mike miles]

Yes it does.

I also checked on MLB.com and the ruling is the same.

Looks like I got one right...

[mike miles]

CoachJM what does JEA stand for?

[UmpJM]

mike m.,

JEA is shorthand for the book Jim Evans Official Baseball Rules Annotated which is an authoritative interpretation manual which describes the proper application of the rules in various situations and clarifies many of the ambiguities inherent in the text of the rules. Also contains a lot of interesting historical information about how the rules have evolved over time.

(Jim Evans is a former MLB umpire who now runs one of the two umpire schools that anyone who wants to become a professional umpire must attend.)

You will also regularly see J/R used to reference another manual called The Rules of Professional Baseball written by Jaksa and Roder.

JM

[Tim C]

The "BRD": Baseball Rules Differences, by Carl Childress.

[cowbyfan1]

yes be careful about the way you word these things. "Intentional" is not in this rule. Nor is the box a safe haven as mentioned before. The batter may stay in the box but if he moves which causes the umpire to feel he interfered then that is good enough. I had a batter stay in his box but he took a step back to be able to look down at 3rd and in doing so stepped into the path of the cather and took the throw in his helmet. He was in the box and it was not intentional but it was interference.

The other day I had one stay still in his box and the catcher was getting all up into the batter. He and the coach wanted interfernce but the batter did not move to cause the interfernce so I did not award it. The catcher reminded me of the Reggie Miller interview I saw over the weekend about how Reggie would stick a foot out to contact the defender and get a foul on the shot attempt. The catcher tried to basically do the same thing. I actually found it rather humerous.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by mike miles

CoachJM what does JEA stand for?

As CoachJM points out JEA stands for Jim Evans Official Baseball Rules Annotated , however, that manual is not yet "on the market" for all to purchase. Hopefully, one day Mr. Evans will make his manual available to all.

Ok what does all this mean. It means that Mr. Evans interpretations are mainly suited for PRO ball, not necessarily geared towards amateur ball, however, there are "other" materials that one can purchase.

1. Carl Childress's BRD (Baseball Rule Differences). Even if you do not call ball using various rule codes, I strongly recommend the purchase of this book.

2. Jaksa/Roder rules of Professional Baseball.
Generally speaking the aforementioned is more of a valuable resource because EVERYONE can purchase the book.

FED / NCAA have their own CASE Book which explains their rulings.

In a nutshell, an answer on this FORUM or any other Forum for that matter is not Authoritative, but in most responses you can check out the answer for yourself, using the aforementioned Materials.

Pete Booth

[Edited by PeteBooth on Jun 22nd, 2005 at 10:28 AM]