Catcher hits bat with throwback

TriggerMN · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 02, 2005, 09:50am

Runner on 2nd. After a pitch, the catcher's throwback to the pitcher hits the bat, sitting on batter's shoulder, and the ball scoots away. Runner advances to 3rd. My partners said kill it and send the runner back to 2nd. I said play on. Who's right?

Is it a judgement call? What if the batter hits the ball on purpose to move a runner up? Are you calling either the batter or runner out for interference?

umpduck11 · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 02, 2005, 10:01am

Your partner was correct.Kill it,and send the runner
back. In the case of the batter doing it intentionally,
I've got interference, and with less than two out,the
runner is out.With two out, the batter is out.
In his book "The Usual Suspects",Carl Childress
addressed this very issue: "If the batter inadvertently
hinders the catcher as he is returning the ball to the
mound,he is not out unless the umpire judges the interference was intentional."
Hope this helps.

Tim C · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 02, 2005, 10:39am

I have a question:

We know if a runner is stealing third and the catcher's throw hits the bat of the hitter in the box (who has done nothing intentional) that is "tough nuggies" as the batter does not have to disappear,

So if F2 throws a ball back to F1 how would we know if it was actually just a "toss back" or if F2 was trying to pick R2 off,

So my question is:

Why is there an apparent difference in a "play " by F2 or simply a "return throw" by F2 and the resulting play is handled differently?

#4 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 02, 2005, 10:49am

Why kill it if there was no interference? This ball is alive if the batter did not step out of the batter's box and the PU has judged that the batter did not intentionally interfere with the return throw by the catcher. If the batter DID intentionally interfer with the relaxed throw back to the pitcher, then we have interference, kill the ball, call the batter out for interference under OBR 6.0-6(c), and return all runners to their TOP base. However, if the batter stepped out of the box and interfered unintentionally, then he's not out, but still kill the ball and return all runners to their TOP bases.

Leo

Kaliix · #5 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 02, 2005, 01:34pm

If F2 was playing on the runner, he would come up quick and fire the ball to second. Contrast that with the relaxed action of throwing the ball back to the pitcher and the difference is obvious, as I'm sure you probably know.

To answer you question, J/R lists four ways in which the batter can interfere with the catcher (pg 91 B. & OBR 6.06c). If the batter interferes, he interferes. If it is interference with a play, the batter is out (exceptions not withstanding). If the batter interferes with a return throw, no play is being made so no penalty is necessary. But the defense cannot be put at a disadvantage either so the ball is dead and runners return to their TOP base.

Just as the batter doesn't have to disappear on a play (assuming no interference), nor does he have to on a return throw. Both are handled the same, the ball is live and runners advance at their own peril.

I think you probably knew all this, but it was fun looking it up and explaining it anyways.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
I have a question:

We know if a runner is stealing third and the catcher's throw hits the bat of the hitter in the box (who has done nothing intentional) that is "tough nuggies" as the batter does not have to disappear,

So if F2 throws a ball back to F1 how would we know if it was actually just a "toss back" or if F2 was trying to pick R2 off,

So my question is:

Why is there an apparent difference in a "play " by F2 or simply a "return throw" by F2 and the resulting play is handled differently?

Kaliix · #6 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 02, 2005, 01:40pm

"Interference without a play" is a good example of baseball actually recognizing the advantage/disadvantage theory used in other sports. Perhaps this type of logic could have been used in that NCAA balk example. As with the interference without a play, no disadvantage to the defense, no "real" penalty.

Just something to think about...

ozzy6900 · #7 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 02, 2005, 05:29pm

Let me ask this - if F2 throws the ball back to F1 and the throw is wild, are we killing the ball?

So why, if F2's throw hit's the bat shouldered by B1, are we killing the ball? Is this some new LL rule or just "creative umpiring"?

Maybe we should grant TIME for F1 to throw the ball back to F2 now!

#8 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 02, 2005, 05:36pm

Read Kalix's and my posts again...

Kaliix · #9 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 03, 2005, 09:24am

Umm, ozzy, did you read my post???

If the BR doesn't interfere, a return throw that hits the BR bat is alive and in play (J/R pg 94 ex. 2).

Quote:

Originally posted by ozzy6900
Let me ask this - if F2 throws the ball back to F1 and the throw is wild, are we killing the ball?

So why, if F2's throw hit's the bat shouldered by B1, are we killing the ball? Is this some new LL rule or just "creative umpiring"?

Maybe we should grant TIME for F1 to throw the ball back to F2 now!

ozzy6900 · #10 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 03, 2005, 12:09pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaliix
Umm, ozzy, did you read my post???

Hey, I was just throwing my two cents on the origional post. I was not responding to you or Prince!

Kaliix · #11 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 03, 2005, 01:20pm

Well sorry to have assumed that, but you didn't make any reference to the original post and posted right after my post.

A simple misunderstanding then...

Quote:

Originally posted by ozzy6900

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaliix
Umm, ozzy, did you read my post???

Hey, I was just throwing my two cents on the origional post. I was not responding to you or Prince!

bob jenkins · #12 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 03, 2005, 03:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
I have a question:

We know if a runner is stealing third and the catcher's throw hits the bat of the hitter in the box (who has done nothing intentional) that is "tough nuggies" as the batter does not have to disappear,

So if F2 throws a ball back to F1 how would we know if it was actually just a "toss back" or if F2 was trying to pick R2 off,

So my question is:

Why is there an apparent difference in a "play " by F2 or simply a "return throw" by F2 and the resulting play is handled differently?

In both instances, if B1 is "just standing there," there's no difference in the plays -- the ball is live and in play.

See NAPBL 4.12

Tim C · #13 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 03, 2005, 04:20pm

We are now getting to the gist of my question.

Rather than answering I wanted to see where my question would take us.

Now Mr. Jenkins is getting to the place that I would have first answered.

Now, again I ask:

Is there a difference in how the play is handled?

There is not and there is no reason I can find to return any runners.

So what am I missing . . . why are some wanting to return runners TOP?

I am just confused . . . must be a user error, huh?

bluehair · #14 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 03, 2005, 06:38pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
So my question is:

Why is there an apparent difference in a "play " by F2 or simply a "return throw" by F2 and the resulting play is handled differently?

J/R's "interference without a play" distinquishes between a resulting play and a return toss, but it does so when it is the batter's action that interrupts play. There is no referenced, in this regard, in j/r that covers anything but the batter's action.

j/r 9th Ed. page 94 ex 2 is close to the original post..."the batter has not interferred, so the ball remains alive".

Tim C · #15 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 03, 2005, 09:10pm

I guess it is time to make a stand:

When the return throw happens, no matter when, if the action of the ball hitting the bat of the hitter is not affected by an intentional movement of that hitter:

It is simply a "Play On!" issue . . .

No runners are ever returned.

Just my view . . . take your shots!