What if….

A partner & I where discussing the following situation (OBR):

Left handed batter with a runner on third base. Pitch comes, catcher attempts to throw to third base, batter does not move out of the batter box. Catcher adjust his throw to go around the batter and throw does not retire R-3, however is caught by third baseman.

Is this interference? Or is nothing?

It is nothing.

Yes, I am sure.

DITTO! What mrm21711 said.

Either I can't read or you surely messed this up. And don't say "don't call me shirley."

A LH batter is no were close to the left side of the field , when batting in the box.

Why would the catcher have to throw around the batter??????

Might you mean a RH batter?

The batter does not have to get out of the way for a catchers throw, when there is a pitch. They can't get in the way.

We have a saying for this situation. It goes "the batter cannot be expected to dissapear". As long as the batter does nothing to actually interfere, he can remain in the box.

What if say the RH batter, after the pitch comes in, takes one foot and puts it outside the box- in the same manner that he takes his signs from the coach- and gets in the way of the catcher. Would this be interference? I've seen it happen a few times this year and have called nothing. What say you?

Ok we will say it. Even though this is not your parade.

If in your mind, the batter's movement caused interference to the catcher, then yes , you should have called. And it is not your job to dicipher wether or not it was intentional. The batter either interfered, or he didn't.

I say making these calls, shows that you really are worth your pay.

No batter puts his foot outside the box to look for signs in the time it takes for F2 to throw to third. So, if the batter puts his foot outside the box before F2 can throw, the batter is interfering nad trying to cover it by making it appear as though he was taking signs.

It's analagous to the batters who never step across the plate after swinging at a pitch except when R1 is attempting to steal second.

To better understand the judgment ruling:

If the batter moves from his batting stance then you have something to call, however, if he stay put, then you have nothing? Correct?

BTW: Right Handed Batter

Well,
 

EMD:

It has been said by better men than I:

If the RH hitter does nuttin' (does not move, even duck) then we consider that he does not have to "disappear".

As soon as the hitter makes any move then:

"Sometimes you just have to umpire!"

Decide if it was an issue of not.

Pretty basic.

Any action on the part of the batter that hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner should be called batter's interference <i>unless</i> that movement is associated with ...
(1) his attempt to offer at the pitch (not including his follow through with his bat)
(2) His attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch

The "action" of stepping out of the batter's box in the manner you describe is not associated with either (1) or (2). Therefore, it's batter's interference. The intent of the batter is not a factor.

It should be emphasized that this criteria applies only to bang-bang, immediately-after-the-pitch kind of plays where the batter cannot reasonably be expected to vacate his rightful place in the batter's box.

In other instances, the batter's box is not to be considered a sanctuary. The batter can be guilty of interference by loitering in the batter's box when he had plenty of time to vacate the area. A good example of this is when R3 attempts to score on a wild pitch. The batter should vacate the area and not interfere with the catcher's toss to the pitcher covering the plate. If, by remaining in the batter's box, he hinders the attempt to retire R3, it is interference and R3 would be called out for his teammate's interference (unless there were 2 outs in which case the <i>batter</i> would be called out.)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Well i was thinking more along the lines of a passed ball with a short backstop and the batter does this... There is more time in this instance.

That's a different rule.

Which rule would that be? Throw me a bone here.

Emerling answered it exactly a couple of posts above.