Cardinals - Marlins game, batter interference.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by UMP25
Dave, I respectfully disagree with you. While this call isn't the easiest one in the world to make, it is not as difficult as you claim it is.

I'll preface my comments by saying that I am NOT claiming to be better than Eddings is--he's the MLB Ump, I'm not. However, I have had batter interference many times at levels from D1 on down, including in some big-time, high-profile games, and I have yet to mess it up in the manner Eddings did.

I don't know why so many people are focusing on the batter being out of the box or not. Whether he is in the box or outside of it, in such a play, if he interferes with a play at the plate while a batter, he's guilty of batter interference.

It's understandable if Eddings has to pause a second--the human brain takes time to process multiple events like that--but he still could have pointed to the batter, yelled, "That's interference!", let the play go through since it's a delayed dead ball, then called time and made the proper ruling. I don't mean to sound condescending, but it's not that difficult to do.

Cordially...

I'm not suggesting that the RULING is difficult. I agree with you and I'm also quite surprised that the umpires called the wrong player out. Once the batter's interference has been determined, the ruling should be simple.

What I'm suggesting is difficult is the proper call in the first place. In other words, WAS it or was it NOT, batter's interference. That can be very difficult since the umpire is often caught by surprise as much as the defense.

Although we will ALL agree that the umpires called the wrong player out (the ruling) ... we will NOT all agree as to whether Carpenter was guilty of batter's interference. That's the hard part!

I disagree with you with regards to the importance as to whether the batter was in the batter's box or not.

If a batter remains in the batter's box on a bang-bang play (like this one), he really can't be called for batter's interference as long as he doesn't do anything intentional or make any other movement (that interferes) that is unrelated to his attempt to hit the pitch or avoid being hit by the pitch.

On the other hand, if the batter leaves the batter's box (even if his exit is well intentioned) he is liable for batter's interference.

In my opinion Carpenter left the batter's box primarily to avoid being hit by the pitch. He hindered the catcher by doing this but it is NOT batter's interference because he is allowed to do that. HOWEVER ... Carpenter then made a movement back towards the batter's box (for some unknown reason). This maneuver further hindered the catcher and now it IS batter's interference.

You seem to be suggesting interference is interference ... whether he's in or out of the batter's box. It's not nearly that simple.

Would you call batter's interference when a right-handed batter just stands there with a runner attempting to steal 3rd and, by just standing there, the catcher is forced to throw around him? That is NOT batter's interference.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN