I am an NFHS umpire, so I am not sure of the OBR rulings. Last night in the Cards - Marlins game, Chris Carpenter was batting, one out, bases loaded. He tried to bunt on a squeeze and missed. He then got between the catcher and the plate and the runner slid in safely. The umpire called batter interference, which I understand.

Then they called the batter out, disallowed the run, and put the runners back where they were. In FED, with less that two outs and the runner advancing to home, the runner is out, not the batter.

Was this ruling correct????

I believe the same rulings would be made in FED. In the Cardinals - Marlins game, no "play" was able to be made on the runner advancing to home. Had the catcher attempted to tag the runner out before he reached the plate, and then the batter interfered, your ruling would have been correct for both OBR and FED . . . with less than two out, the runner advancing to home would be called "out". In this case, the runner already slid past home before the catcher was able to make an attempt on him; due to the action of the batter.
Jerry

I believe it's one of those differences.

If the runner scores, dead ball, batter out and return runners to their base at time of interference.

If the runner is out, treat as if no interference occurred.

(Daggonit, I typed before I thought it through, trying to justify the umpires decision - Jerry, you are correct about who would be out.)


[Edited by Matthew F on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 10:14 AM]

Didn't see the play, but here is the rule as published by MLB.com

7.09
It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(d) Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out;

I don't understand the "if the catcher had a play" thing. If interference was called it was because the batter interfered with a PLAY. It seems to me that by the above posted OBR rule, the runner should have been out, the other runners put back on first and second, and Carpenter still bats with two out.

There's a major difference between "interfering with a play" and "interfering with the opportunity to make a play".

The ruling, which is in agreement with both FED and OBR rules, calls the batter "out", regardless of outs already recorded, and places the runners back at their bases at the "Time of Interference". The scenario you reported did just that.

Had the catcher been attempting to put the tag on R3 and THEN (or at the same time) the batter did something to interfere, then you'd call R3 out.

In what you cited, and what is more probable, the catcher never had the opportunity to attempt a play. The interference occurred before that point.

Jerry

I see what you are saying now. That makes more sense. However, I know it's a judgement call, but Carpenter sure looked like he got in the way of the catcher making a tag. In a squeeze situation where the ball is caught cleanly I don't know how the batter could interfere and NOT interfere with the catcher trying to tag the runner. Thanks for the input.

Where are you getting all of these differences from the simple OBR rule posted above, which says nothing about attempting to make a play, after run scores, etc. It says interference at the plate with less than 2 outs makes runner out. Nothing more.

Mr. Hensley or someone,
If you have the time and inclination, is there a MLBUM reference to all of this.

Thanks

Edited to add.
Just saw the play. R3 coming home, F2 tried to go through batter to get to R3 (R3 was about 5 feet or more from HP) but could not get by. R3 crosses plate. PU immediately points at batter, then R3 with the out call. Clip ended here so don't know what caused R3 to get put back on 3rd.

[Edited by TBBlue on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 02:34 PM]

Jerry,

Interesting theory, but I can't find <b>any</b> support for it in J/R, JEA, the MLBUM, or the BRD.

Also, the distinction between "interfering with a play" and "interfering with the opportunity to make a play" strikes me as specious. Perhaps you could clarify the distinction.

For any who have not yet seen the play in question, try the link below:

mms://a1503.v108692.c10869.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/10869/v0001/mlb.download.akamai.com/10869/2005/open/topplays/archive08/080205_flosln_carpenter_interference_350.wmv?ct1=m lb

I'm probably wrong, but I believe that the umpire penalized the play incorrectly - R3 should have been called out, not the batter - per 7.08(g) & 7.09(d). ("probably wrong" because I'm just a "youth" coach and the crew of MLB umpires decided this was correct & the defensive MLB manager didn't appeal/protest).

JM

I read that the AP has reported that MLB has indicated that the umpire invoked the wrong rule and 7.08)g) should have been applied.

TBBlue:
The rule does NOT simply state that "interference at the plate with less than 2 out". In fact, it reads "He attempts to score ON A PLAY in which the batter interferes WITH THE PLAY at home base before two are out." (7.08(g))

The batter did not interfere with a play at the plate. He interfered with the catcher's attempt to make a play. "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." (6.06(c))

I believe you're confusing the two rules.

Jerry

Jerry,

I can agree somewhat with you. If you have first and third, one out, and the runner from first is stealing second, and the batter interferes with the catcher and THEN the runner breaks for home. In this case though, it seems clear.

Jerry,
The last time I checked, when a runner is about 5 - 10 feet from HP on a squeeze play, said runner is trying to score. When F2 has the ball, and is trying go through a moving batter to tag said runner, I have a play on a runner attempting to score. I am using 7.08g or 7.09d on this play always.

This is a case where 6.06c probably should delete or rewrite the reference to catcher making a play at the plate, because Rule 7 spells out what the penalty is if a runner is trying to score. I think 6.06c is saying the catcher trying to throw to a base or run a runner back to third is also considered a play at the plate because that is where the infraction occurs. The distinction is that there is not a runner trying to score. One of the many contradictions in OBR.

You've missed this one. Much as we might hate to say it, the coach is right. The umpires simply screwed up. Hey, it's understandable. They get to call batter interference twice in their careers. We get it twice a month.

There is no difference between interferring with a play and interferring with an attempt to make a play. Either "situation" is interference with a fielder.

With a runner coming home, it's a play at the plate.

An important point: You didn't quote all of 6.06(c). The other night I went to play poker. Afterwards, I dutifully reported the fact to my wife. The next morning she had occasion to look in my wallet, where she discovered I'd lost a couple of hundred dollars. She said: "Papa, you left out the most important point."

You wrote: [The batter is out if] "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."

You omitted: "EXCEPTION: Batter is not out... if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference."

When would the runner be out "for batter's interference"? You get that ruling in 7.08(g).

Hmmm,
 

"Jerry" has been making a lot of things up lately.

Guess he has joined my "not expert" group from my column.

T

oio
 

WOBW

Thanks Carl, seemed real obvious to me and those really in the know. This is how so many know it all prove they do not. They read half the rule and get a full interpetation out of it.

Carl and T:

I'm assuming you meant your comments to be sarcastic; so first I'll say, "Shame on you". Secondly, as much as I admire Carl and Tim for their knowledge and experience . . . I will vehemently defend my earlier position. Contrary to Cowboy Fan's allegation, I did read the entire Rule (6.06(c)including the Exception: and the italicized explanation. I was discussing why a professional umpire would elect to invoke one rule over another. The original question, if you recall, is "is there a difference between FED and OBR".


To continue the discussion with Carl . . . all the "Exception" says is that SOMEONE is going to be called out on the interference. If the runner advancing to home is called out (by 7.09(d)), then the batter is not that someone.

I can certainly agree with Carl that the coach could POSSIBLY have a valid argument that 7.09(d) was not invoked; but if U1 was using 6.06(c) as justification for his ruling, contradictory to 7.09 or not, wouldn't he be on pretty solid footing? I can all concede that 7.09(d) should have been the preferred call; but not the exclusive one.

In fact, 6.06(c) has a much more detailed explanation on how to handle batter 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 . . . and all runners must return to the last base that was . . . legally touched at the time of the interference."

The excuse that Carl proposes (the umpires may only see this situation a couple times in their career)isn't logical. I'm sure U1 could just as easily have said, "Interference, Strike on the batter, R3 is out." Most MLB umpires have indeed officiated at lower levels; and have more than likely seen the situation more than once. After all, he was familiar with 6.06(c), wasn't he? Why would he not be familiar with 7.09 as well? You're certainly not suggesting he didn't know about the "Exception" either; are you?

If indeed you are suggesting that, then your sarcasm and criticism of my discussion would have to apply to him as well. Yes?

Jerry

The two rules do not conflict with each other. 6.06(c) includes a reference to the exception that when there are less than two outs and the runner is advancing to home when the batter is interfered with, then it is the runner who is called out, not the batter. Jim Evans explains that the intent of this rule is to impose the more severe penalty on the offense.

The rules do not conflict; they instead are redundant, but necessary as 6.06(c) explains the rule as it impacts the batter because it's in the section of the rulebook on the batter, and 7.08(g) explains the rule as it impacts the runner because it's in the section of the rulebook on the runner.

7.09(d) is completely redundant with 7.08(g).

Nothing, however, in these three separate rules is intended to give umpires an "option" between enforcement penalties. There is no distinction between "making a play" and "attempting to make a play" or whatever it was Jerry said previously.

In the MLB play under discussion, the umpires simply screwed up. It happens, even at their level. This is a horse; not a zebra.

Well,
 

DudeinBlue THANKS for the compliment.

I agree with Dave Hensley.

Jerry my comments were obvious that some of us feel you kicked the interp.

Nothing sarcastic . . . just question your view. So let me get this straight . . . we can't question you, at all?

Jerry wrote: "Shame on you!"

That is almost as funny as watching a plate umpire who has been chipped at by bench personel for far too long who says:

"Cut It Out!"

[Edited by Tim C on Aug 4th, 2005 at 09:19 AM]

Yes.

But: It was my fault for using "see" instead of "encounter." I wanted you to understand that amateur players don't always play in the best fashion. Consequently, amateur umpires encounter more strange plays more often than the professional. Major league umpires often huddle to get a strange play right. By the time they've decided what to do, the amateur game is in the next inning.

This is from MLB.com. It might change your mind:

Three batters after Rodriguez was hit, Carpenter attempted to sacrifice Mark Grudzielanek home from third base. On a pitch down and in, Carpenter tried to get out of the way, and he and Lo Duca got tangled up as Lo Duca tried to tag Grudzielanek. Initially, home-plate umpire Doug Eddings called Grudzielanek safe, but he then quickly called Carpenter out and sent Grudzielanek back to third on a batter interference call.

The Cards were irritated that their run was taken away, while the <I><font color=red>Marlins took issue with the interpretation of the rule. According to rule 7.08(g), it is the runner, not the batter, who should be called out on such a play.</i></font>

Your comment about "sarcasm" is strange. I thought my post was quite calm and orderly.

The umpire calls "Strike!" and the batter says: "Hell, that was outside." The umpire says: "You think <I>that</i> was outside?"

Well, maybe you should let sleeping giants lie.

<i> Originally posted by Jerry </i>



<b> The excuse that Carl proposes (the umpires may only see this situation a couple times in their career)isn't logical. I'm sure U1 could just as easily have said, "Interference, Strike on the batter, R3 is out." Most MLB umpires have indeed officiated at lower levels; and have more than likely seen the situation more than once. After all, he was familiar with 6.06(c), wasn't he? Why would he not be familiar with 7.09 as well? You're certainly not suggesting he didn't know about the "Exception" either; are you?

If indeed you are suggesting that, then your sarcasm and criticism of my discussion would have to apply to him as well. Yes? </b>

FYI Jerry

The PU apoligized and admitted he made a mistake and the runner should be called out.

As far as your comments about MLB umpires - it happens.

Even Sandy Kofax gave up a home-run during his illustrious career.

Also, Papa C is "right on" in his observation about ML umpires not encountering these strange type plays.

No matter if you encountered it before or not if you do not see it on a regular bases you have to stop and think.

Look at it this way. Suppose you use a computer software product say EXCEL on a regular bases and then you do not use it again for quite some time, inevitably you will forget how to use some of it's features until you start ENCOUNTERING it again.

Umpiring is no different. It was a strange play and the umpire simply made a mistake on who was out.

Look at last's years play with AEROD, when's the last time you saw something like that. The umpires got the call right but not after they huddled and had a full discussion.

Side note: When you receive responses from several known authorities on the subject matter is a good bet that they "might have something". It's not being arrogant.

Pete Booth

Personally, I thought it was a great call by HP Umpire Doug Eddings. He had to call the bunt attempt, tag/no tag and then the interference at real time speed with Major League players involved. He got 99% (the hardest parts) of the play right on something that rarely happens in anyone's umpire career. Yeah, he enforced the penalty incorrectly but it's difficult to process all of that information including base awards/penalties in the couple of seconds it took for that whole clusterf*#k play to happen.

Actually, the crew got together briefly after the play happened so I think the crew chief and perhaps his other two partners should get some of the blame for not "chimming" in a getting the penalty enforced correctly. Expecting one guy, even at the Major League level, to straighten out this mess is a lot to ask for. I think Eddings did a great job.

Thank-you, Sal and Pete:
I was on the side of the MLB umpires . . . and trying to discuss why they all agreed on what they did. I'm gratified to see that not only did I get the call incorrect; so did they. I'm in pretty good company, I think.

To Tim and Carl (in particular):
I am very respectfull of each of your knowledge, experience and connections. I would never dream of trying arguing with either one of you regarding rules and interpretations. I was simply trying to tell the original poster that the rules are the same under all codes, and trying to justify why Doug made the call he did. Nothing more; nothing less.

To Carl:
You were indeed calm on your replies. The "sarcastic" note was meant for Tim and my being put on the "non-expert" part of his column. I assure you, if there's anyone that tries to get to the bottom of a rule interpretation, it's me. I've won a ton of coffee bets by simply producing some of your columns from Referee over the years; and some of your wisdom of today.

Jerry

Everybody misses one now and then. The old saying is: "Even Homer nods." Sometimes, I've looked like a bobble-head doll.

Good job of this post!

Oh, thanks for the compliments.

Problem is: You've just killed a good thread. (grin)

oio
 

WOBW

Re: Well,
 

Tee: The correct order these days is: "Knock it off!"

It's still funny.

I was partial to "Shut the f*** up!" But the NCAA won't let me say that anymore: The ears of the "modren" player are too delicate.

EDIT Additional Comment
 

Carl:

It is my information that "Knock It Off" is also passing:

The teachings now are:

"We're Not Going To Talk About (Insert item)!"

Jerry:

I still have the same issues with some of your words.

You say things such as "the WUA . . ." and your next stement is "we teach . . ."

It appears that you are trying to make a reference that you are associated with the WUA . . . when someone calls you on it your answer will be "I was using the Royal 'We'".

You totally missed the interp as you stated it . . . yet when I took exception it was me that was the "bad guy" . . .

I stand by my original point:

You have slipped to my "non-expert" list.

Let me get this straight: You work "fantasy baseball and woman's baseball -- and you are trying to sell yourself as an expert.

Golly, I was right putting you on my "non-expert list" -- what a joke.

T



[Edited by Tim C on Aug 5th, 2005 at 12:31 AM]

oio
 

WOBW

I'm just saying, anybody can play this game. Tim put WOBW on about 5 different posts within the last few days without anybody knowing what it meant, other than knowing it was probably an insult or smart-a$$ comment. Anybody can play this game. Now that my point is made, I will stop (I promise).

What point? If this were a game, you'd have lost 10-0.

Good one

WOBW

Way to reply an hour and a half later to yourself.

He may not have replied to himself. Some posts in the thread were deleted.

Okay.

I change my stance to NAWOBW :) (Not a)

Anything he posts is a WOBw. (I refuse to capitalize the 2nd w - it's in the middle of a word).

Of course the catcher interfered with a play at the plate! He wasn't making a play at second you know.

The umpires erred in their ruling. One of my MLB friends admitted this to me in a recent conversation about this.

Being human isn't easy, you know.

Re: Re: Well,
 

Indeed, Carl. Many a time I've wanted to say that, but people are just too darned sensitive nowadays. :D

After observing the videoclip with a link provided by another poster, it is my opinion that Carpenter left the batter's box. Generally, regardless of his intent, that would be reason enough to call batter's interference on a bang-bang play. However, it appears Carpenter left the batter's box mostly to avoid being hit by an extremely inside pitch. That would exempt him from interference -HOWEVER- after Carpenter successfully avoids the pitch and is out of the batter's box, he makes an inexplicable movement back TOWARDS the batter's box. In my opinion, it's this last maneuver that causes it to be properly ruled as batter's interference.

Look at the clip and notice ...
1. Carpenter trying to avoid being hit with the pitch
2. Carpenter exiting the batter's box as an escape maneuver
3. Carpenter briefly step back toward the batter's box (oddly pointing at home plate with his bat)

The RUNNER should have been called out.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

good job, David. See? - just another case where "Instant Replay" availability to the umpires would have avoided all these problems ;)

Instant reply would have done nothing, for the umpires got the RULING incorrect. They knew it was batter interference; they simply called the wrong guy out.

When discussing this play and saying that the umpires got it "wrong", it needs to be made clear WHICH aspect of it they got wrong.

There are some in this thread who think batter's interference was the "wrong" call. In other words, after viewing the play, they don't think that there was any interference. Fair enough.

Then there are those (like myself) who think batter's interference was the correct call, but the application of the penalty was wrong. And it appears that MLB has admitted as much.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Dave,

In the conversation I had with my friend (he's not on the same crew), he told me Eddings and that crew got the ruling wrong. They did call batter interference with a play at the plate but simply erred in calling the wrong guy out.

Cordially,

Randy

*sigh* Sarcasm is dead.

The more I look at the videoclip, the more I realize what a difficult call this was for the umpire.

These type of plays always seem to blow up in one's face.

I noticed that the PU actually signaled SAFE before pointing toward the batter for interference. I'm sure his mind must have been racing.

Like I said before, Carpenter is clearly out of the batter's box as a direct result of attempting to evade an extremely inside pitch that would have no doubt hit him had he not exited the batter's box. That should make him exempt from batter's interference provided he does nothing intentional nor additional.

The problem is that he <i>does</i> do something additional. He moved back toward the batter's box and remained a hindrance to the catcher. Why Carpenter made this last maneuver is difficult to understand, but the more I look at the videoclip the more I'm convinced Carpenter is trying to tell the batter WHERE to slide.

The batter's interference call was difficult enough. The penalty imposed was flat out WRONG - of that there can be no question.

I'm surprised one of the other three umpires didn't recognize the improper ruling. To me, this is one of those times where one umpire SHOULD interject himself into his partner's ruling - not to question his judgment, but to insure that the proper rule is applied.

We spend a lot of time discussing how one umpire should never interfere with another umpire's call. That's true. But that does <i>not</i> apply when your partner is misapplying a rule.

The fact that the umpire misapplied the rule only goes to support what I have said for many years - the higher level of ball you call, the more straight forward and predictable the game becomes. Thus, from a rules perspective ... EASIER to call. The esoteric rules you only read about on umpire exams almost never occur.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 9th, 2005 at 11:55 AM]

Perhaps an emoticon might have helped, for sarcasm is difficult to convey in the printed form. I know. I've tried myself before. :)

That's the proper mechanic -- if the runner had been out, then the interference would have been ignored, and there wasn't time to point out the interference before the call (on the play) needed to be made.

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 did use an emoticon in my post...it looked like this:

;)

perhaps it did not come through?

Or perhaps I looked right past it. No big deal. :cool:

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

Here's where I respectfully disagree, Dave. I believe that too many of us make these calls that difficult when in such situations they really are simpler than what we think.

Here, the umpire making the call (Eddings) and MLB both quickly and simply admitted the wrong ruling was made; yet on this board we've had guys go round and round as if they're actually trying to say the ruling shouldn't have been made because it wasn't batter's interference on a play at the plate.

When such a play develops, I ask myself in a rather "simplistic" way: "Did the batter screw up the catcher's ability to make a play at the plate?" Like you and many others here, I've been umpiring long enough to know the answer to this, and to know that such plays don't always require a complex analysis.

We as umpires tend to be so overly analytical that I believe we are our worst enemies, particularly on open forums like this. In other words, if umpires are asked for the time, we should just give it and not tell someone how to build a watch. ;)

But any official's job is to make certain fine discernments that often make a HUGE difference.

Call it fair ... and it's a grand slam! Call it foul ... and it's nothing. Big difference. And we're often talking about fractions of inches. Yet, we must decide.

Granted, when you look at the videoclip the first thing that jumps out and offends your eyes is Carpenter's hindrance of the catcher. That's not something we see very often. The whole play is practically screaming, "Batter's interference!"

Yet, there can be no doubt that the only reason Carpenter backed out of the box was to prevent a fastball from ringing off his calf. The reason the catcher ended up so far to one side (the <i>same</i> side as Carpenter) was because he had to lunge in that direction to even catch the ball ... which came very close to being a WILD pitch.

In analyzing this play, nobody seems to ask, "What in the hell was the catcher doing almost 10-feet to the left of the plate?" Of course, the answer is, "To catch the ball."

You can't call a player out for batter's interference when the defense forces his hand by throwing the ball at the batter. The batter must be granted escape privileges, and, if while doing that "escape" he happens to inadvertently find himself hindering the catcher ... that's too bad for the defense.

Yet, ultimately, Carpenter <i>did</i> interfere.

It's no fun making these quick decisions that will almost certainly be questioned with very little time to reflect on exactly what happened ... but that's no reason to simply shrug one's shoulder and dismiss it by saying, "it's simpler than we're making it."

I think you WANT it to be simple but, in fact, these are often difficult calls.

I'm convinced that Carpenter was called for interference for his INITIAL move and not for the second move (that I pointed out) he made back toward the plate.

MLB, the umpires, and the teams collectively shrugged their shoulders on this play because it was a relatively unimportant event in a relatively unimportant game. It makes an ESPN highlight and life goes on.

Had this been the winning run in an important game and Carpenter was called for batter's interference for doing nothing more than leaping out of the way of an extremely off target pitch ... it would be another piece of baseball history that would be played over and over and over again almost as much as Gary Carter waving that ball fair down the left line. It wouldn't be forgotten, rather, it would be emblazoned in our memories for all time.

And the tagline would be ... THE UMP BLEW IT!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 13th, 2005 at 03:43 AM]

Whether it was the initial move or the second, though, if the umpire believed he hindered the catcher's ability to make a play at the plate, it's interference. Of course, one could always argue if the umpire then erred by giving the defense way too much latitude. ;)

Absolutely not!

You have a far too simplistic view of what constitutes batter's interference.

A batter can certainly HINDER a catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner (whether IN or OUT of the batter's box) and <i>not</i> be guilty of interference.

If he remains in the batter's box ... as long as the play can be characterized as a bang-bang play, he cannot be guilty of interference provided he does nothing intentional nor makes any movement unassociated with his attempt to hit the pitch or avoid being hit by the pitch. The batter <i>can</i> turn into a statue even if, by doing so, he hinders the catcher. We see this all the time on steal attempts. There are no special burdens on the batter for plays at the plate.

If he exits the batter's box ... that act alone is interference UNLESS he stumbled out of the batter's box as a direct result of his swing or an attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch.

In my opinion, it's this <i>latter</i> condition that characterizes the play in question involving Carpenter.

Carpenter skipped backwards out of the batter's box to avoid the pitch hitting him on his leg. So far he's fine. But then he made an inexplicable step BACK IN THE DIRECTION of the batter's box. THAT'S INTERFERENCE!

An argument can be made that the <i>defense</i> was responsible for putting themselves in an awkward situation that ended up giving the catcher great difficulty in tagging out the runner at the plate.

Imagine how easy the tag would have been had the pitch been thrown more accurately. It wouldn't even have been close. The runner would've been out by a mile.

Again, I think it is incorrect to say it's batter's interference <i>whenever</i> the batter hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 14th, 2005 at 08:39 AM]

I never said it's interference "whenever" the batter hinders the catcher. You obviously blew right past my entire previous comment.

Look, I know what is and what is not batter interference. While not perfect, I have earned the ability to know rule applications, B.I. being one of them. I don't need to be told that the batter can stay in the box and do nothing and not be guilty of interference. I also am fully aware that the defense, in B.I. and many other similar situations, can take turn a potential interference call into a "that's nothing" or even an obstruction call.

Despite your explanations, I do know when it's simple to make this call and the appropriate ruling. I also believe we umpires are our worst enemies when we continually split the atoms of such plays. Granted, umpiring is not a piece of cake, so to speak, but it's not as complex as too many of us believe.

Then I apologize.

It just seemed to me that you were continually saying that <i>IF</i> a batter hinders the catcher then it <i>IS</i> batter's interference. Your comments were sparse on illuminating comments regarding exceptions ... which certainly exist.

The play in question, in my opinion, highlighted one of those exceptions - so <i>that</i> ended up (somewhat) being the focus of the thread. Of course I certainly leave room for the possibility that two umpires can view the same play and see it differently.

It wasn't my intent to lecture you on the topic. It's just that you continued to participate in this tangent to the thread without ever seemingly acknowledging that there ARE exceptions that make a play that SEEMS like batter's interference actually NOT batter's interference.

I kept saying that IF one accepts the view that Carpenter left the batter's box for the purpose of avoiding the pitch, then you MUST exonerate him from batter's interference <i>regardless</i> of whatever hindrance this may have provided to the catcher. Your responses tended to focus on the simplistic notion that IF he hindered the catcher then he DID interfere. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't that simple. That's all.

Again, I apologize if I seemed preachy.

If we talked (instead of wrote) about this ... we'd probably discover that we actually had identical views of what constitutes batter's interference.

Sorry.

It think we've probably beat this one to death, huh?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Indeed. It's been beaten senseless.

Sometimes I think we umpires shouldn't beat these things so badly--God knows I enjoy (too much) rules discussions; instead, we really ought to get a life, but that's just me. :D