I am confused. (Runner on 2nd.)The ball gets away from the catcher, and the runner takes off to third. The ball rolls right near the batter's foot, he inadvertantly steps on the ball while in the batter's box, while the catcher is reaching to grab it. The ball rolls off, disallowing the catcher the chance to pick the ball up and throw to third. Is this Batter's Interference? Please give some basic rules of thumb for this rule.

Because the ball 'got away from the catcher', and you feel the batter stepped on the ball 'inadvertantly', I've got nothing. Play it.

Had the catcher caught the ball to begin with, he wouldn't have had to worry about retrieving it.

UNLESS, the batter intentionally, kicked the ball away, play on.

But can't interference be undeliberate or accidental. I am quoting the little league rule book which states: Offensive interference:when a member of the team at bat interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. I ruled no interference but a partner said that beacuse he moved from his normal batting position, even a "accidental interference" is batting interference

Ump47,

Unless you judge that the BR has committed an overt act in causing the interference, while he remains in the box, he is to be afforded protection.

The others are right, no BI, play the ball.

Tim.

Thank you. I agree in little league unless it is an overt act, play on.

Yes it can, had the defense executed what they had to do correctly, such as the catcher catching the ball and the batter unintentionally, undeliberatly and accidently stepping back in the way of the catcher while throwing to third.

However, in this case , for which your partner is incorrect, the defense gets no reprieve for not executing properly, unless the interference is intentional, on the part of the batter.

I'm going to go against the perceived grain on this one, at the risk of angering the "gods"....

Per 6.06(c), solely being within the batter's box does not necessarily protect BR from an interference call -- he can get that call for "making any... movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base." For example, BR positions initially at the front of the box, and then shifts to the back of the box -- he can still interfere with F2. And the interference does not have to be intentional in this case.

In this particular play, BR had to lift his foot to then step on the ball. This would imply that he didn't stand stock still; he made some movement within the box that caused his foot to come up and then down on the ball.

If this play happened in my game, and I felt F2 still had a reasonable play to retire the runner, I'd call the IF.



[Edited by papablue on Sep 14th, 2005 at 05:07 PM]

John, first of all it wasn't your game and the batter in this case inadvertently stepped on the ball.

Second, the catcher had a chance to make a "play at home base." He blew it and didn't catch the ball. How many chances does he get? The rule does NOT say the batter has to stand "stock still." It says he can't do anything to get in the way of the catcher making a play at home base.In fact, the scorer would probably give the catcher an error on the play. Not even giving credit to the runner for advancing. Does the game reward errors? I think not.

In the spirit of the game , I don't think umpires should either.

Now if the catcher recovers and is then able to make a good play, and the batter purposely interfers then you have Interference.

The rules give the defense the benefit of the doubt on this until they blow it. Then its a little more difficult to prove the offense is in error, when you are also. It must then be obvious and intentional.

I'm not sure why receiving an error on the play takes away the right of the defense to still make a play on a runner. If F2 screws up by not catching the ball, but still has the chance to pick up the ball and retire an advancing runner, BR shouldn't now be protected from an IF call, inadvertant or not, simply because F2 let the ball get away. Play has not yet ceased.

I am not for rewarding the defense for their errors either. But they shouldn't have the right taken away from them to make a play unhindered by interference, whether intentional or not.

I do, however, see your point regarding intentional vs not. In this particular play, the batter did not expect the ball to be under his feet, so it wasn't intentional, and an argument could be made in BR's favor.

Tough play. I think I'm going down swinging on this one.

My bad, the catcher is charged with a passed ball, not an error.

John, we already know what 6.06c states. Now read 7.11, it talks about "any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball."

After the catcher misses the ball, the batter must vacate that area. Now the rules tell the batter not to hinder a play being made by moving, then he must move and vacate the area. Move, don't move. So in a case like this we have two players doing what they are suppose to. Who is at fault?
Neither, unless one of them intentionally trys to stop the other from doing what they are suppose to. Why would the catcher stop the batter from leaving the area? Highly unlikely. But, on the other hand if the batter clearly trys to stop the fielder from doing their job, well I'm sure it would be obvious, intentional and easy to call.

Backing out of the box and accidently stepping on the ball better be pretty obvious before I call interference on that play.


[Edited by jicecone on Sep 14th, 2005 at 09:30 PM]

I think the crucial point about it being a passed ball is that we cannot reasonably expect the batter to have known where the ball was. And in that case, we cannot reasonably expect the batter to have been able to avoid stepping on the ball.

Thus, if we judge that the batter was neither intentionally nor negligently stepping on the ball, and if we subscribe to the view that the batter should not have to disappear, it seems correct NOT to call batter interference on this play.

<i> Originally posted by papablue [/i]
<b> I'm going to go against the perceived grain on this one, at the risk of angering the "gods"....

Per 6.06(c), solely being within the batter's box does not necessarily protect BR from an interference call -- he can get that call for "making any... movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base." For example, BR positions initially at the front of the box, and then shifts to the back of the box -- he can still interfere with F2. And the interference does not have to be intentional in this case. </b>

6.06(c) DOES NOT apply in the situation given. Once F2 misplayed the ball, then rules 7.08(b)/ 7.11 apply. We now need intent on the part of the BR in ruling interference.

Remember, generally speaking the rules do not reward the team that errs. In the situation given, F2 misplayed the ball, so unless the BR did something that he is not supposed to, play on

Pete Booth

Understood, based on all the responses. Thanks all for the clarifications.

Now, as someone in our association asked regarding this topic, what would you do if BR was outside the box when he inadvertantly stepped on the ball? Easier to IF him?