Batter Interference????

[jxt127]

There was a play discussed a while ago where the ball gets away from F2 and the bat strikes the ball on the backswing. The outcome is different when the batter is still holding the bat as opposed to when the batter released the bat before it hits the ball.

If I recall correctly some of the discussion centered around the batters intent. Basically experienced players are expected to know what they are doing and what they can and cannot do.

In a situation such as the one used to start this thread a player is not expected to toss his (her) bat in such a way as to interfere with a play or possible play. When a player does so it can be presumed that they did so on purpose. We don't KNOW that is the case but they should know better and the onus is on them to dispose of the bat without causing interference. After all the player has choices as what to do with the bat.

A player running has little choice as to what to do - they must run to the base. Hence the standards for interfernece would be much higher.

For young kids I'd treat this as weak interfernce. BR to 1st runners back to their last base. For those that shave - BR is out.

[SAump]

"A player running has little choice as to what to do - they must run to the base. Hence the standards for interference would be much higher."

Exactly how I feel about it.

a) If a legal slide contacts the DP and jars the ball loose after the tag, the result of a dropped ball caused by the OP is ruled SAFE! The baseball remains live and in play.

b) If the legal slide contacts the DP and causes a wild throw to the next base, the result of a bad throw is ruled SAFE! The baseball remains live and in play.

c) A player batting has little choice as to what to do - after ball 4, they MUST drop the bat and run to the base.

If a legal (RISING) bat is thrown through the air by the only OP allowed to handle it and miraculously contacts the baseball thrown by the catcher afterwards; then the results caused by the OP is ruled INTERFERENCE! The ball is ruled dead, the B/R is OUT, and the R who SCORED returns to 3B.

D) The standards for interfernece ARE NOT much higher, they're totally different. The rulemakers have placed the onus on the OP. The rulemakers have bailed out the DP. The rulemakers have wiped out a RUN. The rulemakers have decided to INTERFERE with the events taking place on the field.

Some rules are universally accepted by all, and some rules need to be tuned on a yearly basis. In my judgment, I can still enjoy the GAME and live happily by all those rules now in place, until they are changed by the appropriate rule committee.


[Edited by SAump on Feb 12th, 2006 at 02:26 PM]

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

c) A player batting has little choice as to what to do - after ball 4, they MUST drop the bat and run to the base.

If a legal (RISING) bat is thrown through the air by the only OP allowed to handle it and miraculously contacts the baseball thrown by the catcher afterwards; then the results caused by the OP is ruled INTERFERENCE! The ball is ruled dead, the B/R is OUT, and the R who SCORED returns to 3B.

D) The standards for interfernece ARE NOT much higher, they're totally different. The rulemakers have placed the onus on the OP. The rulemakers have bailed out the DP. The rulemakers have wiped out a RUN.

I'm pretty certain that we've been saying this all along. Intereference is almost always an act by the offense (in Fed it is always called Int. by Offense and Obs. by defense.) After ball four, he is supposed to displace the bat in a legal manner and run to first base. While the original play involved the bat contacting the ball, interference can be called if the action caused the defense to interrupt their playing action.

Thanks for finally reading what we've written for so many pages now. This call is a no brainer - the batter is out and the runner returns to his original base.

By the way, how did they wipe out a run? Are you saying that the runner was on third and stealing home? Why would the catcher throw it when he could just hold it and tag the runner? Thanks for changing the play.

[SAump]

The correct NFHS rule citation was first given by PWL on PAGE 2. Why didn't you post the NCAA/NFHS rulings when I asked back on page 7 in Why Windy WHyy? I thought the tune would sound like something PWL would write. Don't tell me you two agree on somthing, then PEACE among you and the other namecallers. Now you want to twist my words about stealing around as well. Stop rubbin it, you look foolish and I cannot control my laughter from the stands.

You did say that you said it all along and I agree that You, DG and others have ruled intereference from the beginning. I am also sure that many others stayed out along the sidelines because they already knew the RIGHT CALL. But there was controversy over the correct interference ruling interpretation; such as 6.05 h, batter/runner, intent or not, inside/outside of batter's box, and holding or throwing the bat. I am still not sure the correct ruling will hold up under proper scrutiny for all leagues or levels of play over time.

DG had the judgment and balls to lay it on the line and I did tip my hat off to him and Bob J. for their fine interpretations. It made me look it up the 2006 NCAA rulebook and there it was in black and white, 8-5-o. SO come on down from the clouds. No wonder it was an easier call for the bigger boys. I hope NFump, SDS and I made us all think about the NFHS topic in depth as well. At least I know the proper rule citation.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

"Why didn't you post the NCAA/NFHS rulings when I asked back on page 7 in Why Windy WHyy?"

Uh....because the original play was governed by OBR and most all of us knew that. I'm sorry that was confusing to y'all, but reading is a skill lost on youth.

If you go way back...don't hurt yourself with all of he big words...I wroted that if this play happened in a college game, a 2006 batter interference interp was just provided. In fact, months ago, I posted the topic and said that it was about time umpires were provided some latitude, but it fell on deaf ears. I then mentioned that we have wide berth within NFHS rules as well. Contact doesn't even have to occur. If the offensive player does anything to alter the natural playing action of a defender, the umpire may call inteference.

When the OBR rulings were being discussed, many challenged them when they were in black and white. Some of the big dogs stayed on the sidelines because they always do while others knew that this was an easy call to make. I wrote that as well - many, many times. A few members insist on allowing this play to happen without penalty. I can't keep you from sticking your tongue to the flag pole when it's five below. Good luck explaining either action, it'll sound about the same.

[SAump]

"A few members insist on allowing this play to happen without penalty." Well, YEAH!

2-2 count, B takes ball 3 holding onto the bat. The B will not be tossing his bat back towards the on-deck circle in this sitch. F2 tries a pick off attempt at 3B and his throw is deflected by the bat. F2 is deemed to be CULPABLE for the contact, the run may or may not score easily, and B gets another pitch. The ball remains LIVE and IN PLAY the entire time.

3-2 count, B?R takes ball 4 and quickly tosses the bat toward the on deck circle. F2 tries a pick off attempt and his throw (1 in a 1000) is deflected by the flying bat. Run CANNOT score because of some foolish interference RULE. B/R finds himself in the dugout wondering what the hell just happened.

Your blabbin' about a RULE that hinges on pitch count and a catcher that RARELY (like 0 outta 100) hits a FLYING bat with a thrown baseball. How lucky could F2 get at such a pivotal moment? If I was the defensive coach, I would break out laughing and do a little dance in celebration for the momentum swing. I would certainly applaud the catcher.

Which is making a travesty of the GAME? Not only that, but say the batter hits a weak ground ball near the plate area and runs into the catcher on his way to first. NO interference, OBSTRUCTION. I think the WINDIES, BAMA BOYS, CASEWRITERS and UNION BOSS oughtta agree on the 1 logical choice; BALL IS LIVE and IN PLAY. I don't get paid to like the rules, but if that is ONE rule I am suppose to enforce, then I'll do my best.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

"A few members insist on allowing this play to happen without penalty." Well, YEAH!

That would put you in a very select group of umpires who would allow interference to occur without penalty. I wouldn't brag about that. If it's interference, it comes witha penalty.

2-2 count, B takes ball 3 holding onto the bat. The B will not be tossing his bat back towards the on-deck circle in this sitch. F2 tries a pick off attempt at 3B and his throw is deflected by the bat. F2 is deemed to be CULPABLE for the contact, the run may or may not score easily, and B gets another pitch. The ball remains LIVE and IN PLAY the entire time.

Try to stick with the play that EVERYONE ELSE is discussing. The batter did not toss his bat backwards. I could draw you a picture, but you'd likely still be confused.

3-2 count, B?R takes ball 4 and quickly tosses the bat toward the on deck circle. F2 tries a pick off attempt and his throw (1 in a 1000) is deflected by the flying bat. Run CANNOT score because of some foolish interference RULE. B/R finds himself in the dugout wondering what the hell just happened.

Alright, you figured it out and stuck with the play!!! You even called it exactly as we said it should be called. I told you that those reading lessons would pay off. It's only foolish because you were shown to be wrong with regards to the application. What was the line you used? Oh yeah, "I don't get paid to like the rules, but if that is ONE rule I am suppose to enforce, then I'll do my best."

Your blabbin' about a RULE that hinges on pitch count and a catcher that RARELY (like 0 outta 100) hits a FLYING bat with a thrown baseball. How lucky could F2 get at such a pivotal moment? If I was the defensive coach, I would break out laughing and do a little dance in celebration for the momentum swing. I would certainly applaud the catcher.

No, I'm talking about basic interference by a batter. If it happened on any other count, educated umpires would have the same call. The batter is not allowed to interrupt the catcher's attempt to make a play on an advancing runner.

Who cares what odds are involved? Baseball games are filled with fluke plays that involve uncommon activities. F2 is not lucky in that play, the bater cheated and was caught. Your comment about laughing at dancing about getting a good break is ridiculous. It happens all of the time; maybe not on your tee ball field, but I see momentum swings all of the time. Coaches are allowed to laugh and celebrate good fortune. You did know that, didn't you?

Which is making a travesty of the GAME? Not only that, but say the batter hits a weak ground ball near the plate area and runs into the catcher on his way to first. NO interference, OBSTRUCTION. I think the WINDIES, BAMA BOYS, CASEWRITERS and UNION BOSS oughtta agree on the 1 logical choice; BALL IS LIVE and IN PLAY. I don't get paid to like the rules, but if that is ONE rule I am suppose to enforce, then I'll do my best.

Travesty of the game? Please find that illustration of this play in any pertinent umpire manual; hurry, before the others start laughing at you some more.

Keep changng the play and putting words in our mouths. The words that matter are all there in black and white - we wrote them long ago. You've been informed that you were wrong and you keep proving how little you actually know. Did you notice that you are standing alone? Keep enforcing those imaginary rules.

[BigUmp56]

Windy:

Please explain how this is "batters interference" in the original play?

If it's interference at all, it would have to be runners interference where intent is required to interfere with a thrown ball. It's really not that complicated. I'm not saying this couldn't be interference. That would depend on judgment as to whether or not there was intent. However, to say intent is not required, which is what your original contention was is incorrect.

Professional Interpretation: A batter has completed his time at-bat anytime he hits a fair ball, or he hits a foul ball that is caught in flight for an out. He also is considered to have completed his time at-bat anytime he is declared out under any provision of Rules 6.05,6.06, and 6.07. In addition, a batter is considered to have legally completed his time at-bat anytime he is awarded first base under the provisions of Rule 6.08, or he becomes a runner under the provisions of 6.09.


Tim.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

My God, you just can't grasp the finer issues of the game. He is a runner once he has left his position in the batter's box. In the original play, he has not done so.

I once told a tale of calling ball four on a college player. He just stood there - the scoreboard clearly showed ball four and he is on scholarship at college, so I stood there. The head coach gave him another set of signs and the batter dug in, I shook my head and got ready. The defensive coach was beside himself. The next pitch comes in and it's another ball. While the kid is adjusting his gloves or helmet or self, the head coach sees that the count has been erased from the board and asks me for the count. I look at him and say, "5 and 2". It's a cold as Klondike March game, so he asks again. I repeat it and he says something like, "You've got to give him first base after four balls." I took off my mask and said that it is too hard to do my job and his. He got fired up or something because he turned all red. He must have been mad, because I didn't hear a peep from him for the rest of the game.

Where in the rule book does it say I have to tell the batter to leave the batter's box and properly take his place on first after the base on balls? On the contrary, it is pretty clear that the batter becomes a runner in such situation when he properly takes his place on first, not before. He is protected until he secures first, that is all. The original batter was still in the box immediately after the ball passed through the zone for ball four. He passed the bat in front of the catcher, who was attempting to make a play on an advancing runner, and the thrown ball was deflected by his bat. Pretend you've seen a runner stealing third on the pitch. What kind of timing are we talking about? A left handed batter (what I've said all along) will clearly see the runner stealing and have ample opportunity to displace the bat wthout causing the play to be altered. He didn't do that and the interference is called on him.

You continue to split hairs about predicting intent. Give it up. On this play, too many things are occuring and there is no way you can say it is not intentional. I don't infer innocence on plays like this. If you do, I know the perfect partner for you; SA meet BU. You guys will be terrific together. Thank you for keeping him company out there.

Don't write about my play - it's been discussed here before. I don't care if the batter could have hit a home run after ball four. In answer to the defensive coach, I would have said that he was fully aware of the count and his earlier levity was gone. He provided the pitch selection to his hurler and that negated any innocence on his part. Maybe it was cavalier but I don't point to first or say "Take your base." to collegiate players.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
He is a runner once he has left his position in the batter's box. In the original play, he has not done so.

Okay, so once he legally completes his time at bat he's still a batter until he leaves the box. Once he leaves the box on his way to first he's a runner. Hmmmmm......

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
On the contrary, it is pretty clear that the batter becomes a runner in such situation when he properly takes his place on first, not before.

Wait, didn't you just say he became a runner while on his way to first? Now he's only considered a runner after he takes his place on first. Hmmmmmmm.......

It's okay, Windy. I knew you were going to be creative and give us something from the Windy Annotated Rules of Because I Say So. How soon will your new resource become published and available for purchase? I'm sure Barnes and Noble has a shelf waiting for it in the childs fiction section.

I guess the actual rule about when a batter becomes a runner doesn't apply in your games like it does for the rest of us.

6.08(a) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided be advances to and touches first base) when four “balls” have been called by the umpire.

Of course what the rule should read to meet your approval is:

6.08(a) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out as soon as Windy sees him leave the batters box. (provided be advances to and touches first base) when four “balls” have been called by the umpire.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Pretend you've seen a runner stealing third on the pitch.

Well, I've never seen that before. You mean runners can steal third? I'm amazed.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
What kind of timing are we talking about?

Finally, you're catching on. We've said all along that timing plays a huge factor on judging intent. There was no pause or hesitation mentioned on the part of the runner in the original play.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
A left handed batter (what I've said all along) will clearly see the runner stealing and have ample opportunity to displace the bat wthout causing the play to be altered.

So, ample opportunity to discard the bat where it couldn't possibly interfere constitutes intent to interfere in your mind. Simply a pure Windyesque make it up as I go along mindset not founded on the basis of the rule.

Tim.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Actually, the only ones agreeing with your rationale and judgement are not really considered big dogs are they?

The few that have weighed in have told us that they see no reason to allow a batter to do this and claim he didn't intend to do it. So keep telling us that a batter is a runner while standing in the box with a bat. According to you, the nanosecond after you call ball four, it is now a 'runner's box'. I'm going to try to find that definition in the book.

Is a runner allowed to hold a bat? ROTFLMAO

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Okay, so once he legally completes his time at bat he's still a batter until he leaves the box. Once he leaves the box on his way to first he's a runner. Hmmmmm

Now you've got it. He wasn't camping out, ball four had just been called and the 'batter' (i.e. the one holding the bat) chucked the bat in front of the catcher, high enough to allow it to be hit with a thrown ball. Why is it a puzzle to you? Should the batter be allowed to toss his bat five or six feet in the air, in front of a catcher who is attempting to catch a runner who is stealing third?

Yes, in your world that appears to be the case. You've said quite enough. Quoting rules, but not knowing what they mean is going to get you a good position on Officials Unlimited. Doing it on our fields will get you laughed off and never invited past tee ball again.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Actually, the only ones agreeing with your rationale and judgement are not really considered big dogs are they?

I don't know about that, but I do see the ones agreeing with you on this. The only ones I have any respect for are DG and jicecone. Both of them are only partially in agreement with you. They agree that intent is required when you said it wasn't. The other member that's in your corner is PWL. That must be a comfort to you.

Oh, I forgot your pal Pete. He seems to chime in on your behalf whenever you need a friend also.


Tim.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Do we really want to start in on sidekicks?

Don't you think that a couple of the big dogs would have torn apart my ruling if it was as absurd as you think? Didn't bob jenkins write that he would call it the same way I would? Are you saying that you don't respect Bob?

You still didn't answer the question:

Are runners allowed to hold bats?

[BigUmp56]

Well, actually I do respect Bob J's opinions and knowledge very much. That being said, I fail to see where he agreed with you. He did mention that he thought he had read somewhere that this might be "weak interference", but he said no out would be called if that were the case.

And, yes, a batter-runner can hold his bat as he runs to first.


Tim.