Pro-Rules:
Runner on third base. Count is 3-0 to the batter. Ball 4 is issued to the batter. Umpire calls ball 4 and the batter throws his bat to the dugout while standing in the batters box. In the process of doing that the catcher pops up and throws the ball down to 3rd base to try to pick off the runner. Right after the catcher throws the ball, the ball hits the bat in mid air and the ball falls to the ground a few feet from the catcher. The batter runs to first and the runner on third comes home to score.

I've been told 2 different rulings,
ruling 1 is what i did,
dead ball,batter is out for interference and runner goes back to third.
ruling 2,
live ball. there was no intent on the batter interference so therefore it is a live ball

OMG

Interference doesn't have to be intentional.

A Class-A minor league umpire told me that on a thrown ball you have to have intent for it to be interference.

In FED, there is a case play that illustrates this play to a T.

The ruling is that it's interference. It's too late for me to look it up. I'm going to bed.

And I'm telling you that unless you are Dionne Warwick or one of her psychic friends you are wrong to think that way.

Interference does not have to be intentional. Your friend should know better, maybe that is why he never moved up.

He indicated that it was Pro rules. In NFHS, it IS interference, but I am not up to speed on the differences between Pro and NFHS in this area. But, I would have to agree that intent does not come into play in the decision to call interference. I have no rule to cite, however.

I presented a play in another thread a few months ago that is somewhat similar to this situation. I was told repeatedly that you had to have intent on a discarded bat to call interference. Is that only for interference on a fielder attempting to field a ball or interference on a throw?

I think the confusion can be found in the title of this thread. "Batters Interference." This is not batters interference in any way. If it's interference at all, it's runners interference.


For batters interference you have to have the batter committ an overt act while in the batters box. Runners interference is a different story, but on a discarded bat, I'm still not so sure intent isn't required.

Here's the thread with the play I mentioned.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/21693


Tim.

PBUC 4.12 Batter interferes with catcher's throwback to pitcher:
Paragraphs 3 and 4: If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, interference shall be called on the batter under Official Rule 6.06(c)
However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher(or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgement, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play.

PBUC 4.15 Thrown bat interferes with fielder: If a whole bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not. However, if a bat breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no interference shall be called.

PBUC 4.18 Thrown ball strikes helmet or bat: If a thrown ball strikes a helmet or bat accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair or foul territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet or bat.
If, in the umpire's judgement, there is intent on the part of a base runner to interfere with a thrown ball by dropping his helmet or bat or by throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to the last base legally touched.

T'would appear to not be interference according to the PBUC manual(which the Class A umpire was going by). So, evidently(as he was correct), this was not the reason he didn't move up. Could be why someone else didn't though.

So, WWTB...

Will your reply simply denigrate the umpire who seemed to have made the correct call? Or will it actually have some rule-based substance to back up your seemingly mistaken assumption?

Based on history, I know where my money lies.

Bowing to your wisdom
 

Based on what I read, there is NO interference in the scenario examined here - under Pro rules. So I accept that and bow to your wisdom here. Did I screw up as well for the NFHS rules or is it still interference on the batter - even though there was no intent?


BTW WWTB, what rule were you reading that made you so sure you were right? I bought into your explanation because you seemed so sure. What did you read that let you interpret that the intent did NOT have to be there?

[Edited by officialtony on Jan 31st, 2006 at 05:12 PM]

Maybe he thought the bat was thrown into fair territory. It's a possibility, left-handed batter throws his bat towards the third base dugout and ball makes contact with said bat over fair territory. Hmmmm.....nah.

thank NFump... you really helped me out on that one.

You're welcome.

mcrowder - the original post argued that a batter tossed his bat across the throwing area - unlike a couple of members at the end of this thread - I assumed that the batter had to be lefty since the catcher's throw was to third. I would like to know how you judge intent on something like that.

If you hang your hat on the PBUC quote, I would like to know the numbers for tonight's PowerBall lottery. Since you seem to be able to divin the unknown, please share with us how you do that. Is it a natural gift or did you have to go through special training? I'm guessing that it was a gift, because your training has proved to be lacking time and again.

A lefty underhands his bat away after ball four and the catcher throws the ball and hits the bat - are you sure that the catcher didn't intentionally throw the ball into the bat? Of course you are - you're f-ing psychic!

Come on, Windy. You kicked this one and now your trying to switch the focus. Both the PBUC and the MLBUM say the exact same thing. No intent, no interference. You don't have to be clairvoyant to judge whether or not there was intent. The batter-runner is given the benefit of the doubt unless you're sure he intended to interfere, not the other way around. It's kind of like being innocent until proven guilty.


Tim.