looking for the intent of the rule....
 

Fed 7-3-5: Batter Interference


Penalty:

When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home, the runner is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to second or third, the batter is out, and runners are sent back to the base they were on at time of pitch.


Question: Why do we call out the runner going home and not the runner going to second or third (less than two outs)? I am simply looking for the intent of the ruling.

Any help is appreciated.

punish the offender
 

I think the intent here is to prevent the offense from intentionally interfering so a run can score - perhaps a game winning run.
If you call out the runners on 1st or 2nd, and the runner going home is allowed to score, you have rewarded the offense with a run - and only trading an out for the run. Coaches might do that in a close game knowing they could get a run for an out automatically.
Again, what if is tied in the bottom of the 7th, bases loaded and 1 out. Everyone is on the move ( knowing the coach has " the play " on ) and the batter interferes. By calling anyone out but the runner coming home, you have essentially rewarded the offense with a win for an illegal act.
This is my take on the rule reasoning for calling the runner headed home out.
I could be way " off base ".;)

The intent of the rule is as follows:

The offense is putting on a play with R3. B1 either misses the sign or fails to excecute the suiside squeeze. B1 realizes R3 is now a "dead duck" at the plate so he stays in the box and prevents F2 from making a play on him/her.

The rule-makers felt that a more severe penalty should be enforced when we have R3 less than 2 outs.

Another possible reason is that in most instances, the offense puts on a play with a weak hitter at the plate. In other words with 1 out and Jeter on third I doubt whether or not Joe Torre would put on a play with AROD at the plate.

A better scenario is in the nat'l league where they do not have the DH and F1 is at the plate with R3 less than 2 outs. The rule-makers felt that with R3 keeping the weak hitter at the plate plus calling out R3 is a severe penalty if B1 interferes.

IMO, good logic on the part of the rule-makers.

Pete Booth

Punish the offense
 

I believe it is to punish the offense the most severe way that they can.

If the runner is coming home, (a steal of home) then call that runner out. They will keep the offense from trying the play again.

If the runner is not trying to advance, BR out and continue on. The BR committed the offense, he is penalized. If not, you could interfere to put a faster runner on base etc.,


Thanks
David

As it's been explained to me, and in my opinion this makes sense, PWL has the right idea. The reason for the differing persons who are to be called out is to make the penalty as severe as possible. Either way the run from third is not allowed to score. So, if with less than two outs you return him you give the offense another opportunity to bring him in by calling the batter out and bringing another batter to the plate.

Since with two outs the runner can't score anyway and calling him out would end the half inning, the more severe penalty is to call the batter out and take his AB away from him.


Tim.

i need to be more clear. I understand that with two outs it makes sense to call out the batter so he will not be up to bat in the next inning. I am talking with less than two outs.

What i am looking for is a reason to create a more severe penalty for a runner going from third to home than from second to third.

If the same penalty is used from third to home as from second to third, the run would not score. The batter would be called out, and the runner would be sent back to third. This creates no advantage for the offense, and they are substantially penalized by now having another out. If the play is repeated (with only one out) they will still not gain an advantage.

It seems as though the FED rulemakers are for some reason giving a more severe penalty where one does not seem necessary.

thanks

alex phillips

This rule is the same in all codes.

thanks pwl, that is what i was looking for.