On deck batter interferes?
 

New question from another board.

"College baseball. Bases loaded, nobody out. Batter hits soft fly ball to center field. 3rd base coach tells runner at 3rd that the ball is not hit deep enough to score....but tag up, fake running home, draw the throw and see what happens (i.e. bad throw, dropped ball by catcher..what ever). Throw from CF hits lip of grass in front of home plate, ball hits catchers glove, hits his leg and goes between his legs and hits the on deck batter (who is against the screen in case there is a play at the plate he can tell the runner to slide, stand up etc.) Ball bounces off the on deck batter and bounces directly to the pitcher, who is behind the catcher. Nobody advances, nobody attempts to advance. Homeplate ump calls interference on the on deck batter then rules the runner on 3rd out. Is there any call to be made? (3rd base coach didn't think so....and after discussing the heritage of the umps parents got tossed!) "

Thanks!

Strange play
 

That's an unusual play; however, if the on deck batter doesn't intentionally try to interfere I can't see a penalty being applied here.

Why reward the defense for a bad play is how I look at this type of play.

I would think the umpire definitely erred in this play - I would like to see which rule he applied for the situation.

Thanks
David

BktBallRef,

As described, there is NO INTEREFERENCE in this situation, under NCAA or any other rule code.

What we have is an errant throw by the defense which happens to hit an offensive "other teammate" in live ball territory. As a result, the defense is aided in recovering from its misplay, while no "play" is in progress.

In order for there to be an interference call penalized with an out, there must be an actual play being attempted by the defense, and, unless it is a batted ball, the offense's action(s) must be deemed intentional by the umpire.

JM

The on-deck batter is authorized to be on the field, and he is doing his job by directing the runner, if he does come down, so if his actions were not intentional, then I do not see a case for interference. The catcher missed the ball, had it hit him then go between his legs, then it rolled back and hit the ODH and deflected to the pitcher with no one advancing! I have nothing there, but that is me.

Poor call, without intentional INT by the ondeck batter, its nothing.

had I been coaching, I would have gotten tossed myself!

As the others have said, barring an intentional act to interfere, this play was ruled on incorrectly. The J/R cover interference by a teamate as follows.


It is interference if "another teammate":

1. blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or
2. thrown ball.

Other offensive teammates must try to avoid a fielder trying to field. If they try to avoid, but contact a fielder, it is not interference. In most cases, another teammate who does not try to avoid contact with a fielder will have interfered. A dugout is dead ball territory but, in most cases, a catch in the dugout is allowed, so offensive team personnel must avoid a fielder trying to catch in their dugout.

3. intentionally hinders or impedes a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.


There are times when an on deck batter can interfere without actually having intended to interfere. This is called "willfull indifference." If the on deck batters actions were such that unintentional interferece could have been avoided absent those actions, then it can be interference.


Here's an example of a play where this could apply.


R2 only.... B1 hits a liner to left....On deck batter seeing the bat laying near the front of the plate decides to clear the bat...R2 rounds and barrels home where the throw that's been cut by F6 comes toward the plate....The on deck batter has inadvertanty positions himself directly in front of F2 who is waiting to receive the throw obstructing his ability to field the ball.


Although the actions of the on deck batter did not show intention to interfere with the play, his indifference to that possibility is considered interference.


Tim.

Thank you gentlemen. Seemed like a weak call to me but I wanted to be sure before I responded.