Batter Hit by Catcher's Throw

[blueump]

This now has happened twice in the last 4 days: FED ball - With a runner stealing 3rd base the catcher attempts to throw them out.

Saturday, the throw hit the bat of the batter who was still standing in the batter's box and then bounced into the dug-out. Last night the catcher let the ball squirt behind them, and the throw hit the batter in the helmet - who immediately went down (the batter had vacated the batter's box in an attempt to get out of the way of any play) and the ball ended up near the back-stop. We judged that neither batter interfered intentionally.

In both situations we left the ball live (dead when it entered the dugout) and the runners were allowed to advance their one base (to 3rd). Is this the correct call? Or should the ball be declared dead at the time of the throw and the runners returned? Should the runner in the first situation be awarded home?

I know this sounds freaky, but it really happened!

[mbyron]

Play 1: F2 fields pitch cleanly, beans B1 with the throw to 3B, B1 just standing in the box after taking the pitch. I've got nothing, live ball, play on. Batter need not disappear.

Play 2: F2 misplays pitch, fumbles for it, hits B1 with the throw to 3B, B1 has backed out of box to avoid the play. This MIGHT be interference: if B1 has done what he reasonably could do to get out of the way, then play on. If he is just standing in the way, out of the batter's box, then call interference: batter out, runner returns.

[BigUmp56]

When you have a batter still in the box and the catcher catches the pitch before he attempts to retire the runner you cannot expect the batter to disappear. Absent an overt act to interfere there is no call until the ball enters DBT.


When the ball gets by the catcher the batter is now treated as another teamate, as he's no longer attempting to hit a pitch. This places a little more burden on him to get out of the way of any potential interference, although not much. Now if he's hit with a throw you have to determine that it was blatently avoidable to rule interference. It doesn't have to be intentional. It's commonly referred to as "willfull indifference" in the J/R manual.


Tim.

[UmpJM]

blueump,

As described, both calls sound like good "no calls", live ball, play on (for the reasons described by Dr. Byron & Tim).

However, in the sitch where the ball ended up in the dugout, it then became dead and the award is two bases, so the R2 should have been awarded home.

JM

[IceGator8]

Hmmmmm,

Situation 1: Everything is fine as the batter stayed in the box and didn't do anything unnatural to interfere with the play. Batter has a right to the box so the ball is live.

Situation 2: Batter steps out of box and into the throwing lane. If the batter's out of the box he has the duty to be out of the way of the play. If I think the batter was legitimately in the catchers way and he gets beaned by the throw then I'm calling the batter out and sending the runner back to second. In my mind the batter can use his eyeballs to figure out where the ball is and go the opposite way.

I wonder if the way these situations are called is a regional issue. Around here everyone calls it the way I specified. In fact, when I was a catcher in high school my coach told me to drill a batter who was stupid enough to be out of the box and in my way.

This is an interesting subject.

[UmpJM]

IceGator8,

Perhaps you didn't actually read blueump's description of the 2nd play in question.

Originally Posted by blueump

...Last night the catcher let the ball squirt behind them, and the throw hit the batter in the helmet - who immediately went down (the batter had vacated the batter's box in an attempt to get out of the way of any play) and the ball ended up near the back-stop. ...

When the catcher does not cleanly field the pitch (as is clearly the case in this situation), the "Batter Interference" criteria no longer apply in the umpire's judgement of whether interference has occurred. Specifically, the batter leaving the box does NOT automatically make him liable to an Interference call if his action hinders the defense's subsequent attempt at a play.

Rather, the defense having "misplayed" (via the wild pitch/passed ball) shifts the burden of proof/benefit of the doubt in determining whether or not interference has occurred. As BigUmp56 and mbyron correctly point out, the umpire must judge intent to interfere by the offensive player in order for the defense to get an Interference call in this situation.

The umpire did not so judge in this case. Therefore, the ball remains "live and in play" subsequent to the catcher's throwing error in hitting the runner with the throw.

If the umpire judges that the F2 intentionally threw at the batter who had vacated the batter's box in an attempt to draw an interference call rather than a legitimate attempt to make a play, then the catcher should be ejected from the game - despite his idiot coach's instructions. Personally, I'd try to find a way to eject the coach too.

Originally Posted by IceGator8

...Around here everyone calls it the way I specified. ...

If that statement is true, everybody around "here" is calling it incorrectly.

JM

[IceGator8]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

IceGator8,

Perhaps you didn't actually read blueump's description of the 2nd play in question.



When the catcher does not cleanly field the pitch (as is clearly the case in this situation), the "Batter Interference" criteria no longer apply in the umpire's judgement of whether interference has occurred. Specifically, the batter leaving the box does NOT automatically make him liable to an Interference call if his action hinders the defense's subsequent attempt at a play.

Rather, the defense having "misplayed" (via the wild pitch/passed ball) shifts the burden of proof/benefit of the doubt in determining whether or not interference has occurred. As BigUmp56 and mbyron correctly point out, the umpire must judge intent to interfere by the offensive player in order for the defense to get an Interference call in this situation.

The umpire did not so judge in this case. Therefore, the ball remains "live and in play" subsequent to the catcher's throwing error in hitting the runner with the throw.

If the umpire judges that the F2 intentionally threw at the batter who had vacated the batter's box in an attempt to draw an interference call rather than a legitimate attempt to make a play, then the catcher should be ejected from the game - despite his idiot coach's instructions. Personally, I'd try to find a way to eject the coach too.



If that statement is true, everybody around "here" is calling it incorrectly.

JM

Ok, I'm the catcher. There's a passed ball which I go back to field. I whirl and throw down to third. The batter has stepped into my line of fire outside the box. Throw hits batter. How are you going to judge my intent?

I'm just curious.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by IceGator8

Ok, I'm the catcher. There's a passed ball which I go back to field. I whirl and throw down to third. The batter has stepped into my line of fire outside the box. Throw hits batter. How are you going to judge my intent?

I'm just curious.

IceGator,

In your sitch, this sounds like the catcher making a legitimate attempt by the F2 to retire the runner - play the bounce.

If, on the other hand, the F2 had adjusted his throwing lane so as to bring the batter "in line" or obviously threw in a direction away from any play so as to hit the batter, I would be more inclined to judge that it was his intent to hit the batter rather than make a play.

In your sitch, if I felt the batter was making a legitimate (though ill-fated) attempt to stay out of the way, it would be "nothing". If, on the other hand, he intentionally got in the way (or stayed in the way when he had ample opportunity to get out of the way), it would be appropriate to judge that he interfered.

JM