Batter-Runner Interference
 

I think this is pretty straight forward, but want to make sure.

R3. 1 out. Three balls. Pitch is wild for ball four and R3 comes home. Batter tosses bat to dugout and heads to 1st crossing home and interfering with F1 coming in to take the throw from F2.

By rule if the batter interferes with a play at home with less than two outs the runner is out instead of the batter and no run scores. However, in this instance he is no longer the batter but the batter-runner. Does this change the rule?

I assume the logic behind calling the runner out would remain and the correct call would be R3 out and B1 sent to 1st. Is this right, and if so is there a specific rule or interp to back it up?

Kyle

Armadillo Blue,

Absent evidence of intent to interfere by the BR (in the umpire's sole judgement), as described, this is not interference and no penalty is appropriate.

If the umpire judges there was intent (which could include the umpire's judgement that the BR's hindrance was "blatant and avoidable"), then the BR would be called out and the R3 returned.

JM

If it is judged interference, R3 would be called out and the BR gets his base on balls award. With 2 out, the BR is out. Rule 7.09(d).

S.D. Steve,

I believe that 7.09(d) refers to interference by a batter, not a batter-runner.

In Armadillo Blue's sitch, the batter has completed his at bat and become a batter-runner. I believe that 7.08(b) & 7.09(l) specify that the runner who interfered is out, the ball is dead, any other runners return to TOP base.

Am I missing something?

JM

From the J/R.


Interference by a batter occurs exclusively in relationship to the catcher or the catcher's throw and only when the batter does not become a batter-runner


I agree with John that intent, or "willfull indifference" is required to judge this as interference, but on this play with the ball being passed the catcher I have to believe the BR had plenty of time to clear out of the way, meeting the "blatant or avoidable" clause. My call would be interference.


Tim.

The interference calls are sound. I'm going to have a hard time being convinced the batter's conduct was not intentional considering he didn't move six feet in the time the pitcher had to move SIXTY feet.

i'm still not clear if the BR is out or R3
thanks.

I would say that Armadillo_Blue has not presented nearly enough detail on the particulars of his sitch to comment meaningfully on whether or not interference was a proper call here.

If all the batter-runner did was turn to toss his bat towards the 3B dugout and promptly proceeded to 1B, I'd have a hard time supporting an interference call.

On the other hand, if he dawdled in or near the batter's box watching the R3 approach and didn't get out of the way until "the last minute" and hindered the defense's play, interference would seem quite appropriate.

Which was it Armadillo_Blue?

JM

As the batter had legally completed his time at bat, he's now considered a batter-runner for the purposes of interference. When a runner interferes, he's to be called out and all other runners returned, unless the umpire feels he committed a deliberate act to prevent a double play. Then, both the batter-runner and the runner being played on are called out. I don't think there's a way to stretch this play to include a DP, so the batter-runner is out and R3 is returned.



Tim.

The play in detail....
 

The right handed batter exited the batter's box and stepped toward the third base dugout. Tossed the bat. Then turned around and walked back through the box and across the plate right in front of the pitcher running in to take the catch from the catcher up against the backstop.

The batter had already cleared out of the area to discard his bat and then reentered it in order to advance to first.

In my mind this was clearly interference as he easily could have avoided the play all together by staying put or going around. The act of cutting back across the plate while his team mate was coming in from third made it "blatant and avoidable".

My question is, does the fact that he is now a batter-runner instead of a batter mean that he is out instead of the runner?

My reading of the rules says that the BR is out because he is no longer a batter, but I wanted to know if there was any AO or Official Interps to the contrary of which I was unaware.

Kyle

Kyle:

Read my post above your last one. The batter is now a batter-runner, and for the purposes of interference calls, a runner who interferes is called out. This is the J/R ruling and penalty for batter-runners interference.


J/R

Section IV: Penalizing Runner and Batter-Runner; Interference and Placing Other Runners

A. Penalization

A runner who interferes is declared out unless, as a result of preceding action, he is already out, then the other runner being played against is declared out. If no other runner is being played against, "weak" interference applies; that is, the ball is dead and runners must remain at their last legally touched base.

If a runner who is not yet out, deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder trying to field, with the obvious intent of breaking up a double play (two offensive players are put out as a result of continuous action), he is declared out, and so is the batter-runner. If such interfering runner is already out, a triple play may be enforced. A runner involved in a possible double play must make a legitimate effort to reach and stay on a base, or risk being out for interference, and the out of the Batter-Runner as well.

If a Batter-Runner intentionally interferes to prevent a possible double play, he is out, and the runner of greatest advance (closest to home) is also declared out.

When runner or batter-runner interference occurs, the ball is dead.


Tim.

Armadillo,

Assuming the catcher had actually released a throw which either hit the BR or the BR prevented the pitcher from catching, sound like a good interference call.

As far as who is called out, I've already said I believe the proper call is that the BR is called out, the ball is dead, and the R3 is returned to 3B.

Here are the (OBR) rules that I believe support this contention:

There is also the J/R cite posted earlier by Tim which also supports this ruling.

JM