Batter-Runner Interference

[Armadillo_Blue]

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

[UmpJM]

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

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).

[UmpJM]

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

[BigUmp56]

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.

[LakeErieUmp]

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.