Batter interference

[NickG]

Wearing my LL coach's hat on this play (10/11): Our opponents have R3 and then a marginal pitch is mishandled by our F2 and the ball rolls off to his left, behind the batter. B/R sees R3 breaking for home and starts backing out of the box to get out of the way; at the same time, F2 is going for the ball. In moving to get out of the way, however, the B/R kicks the ball (at least once, but maybe even twice) knocking the ball out of F2's reach. It was not intentional, but rather a result of his shuffling quickly backward out of the box while the ball, unfortunately, rolled right behind him.

Runner scores, ump is silent. I ask for interference, but the ump shakes his head. I let it go (because I'm an ump myself).

To me, this is a no-brainer interference call -- 7.09(a). Or am I missing something?

[orioles35]

I don't know how this could be any more obvious, deliberate or not this is interference. The batter played a part in keeping the catcher from making a play? Shoot, that's an easy one.

[LMan]

Once the ball has eluded F2, the batter has become an "offensive teammate" for purposes of determining interference - and, in effect, the bar has been raised to rule so (since the defense has erred). That standard does not require intent, but does require a "blatant and avoidable" action to rule INT.

Not saying this wasn't INT, but just that it is more difficult to properly rule INT on a 'offensive teammate' than a batter. But I will opine that a passed ball that rolls right behind the batter (who steps on it as he is attempting to back out of the box and clear the play) will not get an INT call from me unless the kid obviously kicks at the ball or makes a more overt action.

[mbyron]

I'm with LMan: batter was doing what he was supposed to be doing, and I'm not rewarding the defense for screwing up. Unless I judge that the batter could reasonably be expected to have avoided the ball, play on.

[NickG]

Interested in these responses. How, in your view, do they square with 7.09(a), for which intentionality is irrelevant:

7.09 - It is interference by a batter or runner when:

(a) The batter hinders the catcher in an attempt to field the ball;

Kicking the ball out of the catcher's reach certainly hinders his ability to field the ball.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by NickG

Kicking the ball out of the catcher's reach certainly hinders his ability to field the ball.

NickG,

I could be wrong, but I believe the point that LMan & mbyron were making is that the F2 in the original situation was no longer "fielding the ball" - he had already had his chance to, and failed. He now is "chasing a loose ball" and is properly afforded less protection from "hindrance" by the offense under the rules. This distinction is discussed extensively in J/R.

Having said that, from your description in the initial post of this thread, I personally cannot tell whether BI should have been called or not. I would say that, if the ball were still within "a step and a reach" of the F2 at the time the batter (unintentionally) kicked it (in the umpire's sole judgement), a BI call would have been proper.

If the ball was beyond a step and a reach, live ball, play the bounce.

JM