Batter Interference Question

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by tibear

Problem is in this situation it doesn't appear as if the batter's interference was willful or deliberate, he was simply trying to hit the ball and lost his balance.

The batter is entitled to his swing. If his swing takes him lunging across the plate, the catcher just has to deal with that.

[LomUmp]

Hey all,

Did the catcher attempt to make the throw to get the runner out?

YES, HE DID: Then it is a matter of did the batter's actions, intentional or not, prevent the catcher from making a clean play in an attempt to get the runner. If interference is called and the play results in an out, then the results of the play stands, and the interference is ignored. If interference is called and the play does not result in an out, send the runner back to the last legally acquired base.

NO, HE DIDN'T: Then, unless the batter did something to prevent the catcher from making an attempt, i.e. falling into him or the bat hit the catcher, no interference.

LomUmp

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The batter is entitled to his swing. If his swing takes him lunging across the plate, the catcher just has to deal with that.

6.06(c) doesn't apply in your world, I see.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The batter is entitled to his swing. If his swing takes him lunging across the plate, the catcher just has to deal with that.

How often does a swing take the batter across the plate when there's not a runner stealing? Approximately never. So, a batter going across the plate when a runner is stealing is extremely suspect.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by LMan

6.06(c) doesn't apply in your world, I see.

In my world, swinging at the ball never counts as hindering the catcher. Are you suggesting that we call batter's interference on every hit and run? After all, hitting the ball is "any other movement that hinders the catcher's play."

[tibear]

Originally Posted by LMan

OBR 7.09(d)

I think you meant 7.09 (f) in which case the runner is called out in addition to the batter.

Thanks

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

How often does a swing take the batter across the plate when there's not a runner stealing? Approximately never. So, a batter going across the plate when a runner is stealing is extremely suspect.

Maybe at your level of ball. I work mainly 7th to 10th grade and I see batters come across the plate on a swing at least once a game. It also would depend on where the pitch is. If it is inside, then it wasn't really a swing. A legitimate effort to hit the ball should not be penalized.

[LomUmp]

Hey all,

OBR 6.06c
6.06
A batter is out for illegal action when --
(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

LomUmp

[tibear]

Here is OBR 7.09(f) which calls for two outs:

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

(f) Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate; If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by tibear

I think you meant 7.09 (f) in which case the runner is called out in addition to the batter.

Thanks

No, I posted the reference that the quoted poster said he could not recall. The key in (d) is it says, "..who has just been put out." That phrase is not in (f).

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Maybe at your level of ball. I work mainly 7th to 10th grade and I see batters come across the plate on a swing at least once a game. It also would depend on where the pitch is. If it is inside, then it wasn't really a swing. A legitimate effort to hit the ball should not be penalized.

Pitch location now determines if the batter swung or not? Are you serious?


I didn't know that if batters came across the plate at least once a game, the rules were suspended.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by LMan

Pitch location now determines if the batter swung or not? Are you serious?


I didn't know that if batters came across the plate at least once a game, the rules were suspended.

I'm just going to ignore that you're trolling and respond anyway. If the pitch was inside and the batter made a lunging swing to that outside, that is not really a swing, but interferance (yes, it would be a strike but he's out so it doesn't matter).

Look into working on your reading comprehension.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm just going to ignore that you're trolling and respond anyway. If the pitch was inside and the batter made a lunging swing to that outside, that is not really a swing, but interferance (yes, it would be a strike but he's out so it doesn't matter).
Look into working on your reading comprehension.

I'll do that, but in the interim I still defy any sentient being to understand what the boldface part really means.

It appears that an inside pitch:

a. can result in a swing that is not really a swing (to that outside remains undefined);

b. it is really interference (you need to work on the spelling comprehension);

c. it's a strike, but not on the swing, since it wasn't really a swing (see a above);

d. he's out anyway, so it's all meaningless.


Interesting logic. I still surmise that you mean something other than what you type, but I see no evidence yet.

You should have trusted your instincts and stopped responding.

[Eastshire]

Look. It's not that had. What is the topic of this thread? Batter's interference. What was my original statement? A swing should not be penalized as interference. Bob said he didn't see any ligitimate swings that caused a batter to lunge over the plate. I said I did but agreed that if the pitch was inside that the lung wasn't a [ligitimate] swing but intentional interference. Thus, it doesn't matter that the lunging interference is also an offer at the pitch and a strike, because it's interference and the batter is out on the interference.

[VanStanza]

...and it has already been quoted...the rule is 7.09 (f). End of story. Next!