Batter Interference Question
 

Getting ready to move from CA to GA, so all my rule / case books are packed.

Today, I had a situation that was almost a Batter's Interference, but I felt the Catcher gave up because the Runner had returned to 1st base, rather than because the Batter had stepped in front of him.

Anyway...

I know that for all situations, other than less than 2 outs with the Runner attempting to score from 3rd, the Batter would be out, and all Runners return on Batter's Interference.

But like today, what if the pitch was Strike 3, and the Batter was already out (1st out of the inning), and then caused Interference in a situation where the Batter is supposed to be out and the Runners returned ?

Thanks in advance.

Well, the batter can't be out twice, and someone needs to be out on (most)interference, so that only leaves the runner who would be out.

I'm assuming varsity ball?

You might have to think about the intent. If F2 never attempts to make a play then how can you have interference.

We can't just assume that the F2 was going to make a play.

Now if its "small ball" might be a little different.

Bob had the answer as to who is out!

Thanks
David

I'm assuming varsity ball?

You might have to think about the intent. If F2 never attempts to make a play then how can you have interference.

We can't just assume that the F2 was going to make a play.

Now if its "small ball" might be a little different.

Bob had the answer as to who is out!

Thanks
David

I'm assuming FED rules here:

Rule 3-2-3
"...nor shall...members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner"

Penalty : The ball is dead immediately and the runner is out.

I believe that just about covers it.

Don't have my rulebook at work, but isn't there also a rule that states something to the effect that anytime a player who has been put out interferes with an ensuing defensive play, then that player shall be called out for the actions of his teammate.

I believe batter interference is delayed dead ball

Once he strikes out he no longer is the batter. No other runners can advance on his interference. Kill the ball, call the batter out on strikes, and the runner out on the interference. 3 outs.

This is the exact situation on the umpire exam I had this past weekend:

A (stupid and/or really fast) runner tries to steal second with none out. On the pitch, the batter misses for a third strike and steps across the plate, interfering with the catcher's throw. Is there 2 out?

The answer was no. OBR rules. Answer key indicated the play was dead and the runner returns to first. referencing rules 6.06 (c)

Yet another error on the exam???

7-3-5 penalty:

"...If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out."

I'm assuming this is a FED reference. In Canada we only use OBR so what would the rule reference be in OBR??

I think the OBR reference also deal with "willful and deliberate intent to break up an obvious double play" a strike 'em out, throw 'em out...99.9999% of the time in my judgement is not an obvious double play...therefore, in many instances, I'd send the runner back to first. but if we have R3, less than two outs and we have Batter interference, our runner is out...because he's at third and we're not going to give the offense another opportunity to score a run again right??? that's the part that has always confused me.

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.

OBR 7.09(d)

you are correct. sorry if I took this in another direction...

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

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:cool:

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

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.

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."

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

Thanks

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.

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:cool:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Back to the Original Poster...
 

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