Interference?
 

Had a situation today where I was base umpire. R1, stealing. After the pitch, the batter steps on home plate. The catcher stands up, brings back his right arm up to throw, but sees the batter on the plate, and doesn't throw the ball and doesn't even fake a throw to second base. Would this be interference by the batter? The catcher didn't actually throw the ball, but he would have had the batter not been there.

Well,
 

Evans says there does not need to a throw or contact. Interference can be established simply by the play you have described.

Regards,

How many times have you called interference when the catcher makes no attempt to throw?

None.

Why would you?

Judgment, no intent, no INT.

I've always use the age limit to decide INT. 12U and it is INT. After that if F2 is not doing something, I got nothing.

*sigh* You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. Intent and interference are separate entities. You CAN unintentionally interfere, Smitty.

I think he's talking about the CATCHER'S intent to throw the ball, not the batter's intent to interfere. If you think the catcher intended to throw, call INT. Personally, I've only called this (no attempt to throw) once in 25 years, and it was in a college level game where the catcher actually "pumped" his arm but did not throw. I would hesitate to call it, though, unless the catcher makes an attempt of some kind - the catcher should learn that if he DOES make an attempt, he'll get the call.

JJ

But if someone is right infront of him, what do you want him to do? Throw it at the PLAYER???

I want the catcher to step to one side or the other so he can get a throwing lane, or throw over the top of the batter, so I can rule interference. If he just stands there with ball in hand and makes no attempt it is a no sell, and a sorry catcher.

Evans says "Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very well possibly be interference." "May very well possibly" is not a very definitive statement.

J/R says "there is a subtle but essential distinction between a catcher who chooses not to throw and a catcher who tries to throw, but does not because of a batter's positioning. Only the hindered try to throw is interference. A catcher cannot claim interference if he has not tried to throw."

I find it is an easier call to make when the catcher tries to make a play vs. stands there like a dummy. I don't know any good catchers who will not try to make a play, over or around the batter, knowing that the umpire will take care of the interference call if he is indeed interfered with.

OBR
I had a similar situation today only I was the PU. Just like your play, the catcher stands up, brings back his right arm to throw however, nobody was covering second base. I did not call interference. Can a fake or feint by the catcher in this or a situation where a fielder is covering the base be considered a play?

IMO it does not meet the requirement of a legitimate effort by the defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner.

Certainly, F2 has the right to not only make a play but consider making a play and any obvious action on his part should be INT by O in this situation.

What does then?

Originally Posted by DonInKansas
*sigh* You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. Intent and interference are separate entities. You CAN unintentionally interfere, Smitty.

Correct, JJ. I also agree that good F2s will force the call, MOF they will take advantage of B violations, by being obvious in either their intent or in making an actual throw. The problem is that they have seen waaaaay to many umps who don't understand how to call INT....as demonstrated by DorothyInKansas above.

I hear you Charlie, youth ball is tough to call the rules, good example.