Question on Play last night

[Tim C]

" . . . takes him into catcher who is trying to make a throw . . . "

Actually Evans says that there does not even need to be contact. If the catcher is making a throw and the batter causes change it can be interference.

"After conferring with my partner, he said I got the call right, that the catcher must atleast make an attempt to step to the right and make the throw."

Not according to any reference I can find. The catcher "owns" a direct line through home plate when making his throw. Anytime a batter enters that area there can be interference.

"What do you guys have on this call??"

Without being there and just reading your post I have batter interference.

"Was I right in letting the play stand as I saw no intent on the batter to interfere?"

Not in my opinion. Example: Let's say that the batter swings very hard and his action cause him to cross in front of F2 . . . let's say this is an unitentional activity that is caused simply by the violence of the swing . . . F2 is then knocked off his feet as he attempts to throw to second base . . .

Are you actually telling me that you would not call interference because there was no intent? Is this what you are saying?

By only having your post to read and not having seen the play it appears to me that it obviously batter interference.

And I don't even know how to relate to your partner's claim that the catcher must move to make the throw.

Regards,

[JFlores]

lets say the catcher bumps into the batter as he is about to make the throw, the batter is still in the box. Just a thought??

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JFlores

lets say the catcher bumps into the batter as he is about to make the throw, the batter is still in the box. Just a thought??

If the batter is still in the box, then it's not interference unless the batter makes "some other movement" that interferes. The batter is allowed a normal swing (and follow-through, etc). If the batter, though, goes over the plate then he's liable to be called for interference (notice how this movement happens once in a thousand swings with no runner stealing, but once in three swings with a runner stealing? It's not that the gravitational force of R1 stealing "pulls" the batter over the plate.)

[JFlores]

thanks for the replies, I guess what I should of ask if this is a judgement call??

[bob jenkins]

Yes, it's a judgment call.

[mbyron]

Depends on what you mean by "this."

"Did the batter, stepping over the plate, interfere with the catcher's attempt to throw out the runner?"

--Yes, this is a judgment call.

"Did the catcher step to the side to avoid the batter?"

--No, not a judgment call: this is a misunderstanding of the BI rule.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by JFlores

thanks for the replies, I guess what I should of ask if this is a judgement call??

Judgement: Did the batter interfere?
Yes - Interference
No - Nothing

Judgement: Intentional?
Yes - Interference
No - Interference