Question on Play last night
 

FED rules:

Batter swings, however, takes him into catcher who is trying to make a throw down to second base. I did not consider his actions to be intentional, and let the play stand.

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.

What do you guys have on this call?? Was I right in letting the play stand as I saw no intent on the batter to interfere?

I will be nice . . . I will be nice . . . I will be nice
 

" . . . 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,

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??

~Sigh~
 

Now you are changing the play.

I will withdraw from the thread at this time.

Regards,

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.)

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

Yes, it's a judgment call.

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.

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

Judgement: Intentional?
Yes - Interference
No - Interference

So he changed the play. Now we have a different sitch to discuss. So what? :confused:

Intent is NOT a requirement on batter's interference UNLESS F2 misplays the ball in which case rule 7 for FED Rule 6 for OBR no longer apply and you need to refer to rule 8 (FED) and rule 7 (OBR) .

Example:

R1 stealing B1 takes a mean cut and loses his balance which causes him to cross the plate in front of F2 who is trying to make a paly

Even though B1 "didn't mean to" interfere the fact is they did.

Pete Booth

The exact play happened Thursday night in Seattle. The batter took a swing and his momentum carried over the plate. Pudge Rodriquez tried to throw the runner from first out at second but his throw was wild because of the presence of the batter in front of him.
ld

The umpire ruled no interference.

I agree with the call.

The batter did nothing more than swing at a pitch and fall forward.

There was no intereference.

Pudge got thrown out. Suspended for one game also for making contact with the ump.

First and foremost, Interference is a JUDGEMENT call

I didn't see the play so I cannot comment, I was simply pointing out that there is NO intent required on batter interference, however, just like any call, it boils down to umpire judgement.

Pete Booth

I have to disagree, Jim. Mike Winters blew the call, plain and simple. A batter is responsible for the momentum created by his swing. If his swing causes him to fall forward over the plate and he hinders the catchers attempt to retire a runner in any way he should be called out for interference.



From Evans.



. The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference.




Tim.

Tim, thanks so much for that exact quote. Earlier you informed me, again with exact quotes, from J/R. I respect anyone who takes the time to type word for word, without any misssspellings, these Kings Of Interps.

He didn't change the situation, he "yeah butted." There is a difference.

Had the same exact play Sunday.

Called it the same way. Might of had flashbacks from watching SC.

Catcher wanted it, but I explained why there was no call, didn't have to toss him.

I heard once at a clinic, "I can teach you to be in the right place, I can teach you how to make your calls, but I can't teach you judgement. You will either have it or not".

I have interference on this play, as described. Tommy, in your situation did you tell the F2 that 'in your judgement there was no interference'?

Originally Posted by fitump56
So he changed the play. Now we have a different sitch to discuss. So what? :confused:
ok i suppose

JUst another example that the pros in MLB even miss a call once in a while. He probably like most of these type plays was taken by surprise and then he couldn't change the call thus the further activities.

Since these plays happen often, but so few actually are interference I can see that happening.

Thansk
David

I did use those defining words, "in my judgement".

I may start giving the catcher, who has been protecting me, the benefit of the doubt from now on.

If a batter can't control his actions by stepping across the plate during the catchers throw, I'm calling the INT.

Who's to say that subconciously the catcher didn't throw higher (alter his throw) than usual, or pull his hand back so not to hit the batter?;)

You should call interference only if the batter actually interferes. Merely stepping across the plate is not BI. Don't take shortcuts with the rules.

If we're talking OBR, interference does not have to occur. It is called illegal action and all that needs to occur is that the batter stepping out of the box complicates the catcher's play. It is a lesser standard of proof than interference.

:D Tim,

Stay and play in the sandbox. It is rapidly running out! :D

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by mbyron
You should call interference only if the batter actually interferes. Merely stepping across the plate is not BI. Don't take shortcuts with the rules.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Right on the money there, Jim.