INT after ball 4
 

sit :
R1, 0 outs, 3-1 count.
the batter leans over the outside part over the plate but does not swing. the catcher immediatly tries to throw to 2nd cause the runner was stealing. the umpire calls balls the pitch ball 4 and the batter interfereces with the throwing catcher.
whats the proper ruling ?

Bruno, when you give us a play, please tell us which rule set we are using to come up with the answer. Then we can quote the exact rule. Thanks.

the question is :
can BR interfere on a throw to 2nd, where R1 is force to go to ?
or is this just "nothing" ?

No...................


Tim.

any time calls ?.... like weak interference, BR -> 1st, R1 -> 2nd ?

"Weak Interference" occurs when a batter interferes while there's no play being made on another runner. In which case the ball is dead and all runners are simply returned with no out recorded. Here we have a BR that created the hindrance.


Placement of Runners Not Out:

If a Batter-Runner is not out when interference has occurred, he is awarded first base, unless his batted ball is foul or caught over foul territory.

If a Batter-Runner has not yet touched or passed first base at the time of interference, all runners not out must return to their TOP base, with the following exceptions:

(1) If the Batter-Runner is awarded to first base, a sequential runner is forced to be awarded his advance base.


Tim.

Bruno, in order to call BR out for batter interference, he must have interfered. How can he interfere if there's no possible play on R1?

Hmm... what if the "interferecne" causes the throw to go into center field and R1 advances to third?

Bruno,

In this case, the batter has become a batter runner, and he can only interfere with a thrown ball if he does so intentionally, and furthermore is "disregarding his try to get to 1st base" (from J/R). Perhaps intentional interference could occur if the batter doesn't realize it is ball four, and tries to help R1. Even then, the interference would need to be against a throw which was intended to retire R1 after he has overrun 2nd base, and has again become liable to be put out. I doubt you would ever see this sequence and timing of events in a real game.

mr Reed has it--must be intentional at this point.....or no interfereance!

So, if the catcher's throw goes sailing out into center field, and R1 advances to 3rd as a result - you would let the play stand as played? Even if it was clear that the batter's "interference" played a role in the wild throw?

What if the defense claims that it was their intent to make a play on R1 because it was their opinion the batter "went" on that pitch (checked swing) and they were anticipating the ball call being reversed to a strike, thus putting the runner in jeopardy? But first, they wanted to make a play on the runner, since time was of the essence.

In OBR, it explicitly says that runners need to be aware of such a reversal of calls which would put the runner in jeopardy.

I'm just throwing crap out there. I don't think I would call interference on this either. I just like to think if there is anything that could complicate the situation.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Hmm.. normally with a stealer we let play go on and if the throw does not retire the runner the ball is dead immediately, such as when the SS cuts it off with a runner on 3B. So in this case I think the ball is dead at the moment of the interference, since the runner can't be retired due to the walk. R1 should be returned to 2B.

Assuming that that Ball Four was called after the B interfered, which is what I take from "the batter leans over the outside part over the plate but does not swing. the catcher immediatly tries to throw to 2nd cause the runner was stealing", the call is obvious. You have B INT.

If after "Ball 4", then no B INT. Hell if I can tell by the OP. :D

Not if you have B INT not B-R INT

No difference, either you have a "B" or a B-R, depends on the timig of the call Ball Four. Which brings up the very good point of "see them, call them, don't jack around with multi-second wait times".

Oh, about 20 or 30 more things.:D

Let's say R1 is stealing on the play. The pitcher throws ball 4, the BR interferes with the catcher's throw down to 2nd, R1 overslides the bag and is tagged out?

I'm just making stuff up, now. :)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

why would the Catcher be playing on r1 who cant be thrown out at Second? :confused:

1) Maybe the runner was stealing. Many catchers don't wait for the umpire to call the pitch a ball, they just throw, especially if there is any question as to whether the pitch was a ball or strike. Even if it's ball 4, R1 could be tagged out on an overslide.

2) Also, as I said before, if ball 4 occurred on a checked swing that is reversed to a strike - the runner is in jeopardy and can be thrown out. This is all going to happen simultaneously - the throw and the appeal. A smart runner will not trot on down to 2nd, as if it is "awarded", on a checked swing situation for this very reason. He'll hang out at 1st until the issue is resolved.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Doesn't the catcher have to have the ball to be interferred with? So if the catcher has the ball, the pitch must have reached him. And if the pitch has reached him, the pitch must have been a ball or a strike before he could have been interferred with. Unless of course, he jumped out to get the ball before it reached th eplate, which is a whole nother sitch! :D

And how exactly does a batter lean over the outside part of the plate? Wouldn't he just be leaning across the plate? Why so compilcated?

On Ball 4, the batter is entitled to first base. He doesn't have to stand in his RH batter's box and say "mother may I" before going to first.

If it's intentional, it's interference. If not, it's not. Either way it's called, get ready to chunk somebody.

I agree Rich, at the moment it is declared a ball, B1 becomes a batter-runner entitled to first and R1 is entitled to 2B. At that point, if interference takes place intentionally, then you better be ready to deal with it if necessary.

I agree with that. I wouldn't consider a batter who has just received a base-on-balls, passing in front of the catcher as interference.

Hell, I'm just trying to come up with reasons as to WHY the catcher would even be throwing down to 2nd after a walk. I think such reasons exist.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Then call it, naturally, BUT as you know you're dealing with a BR now, not a batter, and the interference must be intentional - a rather higher standard than for BI.

The catcher could think that the batter offered. The catcher could think that R1 may round second and put himself at jeopardy. I think that's a pretty exhaustive (2 items) list.

Catcher's fault for throwing down to 2B on a walk...no INT here! don't care what rule set...not going to penalize the offense for the Def trying to make a play that they can't make anyway...live ball.

Then again the catcher may not of been thinking at all and just reacting to the runner going to second.

Who cares what the catcher thought...a good umpire will manage the game correctly...mechanically, the pitch is a ball until the umpire asks for help..yes, the catcher can appeal, but he's throwing down to 2B...and if the umpire is doing his job, he'll ask his partner right away in an effort to minimize any potential rhubarb...this situation might have unavoidable rhubarb if the catcher makes a dumb play like this...so it will come down to how you deal with the argument when the coach comes out of the dugout yelling and screaming on whatever team you penalized, if any...we all know that even the right call many times can mean an ejection...

This has nothing to do with the catcher making a throw or not, the rules allow that. They do NOT allow an offensive player the right to intentionally interfere with the defense's right to make a play.

Wait a minute, I have been in many games where the catcher threw the ball instinctively.

There was no attempt here so why would you be asking for help.

By intentional, we'd better be picturing a BR jumping up to try to block a throw, or grabbing F2's arm, or something similar. BR has the right to run to first - just getting in the way of the throw is NOT interference, even if the ball is uncorked into center field, or bounces off BR's head out of play.

I agree with that.

but if it's ball four, what play would he be making? you can't call interference on the batter on ball 4 when R1 is entitled to 2B...if you do that, coaches will simply coach their catchers to throw down to 2B to try and get an INT call thus eliminating the walk and keeping the force intact...you can't make a play on a runner who's entitled to 2B...if you call interference on this play, good luck working anything higher than T-Ball.

You, as the defense, can make a play on anyone you want. Show us where it says F2 is not allowed to throw to 2nd. Like I said, though - interference with this throw had better be BLATANT and obviously intentional before we consider calling interference.

And I assure you that the majority of the people you're talking to here are working far above tee-ball.

I agree with your points, but I think its fair to say that some will read this thread and award a dumb catcher at the FED level for throwing down on ball 4. If a lot of players were doing this at the higher level, there would be more emphasis on that rule...if indeed the best players in the game were gaining an advantage from something odd like this. I've seen it on TV in MLB games, where catchers will throw down on a close ball 4, heck, I've seen it in my lowly DIII and Ju-Co games...but the key point in your post is the "BLATANT" portion of what you're writing...which is what I agree with 100%.

interferance with a THROWN ball has to be intentional, a BATTED ball does not

Originally Posted by fitump56
Assuming that that Ball Four was called after the B interfered, which is what I take from "the batter leans over the outside part over the plate but does not swing. the catcher immediatly tries to throw to 2nd cause the runner was stealing", the call is obvious. You have B INT.

If after "Ball 4", then no B INT. Hell if I can tell by the OP. :D

This isn't so off the cuff as I can remember many plays where F2 has been coached to throw to 2B for this very reason with Ball 4. The overslide or the slide and off base, not knowing the ball has been delivered to F6/F4.

I also don't agree that B-R has this inherent right to take 1B on Ball 4 without regard to D/F2. The ball is live. What harm is it that B realize his obligation to not interfere with any D effort? None which is why this "hustle down" junk never made any sense to me.

We have a judgment on INT after Ball 4 is called, and I don't have to tell you that part of the "hustle down" theory was Tiger coaching the block of F2s throw.

I'm a bit out of the loop calling mainly adult ball, they ararely hustle down even at 18. :p

To wit, B can wait a heartbeat and if he doesn't I got B INT even after Ball 4 is officially called.

Sure you can. Who says that D is limited to throwing anywhere at anytime regardless of whether R1 is allowed R2. Haven't you seen F2 throw to 1b on a walk in hopes that BR makes the wrong turn or coach isn't paying attention and R1 now steps off the bag? That's a "play".

Now, JonnyBeGood. :p :D

Doesn't have to be blatant, blatant buys you a reason that is supported by a very public event.

This is the theory of the "non call", there are bunches of them, things that are rules violatins where the easiest, and most accepted, method is not to make the call.

Just remember this, after a batter receives four balls, he doesn't become a batter/runner. He becomes a base runner due to his base award. Batter interference wouldn't come into play in the situation being discussed.

My post is a long time ago, but no comments. What is wrong with calling INT on the batter who has just received BALL 4, dnd therefore dead ball, so a throw down to 2B is nothing, and therefore R1 can't advance to 3B?

A catcher can't be expected to wait until he hears a call on the pitch until he decides to throw down on a stealing runner. It has to be automatic in his training, with R1 only. If a batter has walked there is no play to be made, so if he interferes with a throw, intentional or unintentional, why would we allow a runner to advance to 3B on a throw that goes into CF?

My thinking is that both players are awarded bases. If base runner, formerly batter, interfered with the throw and R1 was able to advance past second, I would send R1 back to second. Just call the interference (delayed dead ball) and then wave it off if all runners make their one base advance. If R1 is actually retired if he has advanced past the base let the play stand and batter/base runner goes to first.

Just for fun, I sent the original play to a former ML umpire and four current minor league umpires.

Unanimously they responded: "No interference."

A more detailed explanation will be forthcoming as part of a new series at the paid site: "Battles on the Boards"

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Hmm... what if the "interferecne" causes the throw to go into center field and R1 advances to third?

Then you have rewarded O for INT (no potential for a putout on R advancement to 3B) and penalized the D for their effort. Does this make sense?

Batter's Interference is a delayed dead ball in FED rules baseball. Perhaps he is using FED rules for his reasoning.

We don't need a hint. You do.

Intent is REQUIRED for an umpire to make a call of interference on a thrown ball. If, as you say, he "interferes", but it is not intentional, it is NOT "interference" - by rule. Period.

So .. you're making up rulings to please yourself. Nevermind the pesky rulebook. (And incidentally, the fact that you have agreement from Mr. Tyler ENSURES that your interp is wrong.)

Another article 99.9% of us will miss. Once the next BRD is released, I guess I'll be able to go back and read it.

HOWEVER, you are inventing rules. HOWEVER, STOP inventing rules to suit yourself or make your job "easier" and STEAL outs that arent there. CALL the rules and INTERPS as they are--not as you FEEL that day.


thats my "hint" to you

the batter beacame a RUNNER the instant BALL 4 was called-- so BI doesnt apply here. hes a runner. and he is entitled to advance to First as soon as that happens--the Catchers actions dont concern him (as long as he doesnt intentionaly interfere)

to interfere with a THROWN ball a RUNNER must commit a intentional act--not inatvertant. now, the b-r could "stumble' (hehe) into Catch, or delib block his vision or something--thats intentional and should be called. just trotting to First is not.

THUS, the BATTER-RUNNER in the box must intentionaly interfere w the Catchers throw to 2B to get this call. its the Catchers resp to CLEAR the batter-runner for his throw.

in the OP if the batter-runner is NOT called for intentional interferance w Catch, then its a live ball and runners advance at peril.

Well for one thing ball 4 is not a dead ball, and runners can advance beyond their awarded base.

[QUOTE]This OP IMO is a 9.01(c) application

Why!

Suppose F2 asks the PU to appeal the check swing and the call of ball 4 now becomes a strike. If that's the case then INTENT goes "out the window"

Assuming a "clean catch" by F2 you do not need INTENT to call BI.

As Rich says B1 does not have to say may I but he also has to be aware if there is another possible play.

Here's a little twist.

Let's say we have R2 ONLY. R2 is stealing and B1 receives ball 4 and as F2 is friing to third he walks right in front of F2.

For the most part there is no "time limit" for B1 to get to first base. He is entitled to it but he cannot interfere with another play. Therefore, if there is a play at third, he could either wait a beat or simply walk around F2 on route to first base.

If there is no check swing involved and B1 receives ball 4 I agree B1 needs to do something blatant in order to be called for interference.

While not Specifically mentioned in the book perhaps this OP is a good case to rule a delayed "weak interference" meaning if the check swing ball call is not reversed we have R1 / R2.

Should the ball sail over F4/F6's head then R2 now R3 is returned to second base.

As mentioned there is nothing specific on this. Also, it's probably not third world either.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]It's not 9.01(c). There are rules specifically written to deal with interference by a runner. Interference requires INTENT in this situation. You can't use 9.01(c) cause you dislike the rule or think it's unfair.

If the pitch is called a strike on appeal, then the batter is still the batter and you can have interference without intent. It may not be "fair," but it is what it is.

Just a hint for those overusers of 9.01c...

If you're using this as your basis for a ruling, and something TRULY unforseeable by the rulesmakers didn't occur (think - an airplane or parachutist just landed on your field ... a fence blew off it's hinges and hit a fielder or runner, etc., an earthquake started during a play...), then you are misusing the rule.

9.01c is to cover the unforseeable.

If you think that a batter getting hit by a throw after drawing a walk is unforseeable, then you have bigger problems than we can fix here.

mbyron,

I thought he meant the same thing until I read it a few times. DG actually was saying something like this:

"After ball four if you call INT, then it becomes a dead ball at that point and the runner cannot advance, so you nip it in the bud."

I don't believe that he meant ball four is a dead ball.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=RichMSN]This has nothing to do with Fair / Unfair.

The OP is NOT covered in the rules.

Interference is Not OBS. When the batter became a runner Interference is not "delayed" as in BI. Runner interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball.

Therefore, at that EXACT moment say 3-1 check swing called a ball, you rule nothing and F2 sails one over F4's head because in your judgement B1 did not INTENTIONALLY interfere.

Now the pitch is called a strike by U1 so now you do not need INTENT to rule BI so what are you going to do now, Retroactively enforce the interference ,since B1 was not a batter turned runner but still a batter when U1 gave the strike signal.

I am not 'copping out" on 9.01(c) here but there is no "authoriative opinion" that I know of on this EXACT play. Perhaps Garth can post when he gets a response from major league baseball or as with many of these types of OP's we can E-mail Rick and get his response.

Pete Booth

I did not check with MLB, I asked current and former working professional umpires who would be the ones to make a call.

So far they all agreed that in the originally posted situation they would not rule interference at the professional level.

i feel left out, garth. i'm with them, though.

Probably because they've read MLBUM 6.10: "If the batter becomes a runner on ball four and the catcher's throw strikes him or his bat, the ball remains alive and in play (provided no intentional interference by the batter-runner)."

(Or, maybe that's not the OP -- I've forgotten by now)

thank you mr Mbcrowder.

mr Booth why are you still stuck on it being BI if its Ball 4? hes a BATTERRUNNER. BI rules dont apply, and INTENT comes into play.

if the checkswing is a strike, hes either STILL a batter, or hes OUT ON STRIKES. thats a different set of INT rules, and NO INTENT comes into play.

9.01c? thats a crock, sorry

That is your interpretation. The only "evidence" to back anything up at this point is Bob Jenkins reference to the comment at the end of 6.10 in the MLBUM

In the original OP (assuming no check swing) I have no problem with a No interference call (assuming no intent)

However, IMO, "the jury is still out" on whether or not R2 will be allowed to advance to third base should F2 sail one over F4/F6's head as a result of the interference.

I think at least from the strict wording of the OP is this:

B1 Interfered.

Since B1 now became a runner we need intent

However what do we do if R2 advances past his forced to base as a result of the interference? Can we rule "weak interference" However, there is no authoritative opinion on this type of play.

We also "added a wrinkle" B1 checked his swing and U1 called it a strike so now the batter is no longer a batter turned runner so can we "retroactively" enforce the interference rule.

You seem to think this is "cut and dry"

IMO, it's not cut and dry, hence 9.01(c) until we receive an "official response" from a known authoritative source. The last time I checked your name was not one of those.

Pete Booth

I think some people stated this on page one of this sitch and were struck down with great vengence and furious anger...

The jury cannot still be out. Either the act, AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED, is interference, or it is not interference. It cannot BECOME interference after we learn that the throw ends up being uncorked into CF. If it was not interference, play on. If it was, the play was dead long before the ball was thrown. You CAN NOT let what happens to the ball come into your thinking at all.

I don't get trying to use 9.01c at all here. It is VERY CLEAR that this runner, at the time of his actions, was a runner. Period. Runners are not required to avoid throws, they are only required to not intentionally interfere with them. Period. If something else happens (check swing appeal) that makes this guy a batter, it doesn't retroactively change his status. It's his status at the moment of his action that matters.

PS - Bob's caseplay seems RIGHT up the alley on this one. Not sure why you would not apply that ruling to this play even though it's not EXACTLY the same. The rule is exactly the same, as is the intent of the rulesmakers.

I must have missed the great vengeance and furious anger part...:rolleyes:

I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd...

R1, less than 2 outs. ground ball to F3 who fields, and tries to throw R1 out at 2B. R1, being the sly cat that he is, is running on the grass so as to be in the way of the throw coming from F3. F3 fires toward 2B, but his throw is hindered by R1 when it strikes him in the helmet. the ball then rolls out into the outfield and R1 continues on his merry way to 3B.

the moral of the story? the ball was unintentionally interfered with by a RUNNER, and remained live. this situation, albeit different than the OP, relates quite well with the bold section of the above post.

the batter had completed his time at bat and is now a runner. the runner interfered unintentionally. the ball remains alive. the jury is dismissed.

BTW, wtf is weak interference?

Pete,

You're wrong. Claim 9.01(c) all you want, but if there's no interference, it means the ball is alive and in play. Period.

--Rich

It seems to be popular thought by some that a runner (batter who has walked) can bump a fielder making a throw (catcher) causing the throw to be wild and thus allowing another runner to advance a base beyond where he would have and nothing is called. In other words, it's not interference to interfere with a fielder. One might argue there is no play, but if the stealer slides past or off the bag there is, and the catcher shouldn't have to pause for the umpire's call before deciding to play on a stealing runner.

It seems to me that the runner should not be allowed to advance but simply take 2B on the walk of the batter.

Is this just a thought, or the way you believe things to be?

Sentence seems clear to me.

Excellent response. Well thought out and obviously intended to assist others in deciding how much value to place on your opinion.

Well done.

Somebody (maybe Roder) calls backswing interference "weak" interference (possibly because the penalty is weak).

since you brought it back up, i'll chime in again. one of the two guys you talked to had it right, the other was wrong. catchers in the game know that on a ball 4 situation they are at risk of throwing it away. almost every time the situation arises they will ask for a "quick one" from you before the pitch, meaning they would like you to let them know as soon as you can what the pitch is so they can hold up if they have to.

after reading this again i have more to add. anything seem fishy about what the guy said he would do (bold above)? he's makng **** up. IF there was interference, SOMEBODY would be OUT.