INT after ball 4

[_Bruno_]

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 ?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

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.

[_Bruno_]

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

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

the question is :
can BR interfere on a throw to 2nd, where R1 is force to go to ?

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


Tim.

[_Bruno_]

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

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

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.

[mbyron]

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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?

[Dave Reed]

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.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

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

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

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

Tim.

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

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

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 ?

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.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

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?

Not if you have B INT not B-R INT

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.

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".

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

Oh, about 20 or 30 more things.

[David Emerling]

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.

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