Is it interference?

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

As for the 2nd sitch...what a crazy scenario...would calling "nothing" have been okay here? Honestly, I'm not saying I would've gotten it right last year...but because you typed it on here...I'm now running through the scenario in my mind so I get it right if it happens this year. 6.02(b) could be applied here...but maybe not. You might have nothing on this type of play.

It appears greymule got away with a "do over" on this call but I doubt that works very often.
I think you have to commit one way or the other if you're confronted with this.
You've got a live ball thrown into DBT. I'm partial to outs over awards so I say BI because I'm certainly not good enough to sell "do over"

Originally Posted by Richard_Siegel

Batter's Interference comes in two flavors.

1) BI where the batter interferes with F2 throwing to a base to retire a runner.

2) BI where the batter fails to vacate the area near HP when a runner is advancing to HP and the batter interferes with the defense making a play at HP and the batter.

In case #1, as long as the batter remains within the batter's box and makes to intentional movement to hinder the catcher's throw to the base, he is not guilty of interference should the catcher's throw accidentally hit him. The batter cannot be expected to evaporate nor is he expected to freeze. Should the batter choose to step out of the batter's box (even if his intentions are good, i.e. to get out to the catcher's way) should the catcher's throw accidentally hit him (while out of the batter's box) then it is going to be INT and the batter's intent to interfere is irrelevant. The batter had the "protection" of staying in the batter's box, but he chose to leave the batter's box.

The situation in your post is case #1. Even if the catcher did not catch the pitch cleanly and he has to go chase the ball, if the batter steps out of the box, the batter has a duty to stay out of his way to let him throw to a base. If the batter remained in the batter's box and was hit by the throw it would be nothing. However, the batter chose to step out of the batter's box and was hit by the throw. For this reason this is interference and it need not be intentional.

I'm going to disagree strongly on this one. You do not penalize the offensive team for a defensive team error, UNLESS the act was intentional. Who's to say that we presuppose that the catcher was intending to throw to third base? Do you know that for a fact, or are you just assuming? Thinking a play was going to be made at HP and vacating the area, the batter in no way can be called for interference on a thrown ball in this situation.

[mick]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Quote:

INT. Batter is out, return the runners.

After having read the rest of your posts, I now understand what you meant to say.

[PeteBooth]

Hi Richard

From the OP

The pitch is a passed ball

The aforementioned is the KEY phrase in the OP

A batter after a pitch has gone passed F2 is treated as an "offensive teammate" and therefore, rule 6 OBR and rule 7 FED DO NOT APPLY.

OBR rules 7.09e and 7.11 apply ( Reference JR Section VI Interference by an Offensive Teammate) For FED rule 8-4-2g

Therefore, in the OP B1 (now considered an offensive teammate because the ball got passed F2) must do something Blatant in order to be called out.

Therefore, if you as the PU judged B1's action to be INTENTIONAL (Blatant in Nature) then you rule Interference. If not (which is the way I interpret the OP) then play on.

Pete Booth

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Is "league" a new synonym for "playing surface"? When did this change occur?

oh Welpe... you know what I meant

[greymule]

1. Intent is not necessary for BI, so telling F2 that the batter did not intentionally interfere doesn't answer his question. If the batter does something that interferes with the throw (and from your sitch it sounds as if he did), then we've got BI. Especially if he has stepped out over the plate (which is unclear from your account).

Yes, you're right about intent, and I meant to write that the batter did not actively interfere. He simply reacted to what was going on around him. It was an odd play. The batter lost a bit of his balance as he flinched at the inside pitch, and F2, already on the inside, shot up so quickly right next to him. But the batter never left the box or leaned out of it. In fact, I'm more suspicious of the second action of the batter—the bat-lifting flinch in response to F2's second pump—as possible INT. I know it's a HTBT, and I'm willing to admit that I might well have blown it.

So many of these kinds of plays are not cut and dried.

It appears greymule got away with a "do over" on this call but I doubt that works very often. I think you have to commit one way or the other if you're confronted with this.

I agree that by rule it has to be one or the other, so I guess I did get away with a "do over." The problem was that the play simply didn't seem to fit INT, and yet it also wasn't fair to penalize F2 (or, conversely, to reward the batter for being out of the box). If the runner had been stealing on the pitch and then the batter stepped back and got hit by F2's throw, then obviously it's BI. And if the timing had been more immediate, I'd also have gone with BI. But it was "ball 3" . . . click . . . batter steps backward . . . click . . . F2 suddenly throws. The play developed after the pitch, not as usual during the pitch. I think also that if F2's throw had had a chance to get the runner, I'd have been more inclined to call BI, but it was more a throw to keep the runner honest.

The plays I cited were both under OBR rules, incidentally.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by MichaelVA2000

Another key ingredient..............was it sunny or overcast

"It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

"It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".

Must be from all that brotherly love.

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Hi Richard

From the OP



The aforementioned is the KEY phrase in the OP

A batter after a pitch has gone passed F2 is treated as an "offensive teammate" and therefore, rule 6 OBR and rule 7 FED DO NOT APPLY.

OBR rules 7.09e and 7.11 apply ( Reference JR Section VI Interference by an Offensive Teammate) For FED rule 8-4-2g

Therefore, in the OP B1 (now considered an offensive teammate because the ball got passed F2) must do something Blatant in order to be called out.

Therefore, if you as the PU judged B1's action to be INTENTIONAL (Blatant in Nature) then you rule Interference. If not (which is the way I interpret the OP) then play on.

Pete Booth

Even by this rule interpretation, that I do not completely agree with, I would still rule INT if the batter was hit by F2's throw while out of the batter's box. You say that the PU must judge "B1's action to be INTENTIONAL." Well the way I see it, the batter INTENTIONALLY stepped out of the batter's box when he did not have to. Hence, it is INT.

You are equating the situation to the on-deck batter or a base coach, offensive teammates, interfering with F2's throw. The the on-deck batter or a base coach are authorized to be where they are and if they are accidentally hit by F2's throw it probably would not be INT unless there was an INTENTIONAL act that was blatant in nature. The batter, however, is expected to stay in the batter's box. If he intentionally steps out of it (although he might do it to try and get in the catcher's way) if he ends up interferring nonetheless, it is INT.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Richard_Siegel

Even by this rule interpretation, that I do not completely agree with, I would still rule INT if the batter was hit by F2's throw while out of the batter's box. You say that the PU must judge "B1's action to be INTENTIONAL." Well the way I see it, the batter INTENTIONALLY stepped out of the batter's box when he did not have to. Hence, it is INT.

Here is the OP, however, I have changed the runners for ease of interpretation.

R2 on second and R3 on third.

Catcher F2 chases the ball to the screen as pitcher F1 runs to cover home.

to avoid interfering on the play. However, instead of throwing home, F2 throws to 3rd and the ball hits B1.

1. We have a passed ball so according to the authorities, B1 is now treated as an offensive teammate.

2. R2 is advancing to 3rd and R3 is advancing Home. With a potential play at the plate what is B1 supposed to do?

Answer: vacate any space needed in order for the defense to make a play. B1 did that, He vacated the plate area. The batter's box is not a Safe haven when we have R3 trying to score.

In Conclusion we need intent on the part of B1 to rule interference in the play presented. The defense is the one who screwed up. F2 did not handle the pitch cleanly. Why bail them out.

Pete Booth

[Richard_Siegel]

[quote=PeteBooth]

Here is the OP, however, I have changed the runners for ease of interpretation.



1. We have a passed ball so according to the authorities, B1 is now treated as an offensive teammate.

2. R2 is advancing to 3rd and R3 is advancing Home. With a potential play at the plate what is B1 supposed to do?

Answer: vacate any space needed in order for the defense to make a play. B1 did that, He vacated the plate area. The batter's box is not a Safe haven when we have R3 trying to score.

In Conclusion we need intent on the part of B1 to rule interference in the play presented. The defense is the one who screwed up. F2 did not handle the pitch cleanly. Why bail them out.

Pete Booth

F2 would not be throwing to 3B if R3 was advancing to HP. F2 was throwing to 3B because R3 was still advancing to THIRD. Hence, at the time of F2's throw, B1 was under no requirement to vacate the area near HP at that moment.

"The batter's box is not a Safe haven when we have R3 trying to score."

Correct! But at the time of F2's throw nobody was trying to score.

[ncump7]

Do you guys tell the batter to move or just hope he does? I usually say "out of the way, batter" and say it again louder if he does't move. Most of the time he is in my way when I am trying to move to make a call. I'm thinking if he doesn't move, he has opened himself up to a possible interference call.

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by ncump7

Do you guys tell the batter to move or just hope he does? I usually say "out of the way, batter" and say it again louder if he does't move. Most of the time he is in my way when I am trying to move to make a call. I'm thinking if he doesn't move, he has opened himself up to a possible interference call.

VERY BAD IDEA!

This is coaching! Your job is to see what the players do and rule on their actions. We do not TELL them how to play!

I realize you do this with good intentions. The road to hell is paved with them! But think of it....how is what you are doing any different than telling an advancing runner, "Hey, you missed the base! go back and touch it before you go to the next base!" Or how about, shouting to the shortstop on a ground ball, "Go for two! Get the double play!" We do not help the players to make the right decisions.

Batter's are expected to know what they are supposed to do to avoid interferring. It is not our job to educate them.

Suppose a runner was stealing home and the batter was not quite in the runner's way, but was not moving. The runner could legally get by B1 and score, and the catcher could legally R3 tag too. However, suppose you shout, "batter move!" Now the batter is suddenly surprised and confused and he darts foward and blocks the runner who gets tagged out. Now his coach will complain to you that R3 would have scored, except YOU told him to move and he got in front of the runner!

Or, worse. The catcher gets the ball and has a clear shot at the approaching runner. You shout, "batter move!" The batter is suddenly surprised and confused and he darts foward and blocks the catcher's tag attempt. Now you have to call interference on the batter, where there might not have been any interference had you not ordered the batter to move!

No good deed goes unpunished!

[greymule]

In a semipro game in 1969, the plate ump shoved me pretty hard back toward the 3B dugout, saying, "You gotta get outta here!" as a double steal was developing. (The runner was put out at home on the throw from F6.)

I didn't think much of the shove, since I was worried that I had missed a sign (but I had not). I wish I could remember the exact circumstances, since I knew to get out of the way without being shoved. However, I do remember not thinking that the ump had done anything wrong.

[UmpJM]

Richard,

I find PeteBooth's point well-taken - when the ball gets past the catcher and goes to the backstop, Rule 6.06(c) DOES NOT APPLY. 6.06(c) governs the situation where the catcher cleanly fields the pitch (or, I would argue, at least blocks it to the extent that it remains within a "step and a reach").

In the J/R manual, under the discussion of Batter Interference, he refers the reader to the section covering "Interference by an Offensive Teammate" in the case where a "...pitch goes past the catcher" in order to determine the player's allowed actions and the penalty should he fail to meet his obligations.

In that section, the first example given is:

(a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an "offensive teammate in a determination of whether interference has occurred).

This J/R interp makes perfect sense to me: it protects the batter's opportunity to offer at the pitch as well as the catcher's opportunity to make an unhindered play when he remains in the proximity of the batter. Once the catcher fails to control the pitch, 6.06(c) no longer applies, and the benefit goes to the offense. In order to call interference in that sitch, the umpire must judge that the player intentionally interfered - or, regardless of his actual intent, did not make a reasonable effort to get out of the way of the defense's legitimate attempt to make a play.

The notion that 6.06(c) does not apply when the catcher does not control the pitch is further reinforced by the following case play from JEA under the discussion of 7.09(d):

No outs. Runner on third. The runner attempts to score on a passed ball. The pitcher covers the plate as the catcher fires the ball to him. The batter who is still standing in the right-handed batter's box is struck with the throw thus
preventing the pitcher from making the play. Is this interference?

RULING: With less than 2 outs, the runner is out for the batter's interference. In this case, his remaining in the box did interfere with the play. ...

Now in the play being discussed, at the TOP there was a runner on 3B and a runner on 2B. I'm not sure why you think the runner on 3B was NOT advancing to home, but I'm pretty sure ljdave is suggesting that he did. However, much to everyone's surprise, the catcher chose to play on the runner advancing from 2B to 3B rather than the runner trying to score. The batter had cleared the plate area in anticipation of the play at the plate, as he should have.


I would also take issue with your assertion that on a true 6.06(c) situation, the batter who remains in the batter's box is absolved of liability for BI unless he does something "Intentional" to hinder the defense. While I would agree that if he does something intentional it IS properly ruled BI, he might do something INTENDED to get out of the way (e.g. move from the "back" to the "front" of the batter's box, intending to clear a throwing lane) - but if he ends up interfering, he is, by rule, guilty of BI. The rules say "unusual", not "intentional" - and I believe that's what they mean.

JM

(edited to correct typos)