Is it interference?

[ljdave]

R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd. The pitch is a passed ball. Catcher F2 chases the ball to the screen as pitcher F1 runs to cover home. Right-handed B1 appropriately takes a few steps backward to avoid interfering on the play. However, instead of throwing home, F2 throws to 3rd and the ball hits B1. (1) Did he interfere? If so, what is the penalty? (2) Is this dead ball, delayed dead ball, or live? I have no idea on this so I'm interested in your responses. Thank you......

[johnnyg08]

Live ball, play on. If in your judgement, the batter was "doing his job" you can't penalize the offense. Not to mention, you can't bail out the battery for the passed ball. That's my call...w/o seeing a video clip. You have to judge the intent of the batter in a sitch like this. The batter would have to do something pretty intentional to get called for INT here.

[Tim C]

Please understand that NO ONE says R1 on 3rd,

No ONE accepts the NFHS terms.

If you "get this" many willl answer your question.

Regards,

[MadCityRef]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Please understand that NO ONE says R1 on 3rd,

No ONE accepts the NFHS terms.

If you "get this" many willl answer your question.

Regards,

The over/under is 25 years before NF gets in line with every other publication.

Play on.

[dash_riprock]

lj - change it to R3,R2 and we'll all know where the runners are. And under the FED way of describing the play, it would have to be B3 (or higher), not B1. (See how silly it is?)

It's not a play at the plate. INT on a thrown ball must be intentional. Live ball.

[mick]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

It's not a play at the plate. INT on a thrown ball must be intentional. Live ball.

What if a batter loses balance and stumbles into the catcher's throw to a base?

[johnnyg08]

we'd have to see it Mick. Still might be nothing...

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

It's not a play at the plate. INT on a thrown ball must be intentional. Live ball.

One hundred people surveyed and you said INT on a thrown ball must intentional. Live ball.

Show us INT on a thrown ball must be intentional. Live ball.

Ding! Survey says, "one".

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mick

What if a batter loses balance and stumbles into the catcher's throw to a base?

INT. Batter is out, return the runners.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

One hundred people surveyed and you said INT on a thrown ball must intentional. Live ball.

Show us INT on a thrown ball must be intentional. Live ball.

Ding! Survey says, "one".

I will try to keep this a meaningful discussion on a rules interpretation.

Here's my view:

Batter's interference occurs when the batter interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing at home plate. In this case, F2 has chased a ball that has gone back to the screen, and the batter is still at or near the plate. The batter has been hit with a thrown ball, but he has not interfered with the catcher's action or play at home plate. I can't find a rule in any code covering the batter interfering with a thrown BALL, so I will get guidance from the rule covering a runner interfering with a thrown BALL, i.e., any interference must be intentional (all codes). That is why I have no INT and a live ball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

lj - change it to R3,R2 and we'll all know where the runners are. And under the FED way of describing the play, it would have to be B3 (or higher), not B1. (See how silly it is?)

It's not a play at the plate. INT on a thrown ball must be intentional. Live ball.

I agree with this analysis.

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by ljdave

R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd. The pitch is a passed ball. Catcher F2 chases the ball to the screen as pitcher F1 runs to cover home. Right-handed B1 appropriately takes a few steps backward to avoid interfering on the play. However, instead of throwing home, F2 throws to 3rd and the ball hits B1. (1) Did he interfere? If so, what is the penalty? (2) Is this dead ball, delayed dead ball, or live? I have no idea on this so I'm interested in your responses. Thank you......

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.

In case #2, the batter must make an effort to get out of the way of any play the defense may attempt on a runner advancing to HP, if he has the OPPORTUNITY to do so. The batter always has the right to attempt to hit the ball. On a squeeze play, for instance, the runner might arrive at HP at the same moment the pitch has reached HP. The batter may stay there to offer at the pitch and he is not guilty of BI if his presence gets in the catcher's way and as long as the umpire judges that B4 had no opportunity to move away after the pitch arrived. However, after the pitch has gone by, or the pitch has been hit/bunted and put into play, the batter must make a good effort to vacate the area, or at least adjust his position to clear the plate area (even a little bit) or then it could be interference.

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.

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Originally Posted by dash_riprock
INT on a thrown ball must be intentional. Live ball.

I agree with this analysis.

INT on a thrown ball must be intentional BY A RUNNER. This is a batter at HP, it is a different situation.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Richard_Siegel

INT on a thrown ball must be intentional BY A RUNNER. This is a batter at HP, it is a different situation.

See post #10

[David B]

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.

In case #2, the batter must make an effort to get out of the way of any play the defense may attempt on a runner advancing to HP, if he has the OPPORTUNITY to do so. The batter always has the right to attempt to hit the ball. On a squeeze play, for instance, the runner might arrive at HP at the same moment the pitch has reached HP. The batter may stay there to offer at the pitch and he is not guilty of BI if his presence gets in the catcher's way and as long as the umpire judges that B4 had no opportunity to move away after the pitch arrived. However, after the pitch has gone by, or the pitch has been hit/bunted and put into play, the batter must make a good effort to vacate the area, or at least adjust his position to clear the plate area (even a little bit) or then it could be interference.

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 see your point, but I still don't see this as interference without some type of intent from the batter. Since the ball is passed the F2, I don't think the rules apply as far as the batter having to stay in the batter's box.

Every batter is taught to clear the box on a passed ball to keep from interfering with an attempt at home. If the F2 is dumb enough to try and make a play at 3rd base, I'm not necessarily going to bail him out because of a bad throw.

What is the batter sees F2 making the throw and tries to duck to avoid and it still hits him? I see this as a bad decision by F2 and a bad throw.

thanks
David