Is it interference?

[greymule]

Darned if I didn't have two such plays last year:

1. Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, 1 out. Batter (the pitcher) fouls off two bunt attempts on outside pitches. On the next pitch, the batter crowds the plate as he squares to try a 2-strike bunt, and Abel is off on the pitch. F1 smokes the inside corner for strike 3 and the batter gets off balance as he flinches on the close pitch. F2, standing practically up against the batter, pumps once with the batter in the way, causing the batter to flinch again and reflexively raise his hands (bat in left hand) about shoulder high. Now F2 throws to 3B too late, and the ball ticks the bat (without any perceptible deflection). Safe at 3B.

F2 asks me whether that should have been INT on the batter. I said no, since the batter didn't intentionally interfere. I admit, though, that because the batter's flinch caused his hands to rise, I've run that play through my mind many times since.

2. In another strange one, with Abel on 3B and 0 outs, the RH batter took ball 3 outside and then stepped backwards out of the box to adjust his grip on the bat. I'm expecting F2 to throw the ball back to the pitcher, but instead he suddenly tries a snap throw to 3B to pick off Abel. The ball hits the batter's helmet and caroms into the stands.

Abel ran home, but I sent him back and let play resume. I know that it has to be either interference on the batter (steps out the box and interferes with a play) or simply a ball thrown into DBT. However, I figured that since the throw came after the batter stepped out—later than the usual timing we think of for such a play—I couldn't call the batter out. I also couldn't award Abel home, since the batter shouldn't have been out of the box. The offensive coach asked about the ruling but to my surprise accepted my explanation. Again, I've ruminated over that play ever since.

[mbyron]

OK, well:

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).

2. An excellent reason to enforce 6.02(d).

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK, well:

2. An excellent reason to enforce 6.02(d).

Doesn't that depend upon which league this situation takes place?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Doesn't that depend upon which league this situation takes place?

Turf, grass, or skin?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Turf, grass, or skin?

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

[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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by greymule

Darned if I didn't have two such plays last year:

1. Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, 1 out. Batter (the pitcher) fouls off two bunt attempts on outside pitches. On the next pitch, the batter crowds the plate as he squares to try a 2-strike bunt, and Abel is off on the pitch. F1 smokes the inside corner for strike 3 and the batter gets off balance as he flinches on the close pitch. F2, standing practically up against the batter, pumps once with the batter in the way, causing the batter to flinch again and reflexively raise his hands (bat in left hand) about shoulder high. Now F2 throws to 3B too late, and the ball ticks the bat (without any perceptible deflection). Safe at 3B.

F2 asks me whether that should have been INT on the batter. I said no, since the batter didn't intentionally interfere. I admit, though, that because the batter's flinch caused his hands to rise, I've run that play through my mind many times since.

2. In another strange one, with Abel on 3B and 0 outs, the RH batter took ball 3 outside and then stepped backwards out of the box to adjust his grip on the bat. I'm expecting F2 to throw the ball back to the pitcher, but instead he suddenly tries a snap throw to 3B to pick off Abel. The ball hits the batter's helmet and caroms into the stands.

Abel ran home, but I sent him back and let play resume. I know that it has to be either interference on the batter (steps out the box and interferes with a play) or simply a ball thrown into DBT. However, I figured that since the throw came after the batter stepped out—later than the usual timing we think of for such a play—I couldn't call the batter out. I also couldn't award Abel home, since the batter shouldn't have been out of the box. The offensive coach asked about the ruling but to my surprise accepted my explanation. Again, I've ruminated over that play ever since.

Wow, two crazy things in a year...I think INT is a pretty obvious call here...intent is a common myth w/ regard to BI or no BI...

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.

[johnnyg08]

I worked BU last year when my PU called BI on a steal of 3rd, a snap throw by F2 that hit his bat while in the box. We talked about it afterward and I just couldn't bring myself to calling BI on that sitch w/o a willful and deliberate act by the batter. He stuck to his call though.

[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"

[btdt]

"2. In another strange one, with Abel on 3B and 0 outs, the RH batter took ball 3 outside and then stepped backwards out of the box to adjust his grip on the bat. I'm expecting F2 to throw the ball back to the pitcher, but instead he suddenly tries a snap throw to 3B to pick off Abel. The ball hits the batter's helmet and caroms into the stands."


If this was NFHS shouldn't you have considered the batter shouldn't have been at that location because the speed up rule does not allow the batter to step out of the box in this situation.

Batter wasn't supposed to be there ...... interference?

[johnnyg08]

very true...there would be no argument there. Does FED still have the "one foot in the box" rule?