Is it interference?
 

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......

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.

Ok,
 

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.

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.

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

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

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".

INT. Batter is out, return the runners.

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.

I agree with this analysis.

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.

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

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

How about this scenrio? Bases loaded with same situation but F2's throw to 3rd hit B1's bat and deflects into dugout. How many runners score? This actually happened in a game.

If it's INT, none. If not, 2.

if the hitter is doing his job, you can't penalize him for the ball accidentally hitting his bat. dash riprock is correct.

I read the interps toward the bottom on page 1...there are some good points, but with this type of sitch, it's probably best to see the play in a video clip or something...just because the batter leaves the box...we can't be that black and white and say that because a ball hits him, we have INT...

It could be...but it might be nothing...the discussion now is important because we'll see this stuff and we need to be prepared by knowing the rules and the what we'd do if...

You left out a key ingredient. Day or night game.........:D

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

"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?

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

Turf, grass, or skin?

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

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"

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.

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

Hi Richard

From the OP

Quote:

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

oh Welpe...:D you know what I meant

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.

"It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".

Must be from all that brotherly love.

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.

[QUOTE]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

[quote=PeteBooth]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.

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!

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.

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:

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):

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)

Or you pressure him onto moving into the path causing interference. Baby ball, yeah, I can see this, anything other, let them play.

It makes sense that you remember thinking that the umpire had not done anything wrong. That umpire might saved you from causing interference. That umpire was lucky. What would you manager have said if the umpire accidentally shovle you in front of the guy trying to score and gave the catcher a better oppotunity tag him out?

Like many minor mistakes that umpires often make on the field, we get away with it 99% of the time. It is that "once a season" situation that can bight you in the ***.

Another example is the umpire punches out strike three by turning to the side. Clinic everywhere teach that we should keep our eyes forward, because of that "once a season" chance we will miss a play that might immediatle follow the strike out. Many umpires turn to the side for years and nothing happens, then when it does they wonder how they missed it.