Another Interference?
 

I was talking to a fellow umpire the other day and he brought up an interference question that we disagreed on. His situation goes like this:

R3 with right handed B1 at the plate. After taking an inside pitch, B1 opens up and turns his body parallel with the third base line (like taking a sign in).
F2 attempts a pickoff of the R3 at 3rd base and hits B1 with the throw.

He insists on this being interference because he believes that B1 is "making any other movement that hinders the catchers's play at home base."

So, my question is, is this play interference? If so, what makes this interference? If not, why?

That's sort of like the play I had where the batter took one step backwards out of the box and got hit with a subsequent pickoff attempt by the catcher, where the play appeared to begin after the batter left the box.

In your post, I would say that if the runner from 3B has come far enough off so the play is developing on the pitch, it's INT, but if the play develops well after F2 has received the ball, it's not. Even then, did the batter in your OP stay in the box? If I'm the catcher, I'm sure not to hit the batter.

Sounds to me like this all occured in very rapid order, inside pitch with batter trying to avoid getting hit, catcher recieves pitch and attempts to fire down to 3b, hitting the batter. This is much the same as a batter swinging and missing a pitch while the catcher is trying to throw to 2nd. If the batter stays in the box and does nothing 'unusual' to hinder the catcher's play, then I have nothing.

If the Batter was still in the box, doesn't the catcher bear some responsibility in trying to avoid hitting him?

I'd say that he does. It's hard to say what the right call would be without seeing it transpire. I mean, by rule and interpretation you certainly could call BI, but the way this play is described I doubt that would be the right call. Evans appears to hold the batter to a pretty high standard to avoid INT though.


Professional Interpretation: The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference. A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled. When interference is called by the umpire and the catcher manages to throw despite the interference, the following enforcement guidelines should be used: If the catcher's first throw following the interference retires a runner, the interference is disregarded. If a rundown ensues, the ball shall be declared dead at that time and the interference penalty enforced. If the runner reaches the base to which he is advancing safely, time should be called and the interference penalty enforced. Even though the runner may be put out trying to advance beyond his acquired base, this out does not stand since the catcher's first throw did not retire the runner.


Tim.

I agree with Tim that this a "HTBT" situation.

Assuming that this was an "immediate" play (i.e. the catcher came up throwing immediately after controlling the pitch), if the batter's action in "opening up" towards 3B got in the way of F2's throwing lane, I'd bang him on the interference.

If, on the other hand, the Batter's action had no impact on the F2's throwing lane, live ball, play the bounce.

JM

I agree that this is a HTBT situation. It's very difficult to make these types of calls without actually seeing what actions and movements the batter made. A general rule of thumb in these cases is to ask yourself, " Was the batter where he was supposed to be and doing what he was supposed to be doing?"

If you can't answer yes to that question, you probably have a case for BI.

I have found that batters interference is a call that has to be made instantaneously and most of the time we fail to make it.
How many times have you found yourself thinking, "that was interference", @#$%, too late now.
Also it is a call that often takes some melons and the easy thing to do is over look it.
In my opinion true batters interference is over looked or "missed" far more than batters interference called incorrectly.
One time I called batters interference with r-3 stealing home, bottom of the last inning, two out and the home team down by 1. I still have no doubt that it was the correct call. The home team and spectators had a different opinion.

It is OK to get a judgment call wrong once in awhile. But it is embarrassing to get the rules wrong if you have been around awhile.

I agree. The turn by the batter qualifies as Evans's "other action" and, IF it interfered with the throw, I would call BI. Otherwise, "That's nothing!", play on.