batters interference/interference by teammate
 

1.
R3, 1-1 count, 0 outs, wild pitch.
R3 takes off for home. the catcher quickley gets to the backstop, picks up the ball and fires to homeplate. the batter is standing at homeplate and signals the runner to get down and gets hit by the throw (unintentionally) which prevents the pitcher from making the play at R3. i called R3 out due to the batters interference. but was it really interference ? i ruled that the batter could have easily avoided by beeing hit by the throw.

what if the batter and pitcher made contact (unintentionally) during the throw ? interference ?
what if the batter and pitcher made contact (unintentionally) without a play ? (catcher was still chasing the ball)

2.
R1, 1-1 count, 0 outs, wild pitch.
R1 takes off for 2ndbase. the catcher, a very fast guy, runs to the backstop, picks the ball up, and fires to 2ndbase, but the batter interferes with the throw (standing at homeplate, could easily avoid the throw).
who's out ?
batter interfered, the throw did not retire the runner immediately : Batter out, R1 back to 1B ?
or
the batter is treated as an offensive teammate and so R1 is out ?

1. This play is HTBT: I would have to see where the batter was and what he was doing to rule on interference. As described, it SOUNDS like interference, in which case (a) with less than 2 outs as in your situation, R3 out, other runners return, or (b) with 2 outs, batter is out. The batter must get out of the way, which means getting away from the plate.

If the batter is in the way and there's a play, that's probably interference. If there's no play, what would the batter have interfered with?

2. Again, this is HTBT, since I'd need to see what the batter did. If he got out of the way and the throw still hit him, that's probably not interference; if he moved INTO the way and the throw hit him, that would probably be interference. If you rule interference on the batter, he's out and runners return.

2. If the ball is at the backstop there is generally no play on R1 going to 2b, and there is no play at the plate, so why would we rule INT on the batter getting hit by a thrown ball from the catcher from the backstop? This throw was not to 2B, it's too low to make it. Sounds like a terrible throw. If we start calling INT on this I can see a lot of batters getting targeted by catchers who have no chance at a play. We would be rewarding the defense for two bad throws, one from the pitcher and one from the catcher.

Rec.
 

Believe it or not, I've seen kids thrown out from the backstop. The situation is all very real in my mind and if the catcher's throw has an opportunity to make the play but instead hits the batter who just stood in the way, I'm calling R3 out and moving on. Poor coaching or inattention to this issue results in batter's interference on occasion but it's seldom called.

I have too, on LL fields with the backstop 20' away and runners who can't lead off. I can see a throw having a chance from that distance.

I was thinking of a 90 foot field with the backstop significantly farther away and runners who lead off. A throw from a backstop that is 40-60 feet away (or more on some fields) that hits a batter is a bad throw with no chance of retiring a runner.

1) Sounds like INT to me. Batter needs to vacate on a play at home plate.

2) Sounds like nothing to me. When the catcher is throwing, the batter has a right to his position in the box. As long as he didn't do anything, I have nothing.

what i wanted to know is, if the batter really interferes with a throw from the backstop, is he interfering as a batter or as an offensive teammate ? if he interferes as a batter, he would be called out, as an offensive teammate, the runner would be called out.

this is from J/R :

Examples of "offensive teammates" include:
(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).

so in this case, R1 should be called out.

I remember that from J/R, but I'm ambivalent about the call. The reason is that the batter is still the batter: he's up there for a specific reason, even though his opportunity to hit the pitch has passed. Moreover, unlike an "offensive teammate," the batter CAN be called out.

That's why the batter has some protections against being called for INT that a teammate lacks: we say, he has a "right" to be there, etc., and a teammate must always stay out of the way.

This is not garden-variety batter interference, but I still think that's the issue, not interference by a teammate. On a passed ball, the batter has an opportunity to get out of the way, and must do so or risk being called for INT.