Runner Question

[jdmara]

I've seen this happen once as well. Any intelligent batter would swing/attempt to bunt the pitch if the catcher steps in front of the plate on a squeeze/steal. It doesn't happen very often though. I have seen a pitcher step off the rubber and throw home (as a fielder) and the batter hit the throw thinking it was a pitch. Gotta love baseball.

-Josh

[Rufus]

Thanks for the quick replies, I do appreciate them. At the risk of being too troublesome would you also take a look at the added question to the OP? I think, in researching prior posts, the answer is that the batter, whether or not they make contact, has an obligation to move out of the way (i.e., out of the batter's box and away from any current/potential play) but would appreciate confirmation.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Thanks for the quick replies, I do appreciate them. At the risk of being too troublesome would you also take a look at the added question to the OP? I think, in researching prior posts, the answer is that the batter, whether or not they make contact, has an obligation to move out of the way (i.e., out of the batter's box and away from any current/potential play) but would appreciate confirmation.

Like JM said, by definition and practice, the batter is going to square around on a squeeze so it is pretty easy to call it when the catcher interferes with the batter's opportunity at that point.

Re your second question, it is my understanding the batter is protected as long as he remains in the box and doesn't INTENTIONALLY do anything to interfere with the play. You see this on steals to 3rd and a RH batter all the time. But, if the batter does have time to get out of the way on a play, like on a passed ball, then he should.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Re your second question, it is my understanding the batter is protected as long as he remains in the box and doesn't INTENTIONALLY do anything to interfere with the play. .

The actual rule:

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when-

(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

____________

Notice the lack of the word "intentional."

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

The actual rule:

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when-

(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

____________

Notice the lack of the word "intentional."

Keep in mind that we don't want the catcher just plunking the batter to get an interference call.

MLBUM 6.10

If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, interference shall be called on the batter under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c). (See Section 6.8.)

However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive and in play.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Keep in mind that we don't want the catcher just plunking the batter to get an interference call.

MLBUM 6.10

If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, interference shall be called on the batter under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c). (See Section 6.8.)

However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive and in play.

You are referring to a different situation in which the batter "is standing in the batter's box", while I, on the underhand, addressed the comment made by the previous poster: "as long as he remains in the box and doesn't INTENTIONALLY do anything to interfere."

The poster to whom I was addressing implied action by the batter, in which case, "intent" is not a factor.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

You are referring to a different situation in which the batter "is standing in the batter's box", while I, on the underhand, addressed the comment made by the previous poster: "as long as he remains in the box and doesn't INTENTIONALLY do anything to interfere."

The poster to whom I was addressing implied action by the batter, in which case, "intent" is not a factor.

You quoted 6.06(c) and said intent isn't mentioned.

I posted the MLBUM interpretation concerning 6.06(c) which says intent IS a factor.

And you claim it isn't relevant?