Batter Interference - LL Rules

[J.D. Long]

Sorry - This series of plays during a little league game was relayed to me as Umpire in Chief. I did not actually witness the event.

Runner on third, no outs, first pitch is wild and goes to the screen on the left side of the field. Runner breaks for home, batter moves up the third base line. Catcher retrieves the ball and runs over the batter.

On review of the play between the umpires, the catcher ran out of his way to run into the batter. If he would have moved either toward home or the runner, he would not have come in contact with the batter. There was also discussion on if the catcher did this on purpose to cause interference.

The initial call was a "no call", run scored. But it was overturned when the manager of the defensive team used rule 6.06(c): A batter is out .... making any movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base".

My initial thought process would be:
1. Was there a legit play to be made at home if not it is not intereference and the run scores.
2. If the batter was in the way of the play and actually hindered the play, intereference.
3. If the catcher actually went out of his way to collide with the batter to get interference, then the call would be no interference, warning to the catcher, and possibly a warning to the manager if determined to be directed by the coaching staff.


Sorry for the length of the question.

[Marty Rogers]

The initial call was a "no call", run scored. But it was overturned when the manager of the defensive team used rule 6.06(c): A batter is out .... making any movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base".


First of all, managers do not overturn calls.
Umpires do (might). Managers may ASK for a
review of a rule to apply it properly.

This is a play where "you had to be there."
Although rule 6.06(c) can be invoked, it is
still a JUDGMENT call on the umpire's part.
It is his decision as to whether the batter
ACTUALLY interfered with the play or NOT.

After he makes his decision, it is final,
and not protestable (at least in my area)
since the ruling is his judgment.
Situations like this are why we get paid the
big bucks. Decide if he interfered or not,
don't let either manager brow beat you, and
then get on with the game.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by J.D. Long

Sorry - This series of plays during a little league game was relayed to me as Umpire in Chief. I did not actually witness the event.

Runner on third, no outs, first pitch is wild and goes to the screen on the left side of the field. Runner breaks for home, batter moves up the third base line. Catcher retrieves the ball and runs over the batter.

On review of the play between the umpires, the catcher ran out of his way to run into the batter. If he would have moved either toward home or the runner, he would not have come in contact with the batter. There was also discussion on if the catcher did this on purpose to cause interference.

The initial call was a "no call", run scored. But it was overturned when the manager of the defensive team used rule 6.06(c): A batter is out .... making any movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base".

My initial thought process would be:
1. Was there a legit play to be made at home if not it is not intereference and the run scores.
2. If the batter was in the way of the play and actually hindered the play, intereference.
3. If the catcher actually went out of his way to collide with the batter to get interference, then the call would be no interference, warning to the catcher, and possibly a warning to the manager if determined to be directed by the coaching staff.

I agree with Marty, managers do not over-turn calls umpires do. This isn't a democracy where we rule by committee.

As for the interference, it's a judgement call, however, this is wild pitch (not a clean catch by F2) so the defense erred. Yes, B1 has to vacate any space needed by F2 to make a play, however, on a wild pitch, ball bouncing all over the place, we can't expect B1 to do a pirouette either. Therefore, INTENT enters the picture as well.

As long as B1 is making movement to get out the way and you said F2 had other options sounds like a no call to me. However, as with most of these kinds of threads it involves judgement and an umpire should not allow a coach to over-turn a call, otherwise the game could get ugly on the next series of calls.

Pete Booth

6.06c is only valid if the ball was caught or was right in front of the F2. This allows him to stay the box on a quick throw. Once he has to chase it the batter has to clear. It would be a straight interference call. At that point it's umpire judgement if the batter indeed in the way or not.
If the catcher tried to draw an interference call the I have a run.
At this point there isn't much you can do about it. He used the wrong rule but got the right answer is he thinks it was BI.

[brandda]

I do not have a problem with a manager bringing up a rule which may be relevant to a situation for an umpire to consider in making a call (assuming of course that he brings it up in a civil manner and that his reference is correct). Sometimes, in the heat of battle so to speak, we can forget a little piece of minutiae which can have some bearing, and as long as the coach can provide a reference, I appreciate the help. My primary concern is to get the call right so I do not penalize the kids on the field. It is then up to me, however, to apply the role appropriately and determine what should/should not be done. So, while the coach can present evidence, he does not make the decision, kind of like a lawyer/judge relationship.

As to the play itself, it is totally judgement as to whether the batter's presence hindered the catcher's ability to make the play. If it did, interference and the runner is out because the batter is clearly obligated to get out of the box and out of the way of the play. I called a minors game last night where I brought this up in my post game conference with the teams as something they need to be careful of.

If on the other hand, the catcher goes out of his way to run into the batter to try and draw an interference call in lieu of trying to make the play on the runner, not only do you have no call, but, depending on the severity of the collision, I think you have to consider ejecting the catcher for unnecessary contact along with poor sportsmanship.

The hinge is was the catcher honestly trying to make a play on the runner or not. If yes, interference and the runner is out. If no, no call and a potential ejection.

What tangled webs we weave.

[jicecone]

Little League, Catcher deliberatly runs over the batter. Sounds more like the batters mother or coach's side of the story. Better yet I'm sure it was a media announcer who seen it that way.

Lets see if got this story right. Catcher misses ball, catchers retrieves ball. Batter has no idea whats happening and moves up the line, Why? Because he/she was moving out of the box up the line, so they could let their runner touch home plate.

Catcher sees runner and first thinks that a tag can be made on one side of the batter but, after realizing this was impossible , then makes a move to go to the other side of the batter. Too late batter is in way . Trys to go the other way and who is standing there, the batter. Incidental contact. I bet the batter was so busy watching his runner, he never even seen the catcher.

Play on.

[brandda]

Originally posted by jicecone
Incidental contact. I bet the batter was so busy watching his runner, he never even seen the catcher.

Play on.

Whether it was incidental or not, if he interfered then the runner is out. What difference does it make if it was incidental?

[Bfair]

My initial thoughts focused on the catcher intentionally attempting to make contact to bait a call. That made me think the runner was nearly out of the way with the runner approaching the plate.

Still, after re-reading your post, herein lies the answer:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J.D. Long
On review of the play between the umpires, the catcher ran out of his way to run into the batter. If he would have moved either toward home or the runner, he would not have come in contact with the batter. There was also discussion on if the catcher did this on purpose to cause interference.
[QUOTE]

As the catcher turns to go to the plate, what is he looking at:

the runner is to his left

the plate is to his right

and the batter is dead in the middle

What's the batter doing there? He should be long gone.
This is not a case of a baited call. This is a case of a catcher needing to get where he wants to in order to do his job, and a spectator (the batter) being in his way.

Interference without a doubt. Batter has no business being in this location where any potential play could involve him.

Of course, the final judgment call is that which was made on the field. This is NOT protestable under any circumstances, even if a manager talked an umpire into changing his call on the field. It still remains a judgment call finalized by the responsible official on the field. If this IS under protest, to even acknowledge a protest is a step in undermining your system.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by brandda

I do not have a problem with a manager bringing up a rule which may be relevant to a situation for an umpire to consider in making a call (assuming of course that he brings it up in a civil manner and that his reference is correct). Sometimes, in the heat of battle so to speak, we can forget a little piece of minutiae which can have some bearing, and as long as the coach can provide a reference, I appreciate the help.

With all due respect, if you are going to allow coaches to show you the way you are asking for trouble.

Suppose you call the pitch a strike and the coach comes out and says hey Blue that's a Ball. After conferring with the coach are you going to change your call of strike to ball?


IMO, what the coach did here is none other than question the judgement of an umpire plain and simple and this particular umpire fell for it

Before we start talking about the rules governing interference, an umpire MUST first judge that there was indeed interference and that's the judgement part of the rule. Once interference is called, then the rules kick in.

All in all, this is one of those plays in which we would have to see in person to answer properly, however, in general terms the rules do not favor the team that erred. Here we have a team that erred (wild pitch) and now the coach wants blue to fix.

Pete Booth

[brandda]

Pete -

I think maybe I was unclear, I did not say I am open to a coach questioning my judgement. I am open to a coach quoting a rule and providing the correct reference. There is an enormous difference between those two positions.

All I am saying is that with all of the minutiae in the rulebook, you might not remember every nuance and exception associated with a particular rule at the moment that you have to make the call. Who hasn't gotten home after a 3 game afternoon and opened up the rule book to verify something? It happens.

If the coach wants to bring out the book and show me that I have the rule wrong (again so long as it is done in a civil manner) I really have no problem with that.

[Bfair]

The game IS played by the rules, so to think a book containing the rules of the game should not be present on the field is, IMO, arrogant thinking.

Still, I am confident in my rules knowledge. While I will allow a coach to pull out a book, I'll not put my eyes into it. I'll not let it appear that he is providing me my rules education on the field. I'll also not take the time for him to page through it looking for whatever he desires. If he has it opened to his complaint area and needs it for HIS reference, that's fine with me. I don't need and won't use his book.

I'll listen to what the coach has to say, state my judgment, and paraphrase the rule that supports my call. If he wants to use the book, he needs to use it at his protest hearing. An official less confident may need to use that book to get his rule right. That's his decision.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[brandda]

I agree that I would not wait for someone to leaf through the book, but if I made a call and a coach who I knew had strong rules knowledge told me that I had it wrong and could show me the reference where it was wrong immediately, then I woudl reverse it. If they simply disagreed with me, I would tell them my understanding of the rule and that would be the end of it. (The latter example is of course the way it goes 99% of the time)

I am actually lucky in that our league does not have the animosity in it that most LL organizations seem to be filled with. Most of the coaches are also umpires and we all know each other very well so we simply do not run into a lot of the issues that you guys seem to.

The other day I had a player swinging the bat back after he had hit the ball and hitting the catcher with it and I warned him that if he did it again, I would call him out. The coach piped up and said that he would not be out, but would rather be ejected and he was right. I told him, "you know what, you're right" and we went from there.

While I understand that HS and NCAA umpires and coaches are in a very different position and have significantly greater pressure on them than I do in LL, I sometimes wonder if they forget that the game is for the kids and not for the adults. In the right environment, having some help and making sure you get the call right is the best way to go.

Now, all of that having been said, I will be doing a Memorial Day tournament in a couple of weeks and will be using a different approach there. Something tells me that it won't be all peaches and cream.