Stealing Home

[jim1976]

With a runner on third, the pitcher goes into the full wind up. Spotting the runner going home, he delivers a fast ball to the catcher.

The pitch is a called strike.

The catcher gets the ball and goes to tag the runner coming home. The batter stays in the batters box between the catcher and the runner until the play is over.

Is this interference on the part of the batter or not?

[Tim C]

Not.

[GarthB]

Depends.

The batter is not expected to just disappear on plays that develop rapidly, however, if times permits him to get out of the way and he chooses not to, it's a horse hide of a different color.

The batter's box is not permanent insurance against an interference call.

[jim1976]

The catcher got the ball well before the runner was home. As he lunged forward to tag the runner, he got blocked by the batter.

It was a rapidly developing play. But it appeared that the batter had enough time to at least make an attempt to move out of the way. Although he didn't.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by jim1976
The catcher got the ball well before the runner was home. As he lunged forward to tag the runner, he got blocked by the batter.

It was a rapidly developing play. But it appeared that the batter had enough time to at least make an attempt to move out of the way. Although he didn't.

Just exactly how slow was this runner? IF he was fast enough to try to steal home, then I can't think of an instance where the batter would have time to move. Not interference.

[Marty Rogers]

Batter Interference: Jaska/Roder

Batter's Action: batter interference can only
occur if the batter hinders the catcher
1) intentionally
2) by stumbling or stepping outside the batter's box
3) by abnormal or extraordinary movement inside
the batter's box, or
4) with his bat

The play posted doesn't meet any requirement
to be batter interference.

[Danny R]

Here is what it says in LL "The Right Call" for Rule 6.06
---
"A batter is out for illegal action when:
(c) interfering 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..."
"Comment: Notice in (c) there is no mention of intentional. Again, umpire's judgement is key."
---
This doesn't answer the question because this speaks of the batter making "any other movement" and it sounds like your batter didn't move at all. But like it says, umpire's judgement is key.

[Marty Rogers]

Of the four ways I listed to cause batter's
interference, the batter has to commit only
ONE of these to qualify (therefore action
does not have to be intentional in 2, 3, & 4).


...This doesn't answer the question because this speaks of the batter making "any other movement" and it sounds like your batter didn't move at all. But like it says, umpire's judgement is key....

This DOES answer the question, because if the
batter DIDN'T move at all, NO INTERFERENCE.
If he DID move in an abnormal or
extraordinary way, INTERFERENCE.

[Danny R]

Marty, I wasn't posting in response to your entry. I was just citing the relevant entry in "The right call" for the original question. Yes, your 4-point system sounds good to me. But what is the Jaska/Roder reference?

[jim1976]

The runner had good but not terrific speed. He did get a good jump though. But this is from 90 feet and these are 14 year olds. He was almost 10 feet from home when the catcher got the ball.

I was curious because seeing the catcher get blocked by the batter gave me the impression that something unfair had taken place. Even though the ump said it was a fair play.

[Marty Rogers]

But what is the Jaska/Roder reference?

Danny: It is a publication I often refer to
when I need to learn more about a rule, or see exactly how to apply it.
It is called "Rules of Professional Baseball"
A Comprehensive Re-Organization and Clarification

by Chris Jaska and Rick Roder. They are both former professional umpires/instructors. I have the sixth
edition. Not sure if the seventh is out yet.
If interested, you may contact Rick Roder at
P.O. Box 2, Remsen, IA 51050
712-786-3205.

I paid $25 for this loose leaf bound volume
(130 pgs) and have used it many times.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by jim1976
With a runner on third, the pitcher goes into the full wind up. Spotting the runner going home, he delivers a fast ball to the catcher.

The pitch is a called strike.

The catcher gets the ball and goes to tag the runner coming home. The batter stays in the batters box between the catcher and the runner until the play is over.

Is this interference on the part of the batter or not?

Typically on a steal of home there is little time to vacate the box. Just be certain he doesn't make any purposeful movement to put himself between the catcher and runner.

Vacating the box is generally expected on a ball that is uncaught by the catcher.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

"The runner had good but not terrific speed. He did get a good jump though. But this is from 90 feet and these are 14 year olds. He was almost 10 feet from home when the catcher got the ball.

I was curious because seeing the catcher get blocked by the batter gave me the impression that something unfair had taken place. Even though the ump said it was a fair play."


Jim, obviously one had to see the action to determine if there was sufficient time to expect the batter to vacate his spot in the box. In addtion to my FED and college duties I also work some youth ball and I have seen, as you indicate, times where, even on a steal and a caught pitch, the batter had enought time to wind his watch and still vacate his spot.

Is he staying in the way intentionally? Who knows. Some teams at this level are sophisticated enough that the batter has advance knowledge of the play and may well indeed be standing there, with all appearances of catching a bus, to provide cover for the runner.

I wasn't there. But my answer stands. It depends. Umpire judgment.

GB

[jim1976]

Thanks for all the feedback. It's just a game (at least thats what I keep trying to tell myself). So I am not all that upset by it.

If someone had said for sure that the batter was in the wrong I'd have brought it to the attention of the ump next time I saw him just to make him aware of his mistake. Especially since this game is being continued due to a rain delay.

The runner did seem to be trying to hide behind the batter as he came to home. But the point about whether or not the batter tried to obstruct is a good one. He seemed to freeze.

And these are just 13 and 14 year old kids too. And that might be why this seemed a little irritating to me. My son was pitching, so I have some personal interest in this. And our team is one of the two worst in this 8 team rec league. The team that stole home on us is undefeated and was well ahead at the time. So it seemed like piling on, since they were ahead by 8 or 9 runs at the time.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by jim1976

The team that stole home on us is undefeated and was well ahead at the time. So it seemed like piling on, since they were ahead by 8 or 9 runs at the time.

At older levels, perhaps even at this level, you may soon find that such "bush league" play may be followed with the batter catching the next pitch in the ear. Nobody should be attempting to steal home (or usually any base) when sitting on an 8 run lead. The risk of injury is not worth an apparently unneeded run. And you are correct, it is "piling it on."


Just my opinion,

Freix