Batter Interference

[PAblue87]

What is the proper interpretation on a batter interfering with a catcher attempting to retire a stealing runner at 2nd. Does the catcher have to throw the ball in order to have interference, or can there be som sort of an attempt?

[Marty Rogers]

The catcher has to throw, or try to throw.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by PAblue87

What is the proper interpretation on a batter interfering with a catcher attempting to retire a stealing runner at 2nd. Does the catcher have to throw the ball in order to have interference, or can there be som sort of an attempt?

In order for interference to be called there has to be a play or attempted play. A play is defined by the act of the defense trying to put out a runner.

In your situation we do not need a throw, but we need some indication that F2 is making a play. In other words, has F2 come-up ready to throw or did F2 just stand there holding the ball.

If there was no play or attempted play then there is no interference.

Pete Booth

[jicecone]

Pete can we get a little more technical on that. By this I mean, there is uncertainty on my part of the use of the word "attempted play" verses "play". Although this may be purely sematical, OBR 6.06C mentions only the word "play".

2002 BRD pg 132. Note 236 states, "The guideline at all levels is: The umpire will stop play ""IF"" the catchers throw does not directly retire the runner".

I know BRD is not gospel, (sorry Carl) but I feel that the actual act of making the play is important in this situation and I (may be wrong) belive that it is implied here.

This same question came up in our association meeting and I feel that it is confusing to tell new officials that a attempt alone by the catcher, is solid ground for calling the interference. Mabey there is really no carte blanche, black and white guideline for this answer however, I have a tough time assuming the intent of a play that never happened.

Is there any more guideance or input we can get on this?

Thanks

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by jicecone


Pete can we get a little more technical on that. By this I mean, there is uncertainty on my part of the use of the word "attempted play" verses "play". Although this may be purely sematical, OBR 6.06C mentions only the word "play".

2002 BRD pg 132. Note 236 states, "The guideline at all levels is: The umpire will stop play ""IF"" the catchers throw does not directly retire the runner".

Keep reading BRD pages 133/134

Play 95-260:

R1, 1 out, full count: R1 is moving on the pitch. B1 strikes out and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out r1 , who slides in safely at second.

RULING: In FED, if F2 without the interference had a chance to retire r1, r1 is out. But if F2 had no chance for the out, r1 returns first.

In NCAA and OBR. r1 is automatically out.

Notice in Papa C's case play the use of the term attempt to throw . Therefore, it isn't necessary that F2 actually throw the ball in order for interference to be called.

Pete Booth

[Tim C]

The obstruction can be VISUAL.

If F2 stops his throw because the batter has crossed in front of him an umpire "can" call the obstruction.

By Evans interpretation there DOES NOT have to be contact for the obstruction to occur.

Just telling you what Evans says NOT necessarily what should be called.

[jicecone]

Thanks Pete.

I guess Im trying to split hairs when it comes to given a guideline for this. It seems that it is one of those "have to be there" and "seen before" things , in order to make that fine line call.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by jicecone
Thanks Pete.

I guess Im trying to split hairs when it comes to given a guideline for this. It seems that it is one of those "have to be there" and "seen before" things , in order to make that fine line call.

I can imagine a situation where the catcher begins his throwing motion and holds himself up at the last minute before he launches into the batter. Certainly, that would be interference.

For purposes of interference, can we define "play" as a legitimate attempt to put out a runner or to prevent a runner from advancing?

P-Sz

[soonerfan]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

I can imagine a situation where the catcher begins his throwing motion and holds himself up at the last minute before he launches into the batter. Certainly, that would be interference.

For purposes of interference, can we define "play" as a legitimate attempt to put out a runner or to prevent a runner from advancing?

P-Sz

I agree with Tee's view a la Jim Evans. There does not have to be any contact by the offensive player for there to be interference called, merely the ACTION of interference by the player. A friend of mine had a game where there was a 2 out pop-up hit between home and the mound, pitcher and catcher converge, a runner coming home calls "BALL,BALL,BALL." Both players back off thinking it was the other, ball falls to the ground. The runner did not get between the two, did not touch either one...so how would it not be interference? I realize that players in the other dugout yell "I got it..." all the time. It is easier, however to determine where it is coming from if it's in the dugout or right next to you. So, I would not need a throw from a catcher...as long as there is dicernable attempt on his part to intend to throw. Oh, and isn't obstruction a defensive penalty on a runner and interference an offensive penalty on a defensive player? I am pretty sure there is a difference, maybe some of you rule book gurus help. JT

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by soonerfan
I agree with Tee's view a la Jim Evans. There does not have to be any contact by the offensive player for there to be interference called, merely the ACTION of interference by the player. A friend of mine had a game where there was a 2 out pop-up hit between home and the mound, pitcher and catcher converge, a runner coming home calls "BALL,BALL,BALL." Both players back off thinking it was the other, ball falls to the ground. The runner did not get between the two, did not touch either one...so how would it not be interference? I realize that players in the other dugout yell "I got it..." all the time. It is easier, however to determine where it is coming from if it's in the dugout or right next to you. So, I would not need a throw from a catcher...as long as there is dicernable attempt on his part to intend to throw. Oh, and isn't obstruction a defensive penalty on a runner and interference an offensive penalty on a defensive player? I am pretty sure there is a difference, maybe some of you rule book gurus help. JT [/B]

It is a ongoing debate whether to call verbal interference in OBR games. In FED, it is explicit in the rules book that verbal interference is NOT allowed and should be called (FED 2-21-1).

Also, in FED, "Obstruction" is when the defensive team illegally hinders the offense; "Interference" is when the offensive team illegally hinders the defense. In OBR, the term "obstruction" refers only to a fielder illegally hindering the runner; everything else is "interference", whether offensive, defensive, spectator, or umpire interference.

P-Sz

[soonerfan]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

It is a ongoing debate whether to call verbal interference in OBR games. In FED, it is explicit in the rules book that verbal interference is NOT allowed and should be called (FED 2-21-1).

Also, in FED, "Obstruction" is when the defensive team illegally hinders the offense; "Interference" is when the offensive team illegally hinders the defense. In OBR, the term "obstruction" refers only to a fielder illegally hindering the runner; everything else is "interference", whether offensive, defensive, spectator, or umpire interference.

P-Sz [/B]

Thanks for the clarification on obstruction/interference. As for the debate, I will vote for the verbal interference call. As in my friend's situation I had written earlier, the runner had impeded the defense's opportunity to field a ball. JT