Batter Interference

[His High Holiness]

All;

I don't usually deal with rules questions but an interesting situation came up last night where I did a 13 inning game as the PU (Ugh):

NCAA rules, R1, 1 out, batter is right handed.

R1 starts to steal and the batter swings, steps across the plate and clearly interferes with the catcher's throw to second. I am about to call interference when out of the corner of my eye, I see R1 turn around and retreat to first. The catcher's throw gets to second without delay and there is no chance for a relay to first because R1 is within 20 feet of first by the time F4 gets the ball. (Even if the batter had not interfered, there would have been no chance to get R1 back at first after even a perfect throw to second. R1 got too late of a jump, reocgnized his error, and had stopped by the time the ball had reached the plate.)

Despite a few meek calls for interference by the defense, I ignored what would have been obvious interference had R1 gone to second. I did not make the call because there would have been no way to sell this to the offense. I would have ended up with an ejection.

In real baseball, umpire decisions are made based as much on the expected call as well as the call by the rules. I am sure that I made the "right" call for the game, but did I make the correct call by the rules? If I had tried to call interference, even the defense might have questioned my judgement, not to me of course, but privately to themselves.

If this is truly interference by rule, I can think of a number of weird situations that could result. Consider this:

Everytime a batter steps across the plate with runners on, the catcher could make a throw somewhere and claim interference. The fact that no one was stealing and he had no chance to get an out would be irrelevant. So we are forced to ask:

When is a steal, not a steal?

Have at it.

Peter

[Bfair]

Your judgment regarding whether or not the catcher could have retired the runner is irrelevant. The runner was advancing, the catcher attempted the play, the interference was judged to have occurred (despite your judgment not being enforced or advised).

Batter interference is rampant in Texas.
Many have learned to come across the plate on a steal of 2B since most umpires won't call it. IMO, much of it is intentional. I'd bet most times I see players swing so hard they lose their balance and cross the plate occurs during steals of 2B.

Originally posted by His High Holiness


If this is truly interference by rule, I can think of a number of weird situations that could result. Consider this:

Everytime a batter steps across the plate with runners on, the catcher could make a throw somewhere and claim interference. The fact that no one was stealing and he had no chance to get an out would be irrelevant. So we are forced to ask:

When is a steal, not a steal?

Peter

Even if a batter falls across the plate, I'd think you'd have to rule there was a "legitimate" attempt to retire the runner. His mere presence outside the box does not mean interference occurred, nor would a throw by F2 mean it was a legitimate attempt to retire the runner.

As an umpire, you are a judge.
Not all your decisions will be liked, but many will agree with your judgment.
As you know, Peter, many will disagree with your judgment during a game, and then admit in the parking lot they truly agreed with your judgment. Many complaints are merely lobbying for the call to go their way.
I trust my judgment and my knowledge of the game.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Marty Rogers]

I am sure that I made the "right" call for the game, but did I make the correct call by the rules?

Shouldn't this be one and the same?
Isn't the "right" call the one which
follows the rules?

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Marty Rogers
I am sure that I made the "right" call for the game, but did I make the correct call by the rules?

Shouldn't this be one and the same?
Isn't the "right" call the one which
follows the rules?

Not necessarily.

I had a Fed game this spring. With R1 and less than 2 outs, batter hits a towering pop-up toward F4. R1, from his leadoff, took a reaction step toward 2B, but he immediately turned to return to 1B where he chested F3 several times causing difficulty for his return. Still, he returned to 1B without any possibility of being retired (the ball was still in the air when he retagged).

F4 ultimately blew the pop-up but was able to retire R1 who was toast in his attempt to gain 2B. Coach came out begging for an obstruction call---which I would not provide.

Was R1 hindered? Yes.
Is that the Fed definition of obstruction? Yes.
Would the rules have supported an automatic award of one base? Yes.
Was obstruction the right call for the situation? Absolutely not !!!!!

While hindered, the hindrance did not change the pattern of play. Still, the Fed wording doesn't say "hinders a runner and changes pattern of play", it says "hinders a runner or changes pattern of play."
By rule, it was obstruction. IMO, it was not obstruction by the intent of the rule. It was coincidental contact that was very obvious yet having no bearing whatsoever on the final outcome of the play.

Umpires who apply no personal understanding of the intent of the rule are destined for significant problems in their umpiring career. Many games have infractions that are seen and overlooked. Your decisions in what you overlook vs. what you decide to enforce will have a significant bearing on your advancement. What you overlook will come from your understanding of the game---and that's learned through experience.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by His High Holiness



I don't usually deal with rules questions but an interesting situation came up last night where I did a 13 inning game as the PU (Ugh):

NCAA rules, R1, 1 out, batter is right handed.

R1 starts to steal and the batter swings, steps across the plate and clearly interferes with the catcher's throw to second. I am about to call interference when out of the corner of my eye, I see R1 turn around and retreat to first. The catcher's throw gets to second without delay and there is no chance for a relay to first because R1 is within 20 feet of first by the time F4 gets the ball. (Even if the batter had not interfered, there would have been no chance to get R1 back at first after even a perfect throw to second. R1 got too late of a jump, reocgnized his error, and had stopped by the time the ball had reached the plate.)

I have interference on this play and here's why.

In order for interference to be called we need a play or an attempted play.

A play is defined as the act of the defense in trying to put out a runner.

F2 definitely made a play on r1. The fact that R1 retreated IMO is moot. Suppose F2 (because he was interfered with) threw the ball in centerfield. As umpires, at the time of the interference, we don't know what is going to happen and frankly it's not our job to know what is going to happen.

All we know at that EXACT moment, is that B1 interfered. The only time the interference is waved off is if F2 completes the play anyway.

Peter I'm surprised at your ruling because of the nature of this game. It was a marathon and here you had a legitimate chance to get an out and get closer to going home. If you are going to stretch the rule at least stretch it in your favor ie; Find some-way on this interference call to get 2 on this play (Grin)

Pete Booth