First Time for Me
 

When I think I've see it all:

Situation: Runner at 1st, left handed batter, right handed catcher (you'll see why this important).

What Happened: Pitcher starts his motion, runner starts for 2nd, batter takes the pitch, doesn't move, bat still "on the shoulder," catcher attempts to throw to second, and this is where it gets interesting, his throw hits the bat.

Result: Umps confer, call the batter out on interence and sends the runner back to 1st.

What say you all?

Batter has the right to stay in the batter's box and not do anything. It is the catcher's responsibility to throw around batter in this case.

Peace

HTBT situation.

Based on your description alone and in the OBR, this sounds like nothing to call. The batter was still in the box and he did nothing to intentionally interfere with the throw.

I have nothing but one of those "breaks" of the game.

Does This Make Sense?
 

For that situation, I've been taught to go by this dictum: "The batter doesn't have to do anything to get out of the way, but he can't do anything to get in the way..."
FED rules seems to support that well.
Correct?

I do not know anything that would make that incorrect.

Peace

Unless the batter did something intentionally to interfere with the throw, the correct call is "That's Nothing". I had a similar type play where the catcher was attempting to pick off R1 who was diving back into first. The throw went off the left handed batter's bat and deflected out of play. We correctly placed R1 at third base (two base award from time of pitch). Although the defensive coach did not agree with my ruling, it was the right call. We joked about it after saying that if we would have just put R1 at second, nobody would have probably said a word :eek: Definitely NOT interference

1. I agree with most based on this description that it's nothing. I wonder where the bat was. Was it on the shoulder? In the usual hitting position? (which varies from player to player) Or did the batter move his bat towards the plate as the catcher was throwing? This last instance could become interference. HTBT I guess.

2. If they did call the interference, should it not be R1 who is out instead of the BR. In OBR, the BR is only out if there are two outs. Correct? Is FED different?

Jay R,

1. Since the OP said the bat was on the batter's shoulder, I'm guessing it was on his shoulder. As described, this is NOT BI.

2. The only two sitches where the runner is called out on a BI are:

a. When the batter struck out on the pitch and interferes.

b. When the batter interferes with a runner attempting to advance home from 3B with less than 2 outs.

Otherwise, the batter (who is the one who interfered) is called out and the runner(s) return.

If the catcher is successful in his initial attempt to retire a runner despite the interference, the interference is disregarded.

JM

Answer to Jay R and UES
 

To Jay R ... To answer your first question, and you used a better description that I did in my original post, the bat was in "the usual hitting position." The batter was taking all the way.

As to your second question, I was wondering the same.

To UES ... For all intents and purposes, that is the same situation. You handled it as I thought it should have been.

1. The batter did not interfere.

2. Intent has nothing to do with it.

I look at it this way - Did the batter have time to react and get out of the way? If not (as in your sitch), we have nothing. However, if he just simply stands in the box with ample time to realize something's happening, you could have INT. Standing in the box and not moving doesn't make him immune to INT.

Yes it does.

Your are confusing interference with a throw from the catcher and interference on a steal of home.

No I'm not - You are admitting that standing in the box and not moving ON SOME GIVEN SITUATION can create INT on the batter. That's what I said. I didn't specify throw from the catcher, play at the plate, F2 trying to find the ball after dropping it - I simply stated that standing in the box and not moving does not make you immune. If you CAN have INT then where's the confusion. Immune means it cannot happen, period.

MIB: Here's what you said: "I look at it this way - Did the batter have time to react and get out of the way? If not (as in your sitch), we have nothing."

With respect to the OP (which is what you were referring to), that reasoning is flawed.

Most of us were discussing the OP.