I blew this, but it took an inning to realize it

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

2-1 count to batter (weak batter). Next pitch, purposely high so catcher can make a play (very close to an out) on the lazy runner at first. After ball hits the glove, batter chops at the high pitch in obvious strike. Catcher stands high to grab the pitch, whips ball to first--safe there--and my partner obviously didn't see the VERY late swing by the batter because it was very late and the catcher stood high. Before the next pitch, PU announces the count as 3-1. I wait but nothing happens, and it is obvious to me my partner missed the swinging strike, so I called time, we had a conference, and we changed the count to 2-2 based upon my advice to him, and not because of any appeal....at the time, it felt right because we got it right, but then I got to thinking....No appeal was made, and I was wrong....it should have been on the defense to be game-aware and make the appeal.....Right?

Two questions you should ask yourself at the time you want to call time:

A) What makes your count more likely to be right than PU's?

B) How do you know PU didn't see the late swing?

[mbyron]

For those who are tempted by the thought of BI here: Remember that nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- that the batter does BY ITSELF constitutes interference. Intent to be a nuisance does not violate the rules.

In order to call batter interference, there has to be some actual hindrance of the play. In this case, it doesn't sound as if there was any: F2 threw down to 1B just fine, and there was a close play there. So BI is the wrong call in the OP, if I'm reading it correctly.

Now, even if there's hindrance on this play, I'm leery about calling BI because the batter was doing what he was supposed to be doing, namely swinging at the pitch. I don't work much ball below HS varsity, so a late swing might be suspicious in my games; but a late swing by itself will not constitute BI.

You don't want to be the kind of umpire who shows off his knowledge of the rules by looking for situations to make unusual calls. Don't be a plumber.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by mbyron

In order to call batter interference, there has to be some actual hindrance of the play. In this case, it doesn't sound as if there was any: F2 threw down to 1B just fine, and there was a close play there. So BI is the wrong call in the OP, if I'm reading it correctly.

Well, I agree with you if it was normal Batter's interference (swinging and falling out of the box across home for instance), but if the batter does something INTENTIONAL, you most likely need to call this if it remotely affects the play. This would be like R1 going into second on a DP and waving his hands in the air, but F6 gets the throw off cleanly. We all agree this is interference because of the INTENTIONAL act. If the batter is doing something INTENTIONAL (like swinging purposely late to screw up the catcher's throw), I view that as interference. Benefit of the doubt is going to F2.

I've called this when the batter swings AFTER my ball/strike call (and I have SLOW timing). This is pretty obvious to me that he's trying to interfere.

Conversely, I've had a batter try this on a pitch that was wayyy outside in the other batter's box and the bat in no way came close to hindering him and I had nothing in that instance.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Well, I agree with you if it was normal Batter's interference (swinging and falling out of the box across home for instance), but if the batter does something INTENTIONAL, you most likely need to call this if it remotely affects the play.

If he hinders F2, it's interference. Otherwise not. Show me where the rule book mentions intent wrt batter interference (see 7-3-5c for a start).

Doesn't matter if you think the play is bush. Don't make up rules.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Matt

Two questions you should ask yourself at the time you want to call time:

A) What makes your count more likely to be right than PU's?

B) How do you know PU didn't see the late swing?

That's why we had the conference, to find out the count, and to find out he did miss the late swing....

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

That's why we had the conference, to find out the count, and to find out he did miss the late swing....

Like I thought...you didn't know these things.

Let the defense do their job.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Matt

Like I thought...you didn't know these things.

Let the defense do their job.

Now, just how in the **** do you know I DIDN'T KNOW these things. I knew them exactly, and that is why I called for the conference. I wanted to let my partner, the PU, know that HE had missed a strike...You apparently have a lot of knowledge, skills and abilities that I must not have....because you who wasn't there knows exactly what I didn't know...WOW! Impressive....

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

Now, just how in the **** do you know I DIDN'T KNOW these things. I knew them exactly, and that is why I called for the conference. I wanted to let my partner, the PU, know that HE had missed a strike...You apparently have a lot of knowledge, skills and abilities that I must not have....because you who wasn't there knows exactly what I didn't know...WOW! Impressive....

Can't read, can you? You didn't know what he knew or didn't know, exactly what I asked above.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Matt

Can't read, can you? You didn't know what he knew or didn't know, exactly what I asked above.

No, that's not what you said, wrote, or implied....but enough of this arguing....

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

No, that's not what you said, wrote, or implied....but enough of this arguing....

Yes, that is exactly what I said.