Batters Interference

[w_sohl]

R1 and R3 1 out, B24 at the plate. R1 takes off for second with the pitch and B24s follow through carries him into the throw of the catcher causing the throw to errant. Who do you call out here? Is it the batter because he interfered? Is it R1 cause he was the one being played upon? Or is it R3 because it hurts the offense the most?

With 2 outs it's the batter right?

[UmpJM]

w_sohl,

Yes, with two outs, the batter is out.

With less than two outs, the batter is still out.

The only time R3 is out is when the batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire an R3 who is attempting to advance on the pitch (i.e. squeeze or steal).

If the batter happened to strike out on the pitch, the runner who was being played upon is out.

JM

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

w_sohl,

Yes, with two outs, the batter is out.

With less than two outs, the batter is still out.

The only time R3 is out is when the batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire an R3 who is attempting to advance on the pitch (i.e. squeeze or steal).

If the batter happened to strike out on the pitch, the runner who was being played upon is out.

JM

And then I obviously replace all runners TOP.

[UmpJM]

w_sohl,

That is correct. If the interference is enforced, remaining runners return.

The only exception is if the F2 successfully retires the runner he was playing upon, despite the BI. Then the BI is "disregarded" and any advances on the play would stand.

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

And then I obviously replace all runners TOP.

Technically, runners always return to the base last touched at TOI. Very often, that's equivalent to TOP.

Note that with R1 and R3, with less than 2 outs you can have the following sequence of events:
1. R1 attempts to steal 2B.
2. BI as F2 throws to 2B.
3. R3 attempts to steal home.
4. the throw to 2B retires R1.
5. R3 scores.

Because R1 is retired, the batter interference is ignored and the run scores. The defense does NOT have an option here (as I had a coach once ask). The batter will resume his time at bat.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Technically, runners always return to the base last touched at TOI. Very often, that's equivalent to TOP.

....

mbyron,

Your assertion is true for FED rules, but under OBR, when there is Offensive Interference, runners return to their TOP base, absent an "intervening play". As you say, it's usually the same base.

JM

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Technically, runners always return to the base last touched at TOI. Very often, that's equivalent to TOP.

Note that with R1 and R3, with less than 2 outs you can have the following sequence of events:
1. R1 attempts to steal 2B.
2. BI as F2 throws to 2B.
3. R3 attempts to steal home.
4. the throw to 2B retires R1.
5. R3 scores.

Because R1 is retired, the batter interference is ignored and the run scores. The defense does NOT have an option here (as I had a coach once ask). The batter will resume his time at bat.

Wow, I envision this with a coach who knows the rule (former umpire turned darkside). R3 scores before R1 is out, coach realizes and succesfully gets his kids to not make a play on R1 so that he isn't retired. Now, we put the runners back on 1st and 3rd and the batter is out #2. That would be fun to explain to the O coach.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

Wow, I envision this with a coach who knows the rule (former umpire turned darkside). R3 scores before R1 is out, coach realizes and succesfully gets his kids to not make a play on R1 so that he isn't retired. Now, we put the runners back on 1st and 3rd and the batter is out #2. That would be fun to explain to the O coach.

Now, if I'm the O coach (also a former umpire,) I argue that the defense was not attempting to make a play, given the intentional attempt not to get the out, and without an attempted play, there is no interference.

[johnnyg08]

Matt is correct here. They must attempt a play in order to get BI

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Matt is correct here. They must attempt a play in order to get BI

Didn't they attempt a play when they threw down to get R1 in a rundown? And besides, that would be way to much of a coincidence to have two coaches that smart on the same game.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

The only time R3 is out is when the batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire an R3 who is attempting to advance on the pitch (i.e. squeeze or steal).

With less than 2 outs. With 2 outs batter is out. Your statement is still correct, but not always.

[DG]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

Wow, I envision this with a coach who knows the rule (former umpire turned darkside). R3 scores before R1 is out, coach realizes and succesfully gets his kids to not make a play on R1 so that he isn't retired. Now, we put the runners back on 1st and 3rd and the batter is out #2. That would be fun to explain to the O coach.

A throw must directly retire the runner for INT to be ignored. If R1 gets in a rundown the ball is dead, INT is enforced.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

Didn't they attempt a play when they threw down to get R1 in a rundown? And besides, that would be way to much of a coincidence to have two coaches that smart on the same game.

If R1 gets in a rundown and is initially pursued (edit: poor choice of words; see DG's post above) in an attempt for an out, then that would be a play, but that's not what you stated--you posited that the defense would deliberately give up the stolen base. How could the defense do that and still have a play (absent a great acting job, that is?)

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by Matt

If R1 gets in a rundown and is initially pursued (edit: poor choice of words; see DG's post above) in an attempt for an out, then that would be a play, but that's not what you stated--you posited that the defense would deliberately give up the stolen base. How could the defense do that and still have a play (absent a great acting job, that is?)

That is what I meant, they are initially making a play, but realizing that the run is scoring they pull up. But I do guess that as soon as he initial play is unsuccessful we would call dead ball. Is that true? If so it makes the entire scenario impossible.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

mbyron,

Your assertion is true for FED rules, but under OBR, when there is Offensive Interference, runners return to their TOP base, absent an "intervening play". As you say, it's usually the same base.

JM

JM, this is not correct. The general penalty for offensive interference is to return runners to their TOI base, although some provisions for some kinds of interference specify otherwise.

Originally Posted by Rule 2.00

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with,
obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.
If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference,
all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the
umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise
provided by these rules.