KC @ STL - Batters interference not called ?
 

5/23/09 Royals at St. Louis, Bot 4th.
Molina, the runner on 1st made it safely into 2ndbase. The batter went way over the plate on his swing, there was no contact, but PU didn't call interference. on the replay, the catcher was almost completely infront of F2 when he threw from his knees to 2ndbase.
Does it make a difference if the interference occurs with a throw from the knees or a regular throw to 2ndbase ?

regards

Huh? How'd that happen? ;)

Anyway, the catcher throwing from the knees has, in itself, no bearing on this call. If he went to his knees to block a pitch, or something, perhaps the umpire judged there to not really be a play. OR, perhaps the umpire kicked it.

Bob,
"to not really be a play". what do you mean with that ?....i thought it doesn't matter if F2 has a chance to throw the guy out.

Interfernce is an act that hinders the defense from making a play (or words to that effect). No play, no interference.

just to make sure,
if the PU thought that F2 had no chance to retire R1 (regular steal, catcher simply threw like benito santiago), he doesnt have to call interference ?

Bruno,

I don't see how there could be interference if there was no play. What would the batter been interfering with?

Joe in Missouri

PU never has to call interference. The specific actions in MLB are different from what I might see in NCAA and HS ball.

there WAS a play ! R1 tried to steal 2ndbase.

this is the video

i have to think that he kicked it.

He means if the catcher didn't make a play, or attempt to make a play, there was nothing for the batter to interfere with.

For sure.

He kicked it....nice to see the biggies mess up once in a while...

Maybe the PU did not rule interference because it was a crappy throw to start with! When you watch the video, the throw is already off when the "interference" occurs.

My opinion, lousy throw, no interference.

I can agree with that. Simply because the batter moves across the plate, does not always infer that he interfered with the play.

Basically it's the PU's judgement call.

Thanks
David

They only nixxed the call if there was CONTACT between the batter and the catcher.

No contact = no interference.

You wouldn't call interference on a runner who jostels in front of a ground ball, to delay its retrieval/throw.

I think Mr. Umpire was right.

Really?

There clearly can (and often is) interference without contact. and, a runner who "jostels" in front of a ground ball is often a good example of this.

Do you have a rule # by chance? I havn't seen a runner called out for pausing in the path of the ball in order to throw off the fielder. That's what I meant when I said "jostle. And from what I remember reading in OBR, there is no interference without contact. Like I said, I have never seen interference called on a runner (or batter) without contact being made.

OBR 7.08b

(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;
Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

Nothing here says it has to have contact. And I have seen Interference called hundreds of times without contact being made. Whether OBR, NCAA or NFHS.

OBR 2.0 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.

Even as a Cardinals fan, I'd have to say this is clear-cut interference.

Contact makes the call much easier, but it's not necessary. I think this play is INT!