F2 throw down to 3rd
 

How much does the right-handed batter have to avoid interference(if at all)
with the catcher on the throw down to 3rd on a steal attempt.
As long as he stays in the batters box.

He must not deliberately interfere with the catcher, but he is allowed to hold his ground in the batters box. The catcher has to go around the batter.

Intent is irrelevant.

It is when the batter is in the batters box. That's his box. If he is just standing there and the catcher has trouble throwing, too bad.

That's correct, but the batter's intent is still irrelevant.

I realize that intent isn't part of the rule, but in reality, if the batter were to make any movement to interfere, it most certainly wouldn't be accidental, now would it? I mean, if he were truly innocent, he would be standing statue-still in the box, not wanting to interfere. So he would in all practicality have to "intentionally and deliberately" try to interfere in order for interference to be called, because he would know not to make any movement to interfere.

6.06(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

It is not at all uncommon to see a RH batter step backward intending to avoid interfering with F2's throw to F5 (the batter assumes the throw will be in front of him but F2 properly tries to throw behind him) only to get drilled by the ball. Sorry son - I know your intentions were honorable, but you're out for INT.

Exactly how I have called it also. The batter does not have to get out of the way immediatlly after the pitch , while in the box but, can't do anything to get in the way. Umpires discretion. I believe that is this is one of the meat and potato's calls for umpires. Where you earn yor stripes and get a chance to display your knowledge of the rules. I have seen batter interference missed way too many times and then the players try and even it up theirself.
Just my opinion.

I think you are splitting hairs... Intent is relevant in a lot of the cases in this situation or any interference situation.... Intent makes it an easier call and sell.

Yes, that qualifies as "any movement that hinders." I said that if he stands still in the box, he is safe from interfering. If he steps backwards and moves into the catcher's way, then he is either leaving the box, or making a movement to interfere. Either way, that is interference.

Nobody is going to intentionally do something to be called out. Using intent criteria is not suggested in the rule. And its making it harder for yourself.

If he breaks the rule, out.
If he doesn't, nothing.

Why make it harder than it is?

Not necessarily true. I've seen batters raise their arms or lean into the catchers path intentionally in order to mess up the catcher. Very definitely intentional. So, while intent isn't part of the rule, it is very easy to spot and punish immediately.

Agreeing with Steve again. :D

If out of the box, no intent is needed to INT. But, if he is in the box, then intent would be needed to make INT call. Such as, if the batter deliberately sticks his arm in the way but is still in the box. If it happened and it wasn't intentional, then I would have nothing. But, if he did it intentionally and it is very obvious, then it is INT(tough sell in many cases but possible and for me, it would have to be so obvious even a blind man could tell).

GA Umpire,

That is an incorrect way to apply Rule 6.06(c).

Whether intentional or not, if the batter makes any "unusual movement", even though still in the box and without intent, and hinders the catcher's play it IS batter interference.

JM

Then, what would be considered to be "unusual" if it wasn't done intentionally? Such as, if the batter lets go of the bat, it is not "unusual" to let go of the bat with 1 hand. But, it would be to let go of it and have it in front of the catcher.

Maybe intentional wasn't the right word. But still. Give me an example of something being INT not done intentional while still in the box. And, I don't mean INT with the catcher intentionally(which is where I messed up in not making this distinction earlier).

You just made dash's case. Everything you said here is correct, and none of it mentions the batter's intent. What he does and whether that hinders are the relevant considerations.

No intent necessary. It either caused int with the catchers throw or it didn't.

If the batter lets go of the bat and it caused the catcher to have a bad throw to any base, then we have int.

Batter swings so hard that the bat comes around and hits catcher as he is throwing the ball and making him drop it. Did the batter leave the box? NO. Did the batter intend to do this? We will never know but, he did do it and it caused int, therefore it is enforced (or at least should be).

Another example is when a batter swigs so hard his momentum carries him across the plate. At the time of the throw hie was technically still in the box, but at the completion he had to step over the plate to regain his balance.

Batter: "I didn't do that on purpose."
Umpire: "I never said you did but, your still out"

jicecone,

I'm with you on the rest of it, but on this one, under OBR I've got "backswing" or "weak" interference - ball is dead, runners return, batter is NOT out (unless it was strike 3, of course).

JM

This is something better explained with actions than words.
Then, it is nothing in OBR at least and no outs are recorded. Only runners sent back.

Then, he left the box which is part of the BI rule.

What I meant is, if he is just standing in the box and does nothing other than standing there(minus any time to react and move out of the way), then no INT is called. But, if he does something "unusual" (as JM put it), then BI is called. And, if he does something "unusual" for this call, then it would probably have been done with some deliberation. Such as, he tosses his bat on Ball 4 and it hits the catcher's throw to F5. It was tossed deliberately thus his actions were deliberate. He INT accidentally but tossed the bat deliberately. If he ducked out of the way of the pitch and stood up afterwards, that would not be deliberate as much as it would be reactionary and no INT called. But, tossing the bat is more deliberate than reactionary.

That is all I meant. It is hard to explain what I meant in words. Much of this probably is better in person but I know how to call BI. I just don't know how I can better explain what I meant.

Is it the same on backswing, weak interference? I wasn't sure. But wouldn't be the first time wrong here, (no books at work)

GA, understood!

Exactly what I was trying to say. I fully realize that intent is NOT in the rule, but you can judge intent rather easily and interference while standing in the batters box is usually intentional, otherwise the batter would just stand there and be a good boy.

This isn't going to be a trend is it? :D

Yes, I'm afraid we will probably agree more than disagree on most things. And for what we don't, we will agree to disagree.:)