Only in Little League

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by umpjong

(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.

As you see, this rule only protects the catcher at home base. To apply this rule the act must occur at the plate, not down the line. I've probably got nothing unless the batter did something else besides just run to first. Dont forget the fact that the catcher threw the ball to first? also. Dont reward him for throwing to the wrong base. (R1 was walking towards 2nd) Typical LL play here - time for coaches to do their jobs here......Play on!!

I fixed your post.

Again, there is no limit to where this happens. The "or" part is for a play at HP by F2.

What if F2 was 1/3 up 1B line and threw to 2B(correct base according to you) and the batter stepped in front of him then? Are you still going to call nothing? It wasn't intentional and it wasn't directly at HP.

Once the batter leaves the box in a situation where he is not becoming a base runner and INT with a play, someone is out for the INT(intentional or not).

[johnnyg08]

I think it's a different play in it's entirety...on a dropped third where the batter is out and can't run and F2 throws the ball...that's F2's problem...that play isn't INT and I don't think anybody is saying that.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by aceholleran

Sent to me by a coach. I am cutting and pasting here.

one out, man on first base. count is 2-2 on the batter. pitcher throws ball 3. batter thinks it is ball 4 and starts to run to first base. the runner on 1st thinks it must be ball 4 also and starts to walk to 2nd. the catcher, knows it is ball 3 and now attempts to pick the runner off at 1st base off since he is moving so slowly. the thrown ball by the catcher now hits the batter-runner and the runner on first now makes it to second. what is the ruling?



Glad I wasn't at the game.

Ace in CT

You guy2 would probably defecate all over yourselves if you didn't stay seated!

• F2 is not throwing to 3rd.
• The BR has not become a runner

Ace gave us a great post so stick to the original post and solve the problem!

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I think it's a different play in it's entirety...on a dropped third where the batter is out and can't run and F2 throws the ball...that's F2's problem...that play isn't INT and I don't think anybody is saying that.

I agree with this if F2 is not trying to pickoff R1. But, if the throw hits the "retired" batter while F2 is trying to retire R1, then I may have INT. Most of that would depend on R1's actions. Is he running to 2B on the play or is he returning and F2 is trying to get him before that?

If he is going to 2B, then no INT b/c no play is being INT with.
If he is returning to 1B, then I could have INT depending on if it impacted the play at all.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

I fixed your post.

Again, there is no limit to where this happens. The "or" part is for a play at HP by F2.

X.What if F2 was 1/3 up 1B line and threw to 2B(correct base according to you) and the batter stepped in front of him then? Are you still going to call nothing? It wasn't intentional and it wasn't directly at HP.

Once the batter leaves the box in a situation where he is not becoming a base runner and INT with a play, someone is out for the INT(intentional or not).

You are selectively applying the applicable rule. To apply the entire rule (again with no case/interpretation to back your claim) I have no interference on the OP.

On your other example (marked by an X), Please. I know this is LL, but I cant even imagine this occurring in LL.

[johnnyg08]

There's not a case play for every play that can happend. If you call nothing on this play...what's to prevent your runner from getting a huge lead then having your batter run up the line a few steps after every pitch...not saying it would happend, but I could see some coaches teaching their players to do it. (esp in little league)

I guess I'll simply say, that based on the orignal post, I'm calling Interference and if they want to protest, go ahead. I feel there's a rule there to support my decision.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by umpjong

You are selectively applying the applicable rule. To apply the entire rule (again with no case/interpretation to back your claim) I have no interference on the OP.

No, you have taken part of it and selectively applying it. The part you marked goes with the entire phrase after the "or" part of the rule. The part I marked before the "or" applies to this situation.

It should be read this way.
He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box. He interferes making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

The OP is INT if the batter had an impact on the play. And, it sounds like he did, so INT. Batter is out, R1 returns to 1B. If R1 was put out, then no INT.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by umpjong

You are selectively applying the applicable rule. To apply the entire rule (again with no case/interpretation to back your claim) I have no interference on the OP.

You are not reading the rule correctly. Let me tweak 6.06(c) for you so that you see what you're missing.

Originally Posted by Rule 6.06(c)

The batter is out when...

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].

Even if the first clause were not sufficient to call INT, you can't hang your hat on the phrase "catcher's play at home base," which does not refer to a runner reaching home base. When the catcher is near the plate and throws to another base, the "catcher's play is at home base."

Thus, both clauses of 6.06(c) apply to the OP. Ace is quite correct: how could you have anything BUT interference on this play?

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

There's not a case play for every play that can happend. If you call nothing on this play...what's to prevent your runner from getting a huge lead then having your batter run up the line a few steps after every pitch...not saying it would happend, but I could see some coaches teaching their players to do it. (esp in little league)

I guess I'll simply say, that based on the orignal post, I'm calling Interference and if they want to protest, go ahead. I feel there's a rule there to support my decision.

(Your play above is an intentional act. )

Agree to disagree.... Hopefully the pro guys will soon interject on this topic. Good one for argument though!!!!

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by umpjong

(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.

You are reading this to tight. You have interference on the batter if he steps out of the box and hinders the catcher from fielding the pitch or throwing to a base. You also have interference on the batter if he stays in the box and hinders the catcher on a play at the plate. i.e; stolen base, passed ball, wild pitch, suicide squeeze. The "or " refers to two different scenarios.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You are not reading the rule correctly. Let me tweak 6.06(c) for you so that you see what you're missing.



Even if the first clause were not sufficient to call INT, you can't hang your hat on the phrase "catcher's play at home base," which does not refer to a runner reaching home base. When the catcher is near the plate and throws to another base, the "catcher's play is at home base."

Thus, both clauses of 6.06(c) apply to the OP. Ace is quite correct: how could you have anything BUT interference on this play?

Again, I disagree even with your first line of the rule. This rule specifically deals with the "stepping out". In the OP the batter does not just simply "step out". But regardless, this rule is intended to deal with the catchers attempt to retire the stealing R1 and the batter interfering with this act. No case/interpretation in over 100 years of Baseball expands this rule to where you would take it.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by umpjong

(Your play above is an intentional act. )

Agree to disagree.... Hopefully the pro guys will soon interject on this topic. Good one for argument though!!!!

yep definitely, good discussion

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Again, I disagree even with your first line of the rule. This rule specifically deals with the "stepping out". In the OP the batter does not just simply "step out". But regardless, this rule is intended to deal with the catchers attempt to retire the stealing R1 and the batter interfering with this act. No case/interpretation in over 100 years of Baseball expands this rule to where you would take it.

OK, now you're just quibbling. He didn't step out? He's either in the box or out of it: how did he get half way to 1B without being out of the box?

When it's you against the world, you might not be wrong but that's the way to bet.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Play on, McDuff. Errant throw by catcher. Did the false BR interfere with F3's ability to catch the ball? I'll answer this: NO. Why is F2 throwing to a now unoccupied first base? The play is at second base. Where's the interference. Sorry, don't see it.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Play on, McDuff. Errant throw by catcher. Did the false BR interfere with F3's ability to catch the ball? I'll answer this: NO. Why is F2 throwing to a now unoccupied first base? The play is at second base. Where's the interference. Sorry, don't see it.

Agree...well said....the batter's error in running down the base path DOESN'T interfere with a throw by the catcher. It's simply a bad throw by the catcher. We can't reward bad defense by the scenario in the OP.