The OP said the ball hit the batter while out of the box. As soon as that happened, then he has INT with the play. It doesn't matter if F3 caught it still. The contact just had to slow it down a little. And, the OP said F2 was trying to pickoff R1. That is a play on R1 and not trying to retire the batter(who is not a runner).

So, once the batter came out and got hit with the throw, he has INT with it regardless if F3 could catch it. He INT with F2's play on R1 at 1B. That is INT and batter is out with R1 going back to 1B. The OP said R1 is now on 2B after the batter INT with the throw (ball hit the batter while out of the box while trying to make a play at 1B).

Read the OP. The catcher caught ball 3 (mistakenly thought to be ball 4) and the batter ran toward first base. The catcher (without any interference by the batter) threw toward first and hit the batter in the back...doesn't say how far down the line he was, but he hit the batter in the back....that is not INT, it is a bad throw by the catcher....plain and simple

How can you say it was a bad throw simply because it hit the batter? I've seen some pretty good throws hit runners before and it has nothing to do with being poor defense.

As politely as I may ask on here...how much baseball have you played? Based on this post, R1 is probably going to be picked off 1B if the batter isn't running down a path he doesn't belong impeding the F2's ability to execute a play. (based upon the OP)

What if the hitter starts walking toward the mound on a stolen base attempt...maybe he thought it was strike three and he's walking out to his position?

Mr. Bishopcolle, I can't grasp that you can with a straight face say that you wouldn't call INT on this play as it's described in the OP.

I've played about as much ball as anyone else here, and I disagree that it's INT. That's what debate is about. Not everyone shares the same viewpoint. How do you figure F2 would pick off the runner? He has just demonstrated that he doesn't know how to throw by hitting the batter in the back. They aren't playing rounders or kickball, you have to throw around a person's body, not through it. F2 should have taken a crow hop into the cutout and fired the ball, not tried to drill the ball through the batter's body. A competent catcher would have found a way to get the ball to F3 without nailing the batter.

Running lane violations require a batter/runner. There isn't one.

Interference with a throw must be intentional.

So...R1 steals second and Batter is returned to home to complete his at bat.

(Unless of course, LL forbids stealing bases....I have no exprerience with LL)

Niiiiice, SDS! Leave it to an old, old veteran to show the young bucks the right path!

Batter was not a runner so no running lane violation and intention on the batter seems to be to get to 1st base (mistakenly). F

Add the mix, F2 is supposed to know the game situation above any other player! Where should he have thrown? Not into the back of the batter, that's for sure!

R1 gets a stolen base (even though he thought he was forced) and the ball remains alive. The PU (and BU) direct the batter back to the box and the PU should sign and voice the count on the batter. The defense needs to pay attention because R2 (used to be R1) may get even more confused and try to return to 1st base in which case if he is tagged, he is out.

My question is where the hell were the coaches? These bozos are calling "What's the count, Blue?" every 5 seconds in youth ball so why didn't they know what was going on? I guess they are just as guilty of a brain fart as the players!

Oh yes! This play is good for at least one ejected coach!

Now people, you have to think of all of this on the fly! This play doesn't even get a conference - it only takes one umpire has to make this call!

:D:D:D

You really didn't need to say "old" twice!:p

Like this: "That's nothing" while making the safe signal.

I agree with the mechanic and also with the call. It's nothing.

At this level, the guy was most likly flying solo:D

Gentlemen,

Go back and read the original post. There was no throw down the line. Ace said R1 was going to 2nd. He didn't say R1 was standing on 1st picking daisies. I'm envisioning this batter, rh likely, getting in the way of the throw in front of the plate. Intent doesn’t play into this. No different than a batters swing carrying him into the catchers path. Interference. You're out. You, back to first.

He said that R1 was walking slowly toward 2nd, and that F2 tried to pick him off at 1st base, which is down the 1st base line, last I checked. He also said the the batter started to run, which to me indicates that he wasn't right in front of the plate. Remember, this is Little League, so the catcher probably isn't executing a snap throw. He probably hesitated a bit before deciding to throw the ball at the batter's backside.

Wellllll sureeeee. You can read it that way if you want to.

Never mind.(Emily Latilla)

But seriously Steve, if he does it the way I see it, I have interference. The way you read it, you're right, that's nothing. HTBT

Do you say the same thing about a catcher who gets INT by a batter on a throw to third? WHAT IS THE BATTER DOING THERE!? He has no right to INT with any play the catcher is making.

I'd have to be there, but if I felt that F2 was making a legit play on R1, then I don't see how we don't have INT. If F2 was being one of those LL catchers who throws to 1st base after a walk, then I have nothing.

Vision it this way SDS - LHB takes a step towards his 1st base dugout to toss the bat to the dugout after ball 3. Catcher rightfully steps behind the batter to throw behind R1, but has to alter his throw because of batter's presence. This seems to be clear INT.

Would have to be there to see the speed and timing of the whole thing. I can vision this happening a BUNCH of different ways at the LL level, all resulting in a different call. Interesting play...

Different situation entirely.

How did he interfere with a thrown ball? Intentionally? If not, no INT. Just a bad throw by the catcher.

You are visioning it as you would like it to be, which alters the OP. This batter had taken off running. He was not interfering with F2's throwing the ball. He was hit by a thrown ball.

There ya go!

Umpjong:

Exactly!!

The batter DOES interfere with the catcher's attempt to retire the stealing R1. If it were not for the actions of the interfering batter, the F2 would have thrown to retire the R1 and would not have thrown to retier the batter who was interfering by drawing a throw when he was where he had no business being.