That really doesn't make much sense when you read it again. To interfere, he would have had to do so intentionally. What is so hard to follow here? The catcher threw the ball at the batter. How did the batter compel the catcher to throw the ball at him? A magnetic baseball and a steel plate in his a$$? He wasn't drawing a throw. Where do you get that? F2 was trying to pick off R1, who was heading for 2nd base. The batter wasn't trying to get him to throw the ball at all. Hell, he thought it was ball 4. F2 should have known the situation, but then again...it's Little League!!! You say he would have thrown to retire the runner? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Once again...he is a Little Leaguer. He might have thrown the ball into the dugout for all you know.

Bottom line again... in mathematical terms:

thrown ball - intent to interfere = 0.

Yes, because he is a legit batter-runner.

Ace

Thanks
 

Great debate guys--with most people staying on topic. I am going to try to ascertain a better description of the sitch ... and how arbiter ruled on it.

Sorry the OP was a bit hazy. Thought 'twould be best to simply cut-and-paste.

Ace in CT

SDS, et al, have the correct interp on this play. That is all.

Catcher catches pitch, BALL called by umpire, catcher sees R1 off bag and moving towards second but still close to first, stands up, fires ball to first just a batter runs in front of him.

I've got interference and batter's out, runner returns. It's a batter not a runner, intent does not matter as he is out of the box.

only in ll
 

If less than 2 outs the runner is out.2 outs batter is out.

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when:

(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. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

Look carefully at the first sentence here. In the OP, the batter had already left the box, and did not interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing. The catcher made a bad throw. You can't get an easy out by nailing someone with a throw. If the batter had actually interfered with the catcher trying to throw the ball, that would have been interference. That is what is meant by this rule. If the batter steps out, leans over, falls into, etc,, and hinders the catcher's play at home base, then it's INT. This is not what occurred here. The runner had taken off running, and the catcher pegged him with a throw. That is not interference, whether he is a batter, runner, a coach, a hot dog vendor, or whatever. It is nothing but a crappy play by the catcher, who was throwing to the wrong base with bad aim to start with.

So it's only the actual throw attempt (motion) by the catcher, like batter gets in way catcher is unable to throw, or alters his throwing motion to avoid hitting the batter? The throw itself is exempt from being interfered with? (By throw I mean the actual flight of the ball which would begin once it leaves the catcher's hand).

Alters his throwing motion (by stepping out, leaning into, losing his balance, etc.), or gets in the way of a play on a runner at the plate. A thrown ball is only subject to interference if the interference is intentional. Otherwise, it is what they call in golf, a "rub of the green." Play the ball as it lies.

So when the catcher throws down to third in an attempt to pick off or catch the runner stealing and the batter steps out of the box and turns to get his sign from the coach(no where near the catcher so no interference with throwing motion) but catcher is already throwing ball to third which then hits said batter in the helmet deflecting the throw (again no interference with the actual throwing motion at all and ball is clearly not in catcher's hand) this would be a non call by you, live ball play on?

Yes.

SDS,
A runner needs to have intent to be called out for interfering with a thrown ball. A batter can, by 6.06c, be penalized for interfering with a ball thrown by the catcher. Yes, I know 6.06c says "throwing", and you can try to argue that means only the throwing motion, but MLBUM 6.8 says "the catcher's throw". J/R Ch. 13 makes clear that interference may be called if the actual throw hits the batter. Or you could look at the last paragraph of MLBUM 6.10, which also illustrates the point.

NFump's scenario above is batter's interference.

What about in the OP?

"J/R Ch. 13 makes clear that interference may be called if the actual throw hits the batter." If he's not running in his clear lane....If he's running inside the field, then he is out for interference on the throw...You can't drill the BR in the back when he is running outside and still get interference....

Well,
I think others have made the same point, but the way I envision the OP, R1 is walking towards second, maybe a quarter of the way there, so F2 has an opportunity to get him out. The proper play is to throw to first base because a throw to second will give R1 time to return to first before the throw from second to first can get there. So we have F2 with a legitimate play at first base on R1, and a batter who is well out of the box, and in the line of fire. It's got to be interference.

If R1 were already more than halfway to second, then there is no reasonable play at first base. In that case there is nothing to intefere with. But that isn't how I read the OP.