Only in Little League

[johnnyg08]

The post says that he starts toward 1B...would be no different than on a steal of third the batter steps into the catcher's path and impedes his attempt to retire the runner.

What would you call? nothing?

[aceholleran]

How can you NOT have INT on batter here?

R1 leaves 1B at his own peril; F2 has every right to try to retire him. How can batter (I can't very well call the kid a batter-runner) impede this without penalty?

Ace

[Forest Ump]

I agree with Johnny. If I'm envisioning this as the OP put it, batter interference. Batter (not B/R) out, R1 back to 1st.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

I agree with Johnny. If I'm envisioning this as the OP put it, batter interference. Batter (not B/R) out, R1 back to 1st.

Agreed. As soon as he stepped out of the box and INT with F2's throw [even though it wasn't intentional], he violated 6.06(c). It doesn't say how far from the plate he can be for this to not apply. He is still the batter and INT with F2's play.

[bossman72]

Guys,

Would your call be any different if it was a dropped 3rd strike with less than 2 outs (BR is not entitled to advance here as well)?

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Guys,

Would your call be any different if it was a dropped 3rd strike with less than 2 outs (BR is not entitled to advance here as well)?

Yes, my call would be different. Now, he runs the risk of R1 being out b/c of a "retired" player causes INT. Basically, in a spot where he is not entitled to run, puts him at risk of being ruled INT and someone is out since a play is being attempted.

[jdmara]

You cannot fault the defense for an offensive player not being where they are suppose to be. You have to call interference on this (in most cases). Depending on the age of the kids however, I might call time right away (before the ball is even thrown) to get the wayward batter back to the plate

-Josh

[aceholleran]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Guys,

Would your call be any different if it was a dropped 3rd strike with less than 2 outs (BR is not entitled to advance here as well)?

Yes, because he is a legit batter-runner.

Ace

[aceholleran]

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

[LMan]

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

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

The post says that he starts toward 1B...would be no different than on a steal of third the batter steps into the catcher's path and impedes his attempt to retire the runner.

What would you call? nothing?

(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!!

[johnnyg08]

According to the OP, F2 was throwing behind the runner to F3.

umpjong, I disagree. Batter interference on a stolen base attempt at 2B, 3B there are all kinds of plays where a batter can interfere w/o a play at the plate. I think you're taking one part of a rule and applying all instances to it. maybe not, but it appears that way.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

According to the OP, F2 was throwing behind the runner to F3.

umpjong, I disagree. Batter interference on a stolen base attempt at 2B, 3B there are all kinds of plays where a batter can interfere w/o a play at the plate. I think you're taking one part of a rule and applying all instances to it. maybe not, but it appears that way.

You misunderstand my point.
The rule clearly states that the batters actions (to hinder the catcher) must take place at "home base". I dont think you will find any interpretation of this rule in the 100 plus years of baseball that would allow you to apply this rule to this particular play.. In fact I would bet on it. That is of course if gambling were legal..

[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.