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).

[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.

[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!!!!

[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

[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 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.

[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.

[robbie]

Umpjong:

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.

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by robbie

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Ace is quite correct: how could you have anything BUT interference on this play?

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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