The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Only in Little League (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/53801-only-little-league.html)

aceholleran Tue Jun 30, 2009 08:17am

Only in Little League
 
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

mbyron Tue Jun 30, 2009 08:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceholleran (Post 611460)
Sent to me by a coach. I am cutting and pasting here.


Glad I wasn't at the game.

Ace in CT

Me too. Did you answer him?

johnnyg08 Tue Jun 30, 2009 08:30am

hard to not have interference here

Bishopcolle Tue Jun 30, 2009 08:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 611465)
hard to not have interference here

Doesn't say where the "false BR" was. How can that be interference? He might have been well out of the running lane....The catcher kerplunks him in the back? INT? Don't think so....

johnnyg08 Tue Jun 30, 2009 08:47am

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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 09:03am

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

waltjp Tue Jun 30, 2009 09:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle (Post 611469)
Doesn't say where the "false BR" was. How can that be interference? He might have been well out of the running lane....The catcher kerplunks him in the back? INT? Don't think so....

Not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be making to different arguments.

The "B/R" can't be protected by the runner's lane when he's not entitled to advance.

Forest Ump Tue Jun 30, 2009 09:06am

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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 09:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forest Ump (Post 611480)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 09:54am

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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossman72 (Post 611493)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:30am

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

umpjong Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 611471)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:40am

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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 611509)
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..;)

GA Umpire Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 611506)
(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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:48am

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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceholleran (Post 611460)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 611513)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by GA Umpire (Post 611512)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:03am

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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:05am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 611520)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 611520)
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.

Quote:

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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:12am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 611522)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 611506)
(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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 611525)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 611529)
(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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 611532)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:30pm

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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 611557)
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.

GA Umpire Tue Jun 30, 2009 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle (Post 611562)
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.

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).

Bishopcolle Tue Jun 30, 2009 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GA Umpire (Post 611579)
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

johnnyg08 Tue Jun 30, 2009 02:12pm

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.

SanDiegoSteve Tue Jun 30, 2009 02:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 611616)
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)

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.

MrUmpire Tue Jun 30, 2009 03:52pm

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)

ozzy6900 Tue Jun 30, 2009 04:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 611557)
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.

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

SanDiegoSteve Tue Jun 30, 2009 04:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900 (Post 611638)
Niiiiice, SDS! Leave it to an old, old veteran to show the young bucks the right path!

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

bob jenkins Tue Jun 30, 2009 04:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 611525)
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 Tue Jun 30, 2009 04:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 611643)
Like this: "That's nothing" while making the safe signal.

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

Forest Ump Tue Jun 30, 2009 05:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900 (Post 611638)
This play doesn't even get a conference - it only takes one umpire has to make this call!
:D:D:D

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.

SanDiegoSteve Tue Jun 30, 2009 05:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forest Ump (Post 611657)
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.

Forest Ump Tue Jun 30, 2009 06:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 611661)
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.

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

TussAgee11 Tue Jun 30, 2009 08:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 611624)
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.

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...

SanDiegoSteve Tue Jun 30, 2009 08:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TussAgee11 (Post 611683)
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.

Different situation entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TussAgee11 (Post 611683)
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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TussAgee11 (Post 611683)
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TussAgee11 (Post 611683)
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...

There ya go!

robbie Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:54pm

Umpjong:

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 611532)
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 Wed Jul 01, 2009 01:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie (Post 611709)
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.

aceholleran Thu Jul 02, 2009 07:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossman72 (Post 611493)
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 Thu Jul 02, 2009 07:18am

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

LMan Fri Jul 03, 2009 02:10pm

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

NFump Fri Jul 03, 2009 02:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceholleran (Post 611460)
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

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.

smoyer Fri Jul 03, 2009 06:44pm

only in ll
 
If less than 2 outs the runner is out.2 outs batter is out.

SanDiegoSteve Fri Jul 03, 2009 06:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFump (Post 612286)
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.

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.

NFump Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:16pm

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).

SanDiegoSteve Sat Jul 04, 2009 01:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFump (Post 612347)
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.

NFump Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:31pm

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?

SanDiegoSteve Sat Jul 04, 2009 03:49pm

Yes.

Dave Reed Sat Jul 04, 2009 05:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 612361)
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.

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.

SanDiegoSteve Sat Jul 04, 2009 05:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 612432)

NFump's scenario above is batter's interference.

What about in the OP?

Bishopcolle Sat Jul 04, 2009 05:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 612432)
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.

"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....

Dave Reed Sat Jul 04, 2009 08:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 612435)
What about in the OP?

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.

Dave Reed Sat Jul 04, 2009 08:18pm

Bishopcolle,
The part of J/R I referenced applies solely to the actions of a batter, and not to a batter runner. The running lane is only relevant when there is a B/R. There is no batter-runner in the OP, only a confused batter.

My apologies (and sympathy) to the various posters who have already pointed this out in this thread.

Bishopcolle Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 612443)
Bishopcolle,
The part of J/R I referenced applies solely to the actions of a batter, and not to a batter runner. The running lane is only relevant when there is a B/R. There is no batter-runner in the OP, only a confused batter.

My apologies (and sympathy) to the various posters who have already pointed this out in this thread.

My apologies as well...."pitcher throws ball 3. batter thinks it is ball 4 and starts to run to first base," taken from the OP, seems to indicate that the batter BELIEVES he is a BR--he definitely isn't, but he acts like one, and he takes off (starts to run) for first base--per the OP. Therefore, the running lane is relevant to the OP, and hence, my comment that you would have interference if he is out of his running lane.....My apologies and sympathy to other posters.....

mbyron Sun Jul 05, 2009 08:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle (Post 612467)
My apologies as well...."pitcher throws ball 3. batter thinks it is ball 4 and starts to run to first base," taken from the OP, seems to indicate that the batter BELIEVES he is a BR--he definitely isn't, but he acts like one, and he takes off (starts to run) for first base--per the OP. Therefore, the running lane is relevant to the OP, and hence, my comment that you would have interference if he is out of his running lane.....My apologies and sympathy to other posters.....

The batter's mistaken belief does not make him a runner. The batter's misinformed actions do not make him a runner.

Only the events of the game can make him a runner, and none of the events that make a batter a runner occurred in the OP. Ergo, he's just a batter, and guilty of interference.

Bishopcolle Sun Jul 05, 2009 09:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 612485)
The batter's mistaken belief does not make him a runner. The batter's misinformed actions do not make him a runner.

Only the events of the game can make him a runner, and none of the events that make a batter a runner occurred in the OP. Ergo, he's just a batter, and guilty of interference.

MBryon: I agree with you....I stated that he "definitely" is not a runner....My point being is that he RAN and was way out in front of F2 in the lane....He did not interfere with F2, at the plate, because he was running....improperly, yes. Therefore, F2's errant throw to his back was poor defense (unless the batter was in the field of play which isn't made clear by the OP.) That's why I wouldn't give an INT call here.....

NFump Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:05am


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?



Who is this batter? Mercury? What did he do......leave for first as the pitcher started to pitch? Do you actually think the catcher waited that long to throw down to first? Please show me where it states he's way out in front of F2 or has even reached the running lane much less whether or not he's in it (like it matters in this case), but let's roll with it.

The BATTER is halfway (35 to 45 feet) to first when catcher "pegs" him in the back, has the BATTER stepped out of the box? Well yes he has. Did he interfere with the catcher's throw to retire a runner? Yep, knocked it down with his back as he was running (in the running lane no less) to first. Is he guilty of Batter's Interference? Absoforkinlutely!

Here's how I see it: The BATTER is most likely just clearing the lefty batter's box and getting directly in front of F2 AS HE IS THROWING to first. That's not an "errant throw", "poor defense", "a crappy throw"or "poor aim". IT'S INTERFERENCE. Nor is it any of those in your example, IT'S INTERFERENCE.

6.8 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER

Under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c), if the batter interferes with the catcher's THROW TO RETIRE A RUNNER by STEPPING OUT OF THE BATTER'S BOX
, the plate umpire SHALL call "interference". The batter is OUT and the ball is dead(provided the catcher's initial throw does not retire the runner; see following paragraph). And so on and so forth. (notice is says "shall")

MLBUM 6.10 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER'S THROW BACK TO PITCHER (notice it says throw).

Skip on down to the second paragraph, last two lines where it says:

If the batter interferes with the catcher's THROW TO RETIRE A RUNNER by stepping out of the batter's box, interference SHALL be called on the batter under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c). (See Section 6.8)
To reiterate....Did the batter step out of the box? Yes
Did the catcher throw in an attempt to retire a runner? Yes
Did batter interfere with said throw? Yes
Is it an out? You bet your bippy.

NFump Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:23am

Oh, one more that illustrates it well.

From J/R:

"R1. A left-handed batter standing deep in the box gets a running start to attempt a drag bunt. He misses the ball and ends up about ten feet up the first base line. The catcher attempts to pick the runner off first and hits the batter in the back of the head with the throw: INTERFERENCE. The batter is out and R1 returns.

Bishopcolle Mon Jul 06, 2009 01:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFump (Post 612628)

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?



Who is this batter? Mercury? What did he do......leave for first as the pitcher started to pitch? Do you actually think the catcher waited that long to throw down to first? Please show me where it states he's way out in front of F2 or has even reached the running lane much less whether or not he's in it (like it matters in this case), but let's roll with it.

The BATTER is halfway (35 to 45 feet) to first when catcher "pegs" him in the back, has the BATTER stepped out of the box? Well yes he has. Did he interfere with the catcher's throw to retire a runner? Yep, knocked it down with his back as he was running (in the running lane no less) to first. Is he guilty of Batter's Interference? Absoforkinlutely!

Here's how I see it: The BATTER is most likely just clearing the lefty batter's box and getting directly in front of F2 AS HE IS THROWING to first. That's not an "errant throw", "poor defense", "a crappy throw"or "poor aim". IT'S INTERFERENCE. Nor is it any of those in your example, IT'S INTERFERENCE.

6.8 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER

Under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c), if the batter interferes with the catcher's THROW TO RETIRE A RUNNER by STEPPING OUT OF THE BATTER'S BOX
, the plate umpire SHALL call "interference". The batter is OUT and the ball is dead(provided the catcher's initial throw does not retire the runner; see following paragraph). And so on and so forth. (notice is says "shall")

MLBUM 6.10 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER'S THROW BACK TO PITCHER (notice it says throw).

Skip on down to the second paragraph, last two lines where it says:

If the batter interferes with the catcher's THROW TO RETIRE A RUNNER by stepping out of the batter's box, interference SHALL be called on the batter under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c). (See Section 6.8)
To reiterate....Did the batter step out of the box? Yes
Did the catcher throw in an attempt to retire a runner? Yes
Did batter interfere with said throw? Yes
Is it an out? You bet your bippy.

Wow.....I am sorry you see it that way....all of the above IMHO is being VERY poorly applied to the OP....Just my opinion, so we can just agree to disagree....but, again, WOW!!!!

NFump Mon Jul 06, 2009 06:17am

Wow? I'm not sorry you see it your way, I'm simply amazed. If being "poorly applied" means exactly as the rule states, then yes it is. And the famous "agree to disagree" when you've run out of anything to counter the argument with. No matter how you change this sitch from the OP sans no play being made, it's interference.

KJUmp Mon Jul 06, 2009 07:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 611506)
(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!!

Operative word here is OR....the play DOES NOT only have to occur at home plate. Same verbage in both rule sets.
LLBB Official Rules 6.06(c) and LLBB Casebook Pg. 22-23.
OBR MLB 6.06(c)

KJUmp Mon Jul 06, 2009 07:05am

Bishop...Quote LLBB rules and interps. It was a Little League game...OBR rules/interps have no validity on the play from the OP.

PeteBooth Mon Jul 06, 2009 08:00am

[QUOTE]
Quote:

Originally Posted by NFump (Post 612628)
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][B]

I agree with Steve

Let's simply change the dinamics in the OP. No one on first. B1 K's but ball is is dropped by F2 or gets away from F2.

B1 starts to run to first base and F2's throw hits B1 in the back. B1 was IN THE running lane.

What's your call?

I gather from your response above you would have interference and IMO you would be wrong.

You cannot let "F2 off the hook" on bad throws.

As Steve said a good F2 KNOWS how to throw. You will hear F2 or F3 say INSIDE / OUTSIDE so that there is a CLEAR throwing lane for F2.

IMO, most are "hung-up" on the fact that the batter in this OP is NOT a runner so the simply fact that he ran to first is cause for interference.

You need to LOOK at the ENTIRE play. Also, do NOT reward the defense because F2 made an errant throw.

Pete Booth

KJUmp Mon Jul 06, 2009 08:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceholleran (Post 611460)
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

All rule references and interps 2009 LLBB Rule Book and Casebook
1) R1 (LLBB 7.13)...this runner can now legally attempt to advance to 2nd base (he can run, walk, walk slowly, crawl), or attempt to draw a throw from the catcher as he tries to get back to 1st base. The fact that "he is moving so slowly" has no bearing on the play. Tha fact is by rule, r1 can do what he's doing and by rule the defense can make a play on R1 if they choose to do so.
2) The batter...and he is still a batter NOT a batter-runner...(LLBB 2.0 Pg.51)and (LLBB 6.09)...and is OUT (LLBB 6.06 c):
"The batter is out for illegal action when
(c) interfering 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."
Also reference LLBB Casebook 6.06 Pg.22-23.

>Was the batter out of the batter's box? YES
>Based on the sitch stated in the OP did he have any LEGAL reason to be where he was when strcuk by the throw? NO (His confusion as to wether it was ball 3 or 4 does not matter..as according to the OP the PU only called the pitch a Ball...not "Ball 4").
>Did the batter's action cause interference of the throw by the catcher as he attempted to make a play that BY RULE he was entitled to make? YES
>RULING:INTERFERENCE ON THE BATTER. Batter is out. R1 goes back to 1st. Two outs, 3&2 count on the batter.

If you work a lot of LLBB odd plays like this will and do occur. At both the LLBB annual regional clinics and their umpire's school, the national and regional umpire staffs preach the concept of advantage/disadvantage when these weird situatons happen. Apply the proper LLB rule and/or interpertation is the first step, but always make sure neither team gained an advantage or was put at a disadvantage by the actions of the other team if somehow the rule/interp does not fit the particular sitch perfectly.
It's LLBB...it's a different world than big diamond ball. Also, if you are a rgistered LL umpire, you can call your regional headquarters and get an official ruling/interpertation from the staff. If this play occured during LLBB tournament play (district level right up to the LLWS), and the on filed ruling was protested, a call to the regional office is made right then and there before play can continue.

NFump Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:12am

[quote=PeteBooth;612665]
Quote:


I agree with Steve

Let's simply change the dinamics in the OP. No one on first. B1 K's but ball is is dropped by F2 or gets away from F2.

B1 starts to run to first base and F2's throw hits B1 in the back. B1 was IN THE running lane.

What's your call?

I gather from your response above you would have interference and IMO you would be wrong.

You cannot let "F2 off the hook" on bad throws.

As Steve said a good F2 KNOWS how to throw. You will hear F2 or F3 say INSIDE / OUTSIDE so that there is a CLEAR throwing lane for F2.

IMO, most are "hung-up" on the fact that the batter in this OP is NOT a runner so the simply fact that he ran to first is cause for interference.

You need to LOOK at the ENTIRE play. Also, do NOT reward the defense because F2 made an errant throw.

Pete Booth
Well, thank you for answering for me instead of just asking and letting me answer. But I shall endeavor to give you a reply anyway even though your mind is made up about what I would do.

First off, when you "changed the dynamics of the OP" you completely changed the ruling. No, that's not interference because, by rule, it says it's not. The RUNNER is afforded protection from interfering by staying in the lane (unless he intentionally interferes).

I suppose any time the catcher throws and hits the RUNNER in this sitch you've given (out of the lane on the grass, or out of the lane in foul territory) it's a poor throw by the catcher? Because "As Steve said a good F2 KNOWS how to throw. You will hear F2 or F3 say INSIDE / OUTSIDE so that there is a CLEAR throwing lane for F2."










GA Umpire Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:32am

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;612665]
Quote:


I agree with Steve

Let's simply change the dinamics in the OP. No one on first. B1 K's but ball is is dropped by F2 or gets away from F2.

B1 starts to run to first base and F2's throw hits B1 in the back. B1 was IN THE running lane.

What's your call?

I gather from your response above you would have interference and IMO you would be wrong.

You cannot let "F2 off the hook" on bad throws.

As Steve said a good F2 KNOWS how to throw. You will hear F2 or F3 say INSIDE / OUTSIDE so that there is a CLEAR throwing lane for F2.

IMO, most are "hung-up" on the fact that the batter in this OP is NOT a runner so the simply fact that he ran to first is cause for interference.

You need to LOOK at the ENTIRE play. Also, do NOT reward the defense because F2 made an errant throw.

Pete Booth
I did not read the OP as a bad throw. I read the OP as R1 is off the base and F2 is trying to pick him off. Then, the batter, thinking he can run, ran in front of F2 as F2 is throwing the ball to 1B as a pick off. I read it as F2 did not know the batter was trying to run and ran in front of his throw. To see it any other way would be a HTBT b/c I am imagining it as F2 is trying to pick off R1 and the batter got in the way out of the box.

Therefore, I have BI with batter out and R1 back to 1B. I believe it depends upon how you imagine the play as to what the call is. Especially if it is a LHB and he breaks as soon as F2 catches and starts to throw to 1B and the batter suddenly gets in the way. I do not imagine it as a poorly thrown ball. I imagine it as a pick off and the batter [which may be LH] stepped in front of the throw as F2 is coming up to throw.

SanDiegoSteve Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFump (Post 612628)

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?



Who is this batter? Mercury? What did he do......leave for first as the pitcher started to pitch? Do you actually think the catcher waited that long to throw down to first? Please show me where it states he's way out in front of F2 or has even reached the running lane much less whether or not he's in it (like it matters in this case), but let's roll with it.

The BATTER is halfway (35 to 45 feet) to first when catcher "pegs" him in the back, has the BATTER stepped out of the box? Well yes he has. Did he interfere with the catcher's throw to retire a runner? Yep, knocked it down with his back as he was running (in the running lane no less) to first. Is he guilty of Batter's Interference? Absoforkinlutely!

Here's how I see it: The BATTER is most likely just clearing the lefty batter's box and getting directly in front of F2 AS HE IS THROWING to first. That's not an "errant throw", "poor defense", "a crappy throw"or "poor aim". IT'S INTERFERENCE. Nor is it any of those in your example, IT'S INTERFERENCE.

6.8 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER

Under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c), if the batter interferes with the catcher's THROW TO RETIRE A RUNNER by STEPPING OUT OF THE BATTER'S BOX
, the plate umpire SHALL call "interference". The batter is OUT and the ball is dead(provided the catcher's initial throw does not retire the runner; see following paragraph). And so on and so forth. (notice is says "shall")

MLBUM 6.10 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER'S THROW BACK TO PITCHER (notice it says throw).

Skip on down to the second paragraph, last two lines where it says:

If the batter interferes with the catcher's THROW TO RETIRE A RUNNER by stepping out of the batter's box, interference SHALL be called on the batter under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c). (See Section 6.8)
To reiterate....Did the batter step out of the box? Yes
Did the catcher throw in an attempt to retire a runner? Yes
Did batter interfere with said throw? Yes
Is it an out? You bet your bippy.

Obscure Dick Martin reference aside, you are the one reading into the OP. This is most likely a Little League-type game, with an indecisive catcher, runners who don't know what the F they're doing, likewise the batter, who has already started running, not walking, to 1st base. Yes, the catcher probably didn't throw right away, because by all admissions, he didn't know where to throw the ball. It certainly was a bad throw, and nothing more.

A coach or bench player that unintentionally touches a thrown ball is not guilty of interference, any more than was the batter in this case.

Also, I firmly believe that both the rule and MLBUM interpretation is referring to the catcher's throw, not the ball after the throw. Interfering with the catcher's throw of the ball. The physical act of throwing the ball, not what happens after the catcher uncorks a wild throw. The catcher in this case is obviously inexperienced at best. He doesn't know how to say, "inside, inside," or "outside, outside" to F3, and find a way to get around the batter. I guess he figures the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and by God he is going to throw it right through the batter's back, come hell or high water.:rolleyes:

Rewarding an errant throw by bailing out the hapless catcher is not the proper ruling on this particular play, IMO and IMOO as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteBooth (Post 612665)

I agree with Steve

Let's simply change the dinamics in the OP. No one on first. B1 K's but ball is is dropped by F2 or gets away from F2.

B1 starts to run to first base and F2's throw hits B1 in the back. B1 was IN THE running lane.

What's your call?

I gather from your response above you would have interference and IMO you would be wrong.

You cannot let "F2 off the hook" on bad throws.

As Steve said a good F2 KNOWS how to throw. You will hear F2 or F3 say INSIDE / OUTSIDE so that there is a CLEAR throwing lane for F2.

IMO, most are "hung-up" on the fact that the batter in this OP is NOT a runner so the simply fact that he ran to first is cause for interference.

You need to LOOK at the ENTIRE play. Also, do NOT reward the defense because F2 made an errant throw.

Pete Booth

Exactly right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFump (Post 612695)
I suppose any time the catcher throws and hits the RUNNER in this sitch you've given (out of the lane on the grass, or out of the lane in foul territory) it's a poor throw by the catcher?

Correct, it is a poor throw. There is no reason F2 can't throw around a runner. It is interference if the runner interferes with F3's ability to catch the ball, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a poor throw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFump (Post 612695)
Because "As Steve said a good F2 KNOWS how to throw. You will hear F2 or F3 say INSIDE / OUTSIDE so that there is a CLEAR throwing lane for F2."

Exactly. Any catcher worth the price of his shin guards knows how to find a clear throwing lane. Sheesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GA Umpire (Post 612702)

I did not read the OP as a bad throw. I read the OP as R1 is off the base and F2 is trying to pick him off. Then, the batter, thinking he can run, ran in front of F2 as F2 is throwing the ball to 1B as a pick off. I read it as F2 did not know the batter was trying to run and ran in front of his throw. To see it any other way would be a HTBT b/c I am imagining it as F2 is trying to pick off R1 and the batter got in the way out of the box.

Therefore, I have BI with batter out and R1 back to 1B. I believe it depends upon how you imagine the play as to what the call is. Especially if it is a LHB and he breaks as soon as F2 catches and starts to throw to 1B and the batter suddenly gets in the way. I do not imagine it as a poorly thrown ball. I imagine it as a pick off and the batter [which may be LH] stepped in front of the throw as F2 is coming up to throw.

Right, it depends on how you imagine the play. That's really all we can do since we weren't there and there is no video. Darn the luck.:rolleyes:

NFump Mon Jul 06, 2009 01:13pm

We show our age Steve.

Did you even notice the example from the J/R I posted? "R1. A left-handed batter standing deep in the box gets a running start to attempt a drag bunt. He misses the ball and ends up about ten feet up the first base line. The catcher attempts to pick the runner off first and hits the batter in the back of the head with the throw: INTERFERENCE. The batter is out and R1 returns.
(This is from page 3 of the rules updates for the manual #24.)

SanDiegoSteve Mon Jul 06, 2009 01:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFump (Post 612759)
We show our age Steve.

Did you even notice the example from the J/R I posted? "R1. A left-handed batter standing deep in the box gets a running start to attempt a drag bunt. He misses the ball and ends up about ten feet up the first base line. The catcher attempts to pick the runner off first and hits the batter in the back of the head with the throw: INTERFERENCE. The batter is out and R1 returns.
(This is from page 3 of the rules updates for the manual #24.)

What did ya say, young whippersnapper? Eh, sonny?:rolleyes:

When did you post this? I must have missed it. So, because Chris Jaksa said it, it must be true? Just like everything on Wikipedia, huh?:confused:

LMan Mon Jul 06, 2009 01:37pm

Hmmmm, 6 pages of this, and I think that my opinion is still correct. Don't reward the defense for a bad throw. They wanna play dodgeball, go somewhere and play it.

SanDiegoSteve Mon Jul 06, 2009 01:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMan (Post 612763)
Hmmmm, 6 pages of this, and I think that my opinion is still correct. Don't reward the defense for a bad throw. They wanna play dodgeball, go somewhere and play it.

Yes, this is how I will rule in my games, so if I'm ever umpiring any of you folks' games, don't throw the ball at the offensive team, but instead throw it to your teammates and there won't be any problem.

NFump Mon Jul 06, 2009 01:58pm

I get it. If it comes from J/R and supports your position he's right, but when it shows you're wrong dismiss it.

Thank you for your participation. You and LMan keep calling it your way, I'll call it the right way. Buh-bye!

SanDiegoSteve Mon Jul 06, 2009 02:06pm

Yeah, take your bat and ball and go home, that's really mature!:) Seriously though, do you really think that J/R is always an infallable source? Always right 100% of the time?

And it's not just LMan and me. There are quite a few others here who are saying the same thing. There is a pretty good split on this one. I am curious as to how Jimma would rule on this. Anybody have his input handy, I'd love to hear it?

RogersUmp Mon Jul 06, 2009 02:25pm

I have INT.
 
NFump...you hit the nail on the head...

Quote:

Did the batter step out of the box? Yes
Did the catcher throw in an attempt to retire a runner? Yes
Did batter interfere with said throw? Yes
Is it an out? You bet your bippy.
It's ah...SWEET bippy.

I can't believe someone would reward (SB) the clueless team (OFFENSE) when the defense did everything right. The batter got in the way of the throw not the other way around...

The drag bunt example is dead-on (thinking Ichiro).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1