![]() |
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 |
Quote:
|
hard to not have interference here
|
Quote:
|
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? |
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 |
Quote:
The "B/R" can't be protected by the runner's lane when he's not entitled to advance. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
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)? |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
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!! |
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. |
Quote:
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..;) |
Quote:
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). |
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.
|
Quote:
Ace gave us a great post so stick to the original post and solve the problem! |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
On your other example (marked by an X), Please. I know this is LL, but I cant even imagine this occurring in LL. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
Agree to disagree.... Hopefully the pro guys will soon interject on this topic. Good one for argument though!!!! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
When it's you against the world, you might not be wrong but that's the way to bet. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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) |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Umpjong:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Bottom line again... in mathematical terms: thrown ball - intent to interfere = 0. |
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
(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).
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
LLBB Official Rules 6.06(c) and LLBB Casebook Pg. 22-23. OBR MLB 6.06(c) |
Bishop...Quote LLBB rules and interps. It was a Little League game...OBR rules/interps have no validity on the play from the OP.
|
[QUOTE]
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
[quote=PeteBooth;612665]
Quote:
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." |
[QUOTE=PeteBooth;612665]
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.) |
Quote:
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: |
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.
|
Quote:
|
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! |
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? |
I have INT.
NFump...you hit the nail on the head...
Quote:
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. |