Batter Interference

[RPatrino]

Another 6 post expert, sheezzzeee.....

[Kleff]

My feelings did not get hurt, just wanting a ruling on the play itself. No one seemed to have an answer. In my original post I did not give every little detail of how the meeting started. I sort of thought that was besides the point. I was just wanting to have someone point me in the right direction in the rule book if they could which obviously they could'nt. I am the one who called time, while the plate ump was walking out to the c slot. He obviously wanted to talk about the play. I did speak first and said I think we have interference, only loud enough for him to hear I told him what I thought, he went with his original call. Like I said just looking for rule clarification, it just did'nt seem like the right call is all I was saying.

[RPatrino]

Kleff, you know the rule, and you have read it. You are asking us if it 'sounds' like interference based on what you have written. We have responded with a resounding, maybe. But, we need more info. You said you thought it was intereference. Please explain why in more detail.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Kleff

The only reason I asked for a conference with plate umpire, was initially someone from the defensive team yelled "is'nt that interference". Plate umpire looked to me like he did'nt understand why. He actually started walking out to me. Well anyway the batter was about 3 feet outside the batters box down the on the 3rd base side. Runner from 3rd probably would have been safe,but it still would have been close enough to call

OK, based upon the limited information you have supplied here, the batter is approximately 7 feet from home plate where the play is taking place and the catcher hits him. Bad throw. Go back to the "C" position.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kleff

My feelings did not get hurt, just wanting a ruling on the play itself. No one seemed to have an answer.

Becasue you didn't give enough information to help decide the play. "Cathers (sic) throw to the plate hits batter" might be interference and it might not be.

Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, and intentional can include "willful indifference." If that's what happened, it was interference. If not, it likely wasn't.

And, your OP also included, "I ask for a meeting," so that's what many of us were responding to.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Kleff

Hey guys had situation the other night. Runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out. Passed ball runner from 3rd attempting to score. Cathers throw to the plate hits batter. I'm out in the field, plate umpire makes no call except runner from 3rd is safe. I ask for a meeting with plate umpire and tell him I believe we have interference on the batter. He asks "what do you mean" I replay the play to him and he agrees the batter interfeared. So I tell him I'm not 100% on this but I believe since there is less than 2 outs runner on third is out and runner from 1st which is now on 3rd goes back to 1st? He says I think runner would have been safe so I'm not calling the interference. I told him you only disregard the interfrenece if the runner is out! So we make no call on interference! No coaches or players screamed or anything, but, I dont think they new what really happened I have to believe plate umpire is wrong on this. What do you guys think???????

Kleff

There are 2 relevant issues here:
1. Did the batter interfere with a play at the plate?
2. What is the penalty if he did?

Issue 2 is easy to answer: with less than 2 out, the runner trying to score would be out (and the other runner would return).

Issue 1 is harder to answer because the correct answer depends on many factors. But whether the runner "would have been safe" is NEVER a criterion for determining interference.

If the batter had time to move out of the way and F2 made a quality throw and the batter's movement interfered with the play at the plate, then I'd rule INT.

OTOH, if he was away from the plate area and not on a line between F2 and the plate and the throw hit him, I would say that he had not hindered the play. Then the call would be no interference, live ball, play on.

Interference calls are very difficult to rule on without video or a very comprehensive account of the play.

I agree with other posters that the mechanics described in this play were incorrect.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kleff

Hey guys I think you totally misunderstood what was being asked! I was looking for rule clarification not umpire mechanics! I am well aware of when to ask for help and when to give help. Instead of bashing an umpire give your understanding of the rule. If your clueless on the rule just admit it. Anyway I got call back from an umpire of 40 plus years who actually knows the rulebook, not a few clowns on a forum who think they know the rule book. He says without seeing the play it sounds like interference under rule 7.09 c. Now I know better to just wait for a callback from a umpire with rulebook knowledge rather than posting to this forum!

Originally Posted by Kleff

My feelings did not get hurt, just wanting a ruling on the play itself. No one seemed to have an answer. In my original post I did not give every little detail of how the meeting started. I sort of thought that was besides the point. I was just wanting to have someone point me in the right direction in the rule book if they could which obviously they could'nt. I am the one who called time, while the plate ump was walking out to the c slot. He obviously wanted to talk about the play. I did speak first and said I think we have interference, only loud enough for him to hear I told him what I thought, he went with his original call. Like I said just looking for rule clarification, it just did'nt seem like the right call is all I was saying.

Actually, your question was answered to the extent possible given the description given. What I highlighted in red above is indicative of thin skin; not conclusive, mind you, just indicative. You assumed (or just accused without assumption, which makes it worse, IMO) that they didn't know the rule because they couldn't tell from your inadequate description.

[Kleff]

Hey guys sorry if I offended any of you with my comments earlier. Just got a little frustated, could'nt understand how the thread took a total different direction. I will give step by step what happened and what I was thinking at the time
1 out runners on 1st and 3rd, passed ball, ball goes of catcher a to the left, runner from 3rd tries to score, batter steps out of box anout 3 feet, he does not realize ball is behind him, catcher throwns to pitcher covering, from where I was (c-slot) it looks to be pretty much on target. ball hits batter.Plate ump (PU) calls runner safe, I thought it was interference but did not say anything. a coach yells is'nt that interference, PU has look on his face like something weird just happened starts walking out to me,I call time (IMO calling the meeting), I meet him just in front of mound on 3rd base side, He did not ask for help, but by walking out there right after that play I sorta figured that is why he was coming out,I spoke first and said "it looks like interference to me", I say runner on 3rd should be out runner on 1st should go back. He say's"I think he would have been safe so thats how I'm going to call it,I say "it's your call ,but I don't believe thats right"

I will be more open to negative feedback from now on, If my mechanics were out of line in this situation I'll accept that. Once again sorry to offend, I will try to give more info from now on

Mike

[Adam]

Okay, here's a rule question from a basketball guy.
Isn't intent required for interference in this play? If the batter didn't know where the ball was, how could he have intended to interfere?

[Cub42]

I will echo what has already been said here. 1) You do not come in an intiate a conference on your partners call. It is up to him to go for help if he feels he needs it. I do not understand how you could feel you had a better perspective on a play at the plate than PU. 2) To call interference on a play like you have attempted to describe, your partner, not you , needs to be 100% positive that interference has occurred. Again, as some of the veterans here have suggested, read the rule book, and the PBUC mechanics book also. This should help you in the future

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, here's a rule question from a basketball guy.
Isn't intent required for interference in this play? If the batter didn't know where the ball was, how could he have intended to interfere?

If the batter has time to vacate the area, he must do so. He is responsible for knowing where the ball is, as is every other player on the field. Not knowing where the ball is is not an excuse to stand in the direct path of the play at the plate. If the umpire judges that the batter had the opportunity to vacate the area and did not, then interferes with the thrown ball, the runner trying to score can be called out in accordance with rule 7.11 and PENALTY.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Highest Quality

No. Think of a driver who pulls into your lane without seeing you.

Huh? So what you're saying is, that driver is guilty of "interference"?

[Forest Ump]

SDS gave you the right rule reference.7.11 for OBR. The batter is treated as offensive personnel on the field when there is a pass ball or wild pitch. He must try to avoid the play and not intentionally interfere. Did he try to avoid? Did he do it intentionally? There in lies your answer.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, here's a rule question from a basketball guy.
Isn't intent required for interference in this play? If the batter didn't know where the ball was, how could he have intended to interfere?

Ordinarily, intent is required for interference with a thrown ball. But that standard is applied to a runner, and that higher standard is required because the runner has something he's supposed to be doing, namely baserunning. If his doing that puts him in the way of a play by the defense, play the bounce.

The batter has nothing better to do here than to pay attention to where the ball is and to get out of the way. If he fails to do so, he's guilty of interference whether or not he intentionally hinders the defense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Ordinarily, intent is required for interference with a thrown ball. But that standard is applied to a runner, and that higher standard is required because the runner has something he's supposed to be doing, namely baserunning. If his doing that puts him in the way of a play by the defense, play the bounce.

The batter has nothing better to do here than to pay attention to where the ball is and to get out of the way. If he fails to do so, he's guilty of interference whether or not he intentionally hinders the defense.

thanks to all who answered, I appreciate it. This makes sense.