Batter Interference Question - Educate Me
 

R3, no outs. Squeeze play. RH batter misses pitch as its outside. F2 goes to run the runner back to 3B and runs into the batter.

What are you looking for to determine if its interference on the batter?

As you describe, probably nothing. Was the hitter where he was supposed to be?

If not, maybe I have INT...in this situation, at least how I'm seeing it, I have nothing.

What the rule says to look for.

I was watching the runner try to get back to third so I can't say for sure what happened at the plate.

I'm just curious as to what an umpire looks for when determining whether its BI or not.

Lets say the batter lunged for the ball and it took him out of the box and then the catcher ran into him. BI?

Of course this is a had to be there situation.

The batter is entitled to be in the box up to the point that he has completed his attempt to bunt and has ample oppurtunity not to interfer with the play. Remember, the batter can not just disappear.

Now , you have stated that F2 ran into the batter. Well as long as the batter did not do anything intentional to hinder F2, then I have nothing.

Again, had to be there.

You keep trying to call the batter for interference , just because F2 runs into him.

It doesn't work like that. The batter is entitled to be in the box.

Incorrect. I'm asking questions which is why I included "educate me" in the title. Plus, I said I didn't see what happened at the plate as I was watching the runner. My intention is to ask what umpires are looking for in a subjective call situation.

If you were PU, why weren't you watching the batter? You have no runner responsibility.

The short answer to your question is: watch for interference. The batter standing in the batter's box ain't it.

Exactly what I was going to say. You have to stay with the ball which is in F2's possession right now. That was your mistake.

What do you look for?

• Was the batter where he was supposed to be? He just swung at or took a pitch, he cannot just disappear.
• Did the batter make any move (in your opinion) to intentionally block F2 from doing his job? This is self explanatory and don't go looking for trouble here.
• Did the batter have the time needed to vacate his position? In a squeeze play, the batter has little time to do anything but stand there and that is not interference.

You took you eyes off the play (to look at R3) so now you know to stay with the ball until the ball takes you to a play.

Why were you watching R3? Without the ball, there can be no play.

Your first responsibility is calling the pitch and then what happens in front of the plate. If that doesn't happen properly you don't have to worry about the runner. As others have already stated follow the ball to the action.

he's a spectator
 

y'all are criticizing him for not watching what was going on at the plate. That would be appropriate if he was PU. I think he was a spectator. If he was a paid spectator, then, for shame.

Shame on who?

I don't have "question interpertor" on my computer. If he doesn't know how to ask a question and give all the details from the begining, SHAME ON HIM. And further more if you knew what he meant why didn't you answer the question.

Or are you one of dos dere specatators too?

take time to explain the intricacies of umpiring to a spectator
 

What I was inferring was that the OPer is not an umpire. He was a spectator.

"I'm just curious as to what an umpire looks for when determining whether its BI or not."

Everyone seems to be getting technical with a spectator. I didn't think others realize that he was a spectator. If you want to take time to explain the intricacies of umpiring to a spectator, that's nice.

Intent is not a prerequisite for BI, but the "any other movement" part of the rule generally means movement other than offering at the pitch.