Please help me with an official baseball rule on this situation.--R1 on second, batter at the plate. R1 attempts to steal and batter standing in the batter box makes no attempt to move in any way out of the catcher's way to make a throw to 3rd to get R1 out. Ball is thrown over 3rd baseman's head and R1 continues to home to score. Is there a rule for batters interferance of the catcher attempting to make an out on the batter stealing. Must the batter in the umpires opinion at least make an attempt to get out of the way of the play to 3rd. Please supply MLB rule number if possible.

If the batter stands still, he has done exactly what he is supposed to do. He may stand still, make a normal attempt to strike the pitched ball, or move to avoid being hit by the pitch. If he does anything else, he may (not must) be charged with inteference. (Don't let him swing and step across the plate with the runner stealing 2nd if F2 makes contact or alters his attempt to make a throw!)

Even if he stays in the box, and is attempting to move out of F2's way, if his movement intefers he should be charged with inteference. If he moves out of the box, and intefers in any way he should be charged with the inteference.

See OBR 6.06(c) and comment. (Note the "soft" inteference on the backswing before the catcher catches the ball in the last paragraph.) Also 7.09(d) for a runner attempting to advance to home with less than two out.

Roger Greene

Thank you, In this case the batter took the pitch without an attempt to hit the ball. He stood still, did not attempt to get out of the way of F2 making the throw to 3rd base. Sounds like this should not have been called for interferance, however if he did attempt to get out of the way and was still in the batters box then an interferance call should be called...correct???

If he did in fact interfere, it should be called.

An example I recall from an earlier discussion on this subject: R2 attempting to steal 3rd base. Batter takes pitch, and as F2 throws to 3rd, batter ducks down to get out of F2's way, but in ducking his bat strikes the thrown ball. Batter did not leave the batters box, batter did not intend to interfere, however the batter interfered with "the catchers...throwing by ...making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play...".{7.09(c)} Therefore the batter is out, and the ball is dead, runner(s) return.

Roger Greene

Roger, in this example I'd be very hesitant to call interfernce. I don't see the mere act of ducking as an act hindering the throw, despite the throw hitting the bat. If the batter went straight down when ducking, he is vacating an area and allowing greater opportunity for F2. Afterall, if he hadn't ducked, his entire body would be in that area, correct? Would you have called interference if F2 threw the ball into the batter's body or helmet?

IMO, in the example provided F2 had better make an effort besides merely throwing through the area that the batter has legal right to occupy. If the bat moves abnormally outside that area I'll consider interference, but when the bat remains inside the batter's normal area, and the batter is bringing it downward to get out of the way, I'm not very apt to call batter's interference simply because the throw hit the bat vs. the player.


Just my opinion,

Freix

But Steve,
F2 should expect the batter to remain. His throw should go by the batter. If the batter is ducking, and his bat moves into the path of the thrown ball he is guilty of interference, intent or not. (The play at hand is that the batter's bat struck the ball, not F2 throwing into a batter's bat. That ducking equals "any other movement" refered to in the rules.)

Roger Greene

Batter knows the signs. He knows there is a steal on. Him standing tall is an act of interfering (soft...yes).

Now pitch comes in, he takes it, sees the runner stealing, and still stands erect (when everyone else would duck), and is hit by the catcher, I have interference.

The batter has the chance to hit the ball, but then must make way for any play. It would be the same thing as a batter standing tall in the box after the pitch has come across the plate and there is a steal at home. He has to make a legit try to get out of the way. Use common sense and "read" the situation.

Usually batters duck so as not to get a fast ball from the catcher in the temple. So why would he stand tall? Is he dumb? Does he like the chance of a ball in the ole noggin? I think he might be trying to hinder.......

<b>Now pitch comes in, he takes it, sees the runner stealing, and still stands erect (when everyone else would duck), and is hit by the catcher, I have interference.</b>

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I will ask:

Are you saying that you would call interference on a batter in the batter's box who remains perfectly still (makes NO movement what-so-ever),and is struck by the ball on a catcher's throw to a base?

If so, under what rule?


[Edited by GarthB on Sep 18th, 2002 at 01:09 PM]

Yep,
 

Perfect question Garth?

I need to know the reference for this decision from "whowefoolin" also.

His decision would fly in the face of ALL references and authorities.

Now he may "change" his example . . . standing straight up maybe changed to "moving into the play" . . .

I guess there are some people that actually believe the batter can disappear at will, in order to prove their innocent.

By the same token, there are batters out there that will have you believe that would never, ever, try and interfere with the catchers throw.

I have always stated as follows: "The batter doesn't have to get out of the way, they just can't get in the way."

In the case on the ducking batter. I guess, we would have had to be there.

Garth,

Bad choice of words on my part. I didn't mean the ball hitting batter, I meant catchers arm/hand/etc... hitting batter.

If the ball hits him, sorry batter, should have moved! Runner is probably safe anyway. No call.

If the the catchers body hits the batter, and you "READ" the play as the batter making no attempt to get out of the way...then I would have 6.06(c) "hindering the catchers play at home". And that play is the catcher making a throw.

But again, even in the pro's you see them duck. So use common sense, along with the rule book, and if you see the batter going from the crouch, to standing very tall and in the box as a runner who is clocked at a 5.5 sec 40 yd running...you going to believe there was no hinderance?

Thanx for the reply

Whowefoolin:

From the OBR:

<b>6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when-
(c)He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by <i>stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that binders the catcher’s play at home base.</i></b>


From the JEA:

<b>Professional Interpretation: ...The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher’s play in any way.</b>

And:


<b>A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher’s play at any base. <i>If he is within the confines of the batter’s box, he must make some “other movement”</i> that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher’s play before interference is ruled.</b>

Answer this question, in your situation, did the catcher make a snap throw to 3rd? If so, then there is no way for the batter to move in time. When judging if the batter interfered, you must always remember that a right handed batter can not be expected to just disappear after he swings!

<i> Originally posted by dave </i>

<b> Please help me with an official baseball rule on this situation.--R1 on second, batter at the plate. R1 attempts to steal and batter standing in the batter box makes no attempt to move in any way out of the catcher's way to make a throw to 3rd to get R1 out. Ball is thrown over 3rd baseman's head and R1 continues to home to score. Is there a rule for batters interferance of the catcher attempting to make an out on the batter stealing. Must the batter in the umpires opinion at least make an attempt to get out of the way of the play to 3rd. Please supply MLB rule number if possible. </b>

Dave as far as rule references and autoritative opinion check out Garth's post.

Let's take a look at this from a baseball perspective only and you will see how the rules <i> fit into this </i>

As a batter you have a right to be in the box and swing or bunt at any pitch you want as long as you keep both feet within the lines defining the box.

When r1 steals third and F2 throws to F5, this all happens in a heartbeat. B1 is not supposed to make F2's job easier.
He / she cannot be expected to simply vanish.

On these type plays unless B1 does something out of the oridinary like waving his bat up and down or Purposely Move to get in F2's way it's nothing.

Here's a FED case play which best illustrates your question.

FED case play 7.3.5E

Less than 2 outs. R2, B1 at the plate. R2 attempts to steal third. In the process B1, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B1 out for interference?

<b> RULING: </b> B1 IS NOT GUILTY of interference in (a) or (b). B1 is entitled to his position in the batter's box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

Pete Booth

Intent!!!! Quote the JEA, the EAJ, the AJE, or what other book you want to bring up, but look at intent.

The intent of the batter standing tall with a runner going into third (especially if he is a righty) is not to be an angel.

It is either to get beaned by the catchers throw, or help hinder the catcher, thus helping his teammate get to third.

OK, break out the situational documents, but 6.06(c) says any movement which hinders. Not ducking is a movement (in a negative sense).

So look at the batter. Is he the 22 man on the roster who hasn't played all season and doesn't know. Or the #3 hitter who has been on fire all season and is looking for an RBI?

Come on guys. Get the quotes out of the way before the season and start umping. Adjudge! Rule! Stand up for something!!! Don't be reaching into your book shelf after the game.

...and Pete, the batter does not have the RIGHT to stand in the box. He has a RIGHT to hit the ball. After that, he must make an attempt to get out of the way of any ensueing play.

So the batter swings and ball gets away from the catcher and goes to back stop. Batter has the RIGHT to stand in the batters box and watch the play and get in the way as long as he is in the box??? Come on! Help us out in this forum. Don't quote. We can all do that.

<i> Originally posted by Whowefoolin </i>

<b> and Pete, the batter does not have the RIGHT to stand in the box. He has a RIGHT to hit the ball. After that, he must make an attempt to get out of the way of any ensueing play.

So the batter swings and ball gets away from the catcher and goes to back stop. Batter has the RIGHT to stand in the batters box and watch the play and get in the way as long as he is in the box??? Come on! Help us out in this forum. Don't quote. We can all do that. </b>

You refuse to accept the rulings that have been giving to you. Help has been given on this Forum, whether you choose to accept them is up to you.

On a play at third, YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMMOROW B1 DOES NOT have to get out of the way. It's covered under all 3 Major Rule Books. You simply refuse to accept that.

If you are talking about a play at the plate that's different, but let's stick to the original thread, which specifically discussed a play at third.

B1 has a RIGHT to be in the batter's box. In fact if he does move, he / she is putting themselves in jeopardy for interference.

If the ball gets away from F2 whose fault is that. The defense erred and now you want B1 to make F2's job easier.

I quoted the FED case Play which IMO sums it up best.

Pete Booth

Pete: Don't waste your time on this guy anymore. He doesn't want to know the ruling, he wants to argue with everyone who doesn't agree with his (wrong) interpretation.
Probably one of those guys that causes rolling eyeballs and extra long association meetings.

Hmmmm,
 

Until this post I always thought "Whowefoolin" was an understanding, growing umpire.

MANY of us try hard to help others learn, sometimes we just hit a road block.

Since NONE of us are "official" intrepreters of rules any umpire can rule anyway they see fit and ignore the advice we offer.


BTW, "are the hands part of the bat?"

Whowefoolin:

<b>Intent!!!! Quote the JEA, the EAJ, the AJE, or what other book you want to bring up, but look at intent.</b>

Okay, how about we bring up the Official Rules of Baseball? You do have a rule book, don't you?


6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when-
(c)He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing<b> by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement</b> that binders the catcher’s play at home base.

Do you see the word "intent" anywhere in there. Huh? Do you see any requirement to move? Eh? Do you see anything that even resembles your claim.

No.

Now then, the rule book is explicit. JEA agrees. Every credible experienced umpire who replied to your post agrees.

But this is a democracy. You have the right to be wrong.

But you be foolin' nobody.

You must like Star Trek and Dungeon and Dragons! You seem like the kind of guy that HAS to go by the rules. Not what he sees...interprets and rule on.

Do not even start to tell me (because I know) that you carry a rule book on your person out in the field?

Intent is what is all about!

Did he intend to screw up the play? (hmmm...don't know)

Was he somehow involved in screwing up the play? (hmmm...well yes)

Then he is out!!!!!

You all's example:

Did he intend to screw up the play? (hmmm...don't know)

Was he somehow involved in screwing up the play? (hmmm...well yes)

Then there is no call????

Stand large and be in charge! Take a stand. Make a call. Get out of your pocket and stop reaching to quote an far reaching rule. The guy is out for interference. We all know it. Don't need OBR, JEA, or Little League rules...you have common sense and me.

But....

This is just my interpretation.

The way I am reading it...I would call interference.

I quit with this thread.

Defense rests.

Let me have it.

Don't worry Youbefoolin, the sun will rise, the moon will set. Fortunate youngsters across America will still play baseball; and those less fortunate, soccer.

Life will go on even with your very own little interpretation. It's simply not that important.

Beam me up Scotty, there's no sign of intelligent life down here.



[Edited by GarthB on Sep 21st, 2002 at 03:43 PM]

"then I would have 6.06(c) "hindering the catchers play at home". And that play is the catcher making a throw."

A PLAY at HOME is just that. A runner attempting to score. It has NOTHING to do with the catcher's throw to another base. Otherwise, with a runner(s) attempting to advance, EVERY throw by F2 would result in interference.

Bob

Hmmm,
 

I am not exactly sure WHY I am answering since "Whowefoolin" claims to be leaving the thread.

Well here goes,

Whowefoolins last answer is just stupid. He has attempted to take the play and bend everything towards himself and has failed miserably. Luckily none of us will be forced to work a game with him.

The stupid part is that there is no arguing with "whoweFOOLin" cuz, sadly he just doesn't get it.

EVERY authoritive reference agrees with the postion that the HITTER SHOULD NOT MOVE . . . whowe blows against the wind and gets more arrogant every time.

The facts DO NOT change sir, EVERY authority and even official rulings support the other 99% and you refuse to open your mind to learn.

Your reference to any of us being "rule book thumpers" (i.e. "carrying the rule book to the field") is just another incrediably childish and silly statement. The people that have posted to this thread are FAR from the guys that call the letter of the rule. The facts stand you have ignored advice from some of the stronger internet representatives that post.

WHO, I am just a simple man. I have argued for years that "umpiring ain't that tough" -- I would like to think that you have begun pulling our collective legs as you get deeper into the absurdity of your logic.

I therefore also leave the thread knowing that you can lead an a$$ to water but . . . you get the rest.

[Edited by Tim C on Sep 21st, 2002 at 10:01 PM]

OK...OK. I am beat down into submission I guess. I was just my look into the play and what I would rule. I guess I am looking differently.

But, my gosh, I am sorry that I post in a different opinion then some of the high and mighty "internet representatives". Before computers, what were they called?

I would love to ump with anyone. I have umped all over and at all levels below professional and NCAA. Certified NAIA, JUCO, and PONY!!!! :)

I will end with... I will not be there and let a guy who knows the steal sign is no, go from a crouch to an upright position, not get out of the way, and get hit by the catchers follow through get away with it. I am ruling, if not 6.06(c)...9.01(c). (Did I say that out loud?)

Whowefoolin
 

First, I would like to apologize for how agressive my posts became during this discourse. I went back and read them and as my frustration with you increased as did my venom.

I do apologize for many of my words.

As to "internet representatives", these are the same people that have probably been recognized as "local authorities" for decades.

I know that since Carl is the only one of us that has been actually published in the "real book" community and should be considered the "UIC of internet umpires". The rest of "us" are simply guys that try to locate as much documentation as possible to really help people learn.

"Who" we know that the internet is dangerous . . . we have no idea if the "authoritive sources" that quote know diddly about what they write.

We have all, I think, been exposed to a "hot shot" new transfer to our group and expecting him to be good have been totally embarrassed by the lack of ability that transfer shows.

The same can be held for "internet rules junkies". There are a tremendous amount of "dumb" posts written by people who actually have no idea what they are writing.

But please don't start changing the play. We all have posted that the hitter cannot move . . . your "new" example now has the hitter to have been leaning over and then raising up. Keep the original play. "We" (and I cannot speak for all) are simply saying that a hitter does not have to dissappear. The hitter can hold his position.

"Who" make the call as you see fit. We are dealing with a written description of a play and sometimes, without being there, we get off on tangents like this.

I do ask one thing: step back and read your own posts, with a critical eye, and see why many of us reacted as we did.



[Edited by Tim C on Sep 23rd, 2002 at 01:49 PM]