batter interferance--

[dave]

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.

[Roger Greene]

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

[dave]

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???

[Roger Greene]

Originally posted by dave
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

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Roger Greene

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

[Roger Greene]

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

[Whowefoolin]

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.......

[GarthB]

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.

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]

[Tim C]

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" . . .

[jicecone]

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.

[Whowefoolin]

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

[GarthB]

Whowefoolin:

From the OBR:

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 binders the catcher’s play at home base.


From the JEA:

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

And:


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

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by dave
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.

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!

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by dave

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.

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 fit into this

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?

RULING: 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

[Whowefoolin]

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.