Interference BR - Base on Balls

[JPaco54]

OBRs - No outs. R1 on 2B...3 balls on the batter. R1 stealing on the pitch. Ball four. F2 throwing to 3B and is interfered with by the batter(Batter Runner). HP ump called interference on the batter (BR). He awarded the BR 1B and called R1 out...I questioned the call in my mind and thought that the BR should be out and R1 returns to 2B...There was no agrument from either HC's on the call other than the Offensive coach did not think his batter caused interference.

Two innings later I approached my partner between innings and state that I think we got the call wrong as far as placing the runner. I told him that the BR should be OUT and R1 should have been placed back on 2B. He thought a moment and said that he remembered that if there were two outs then the BR would have been called out.

I referrenced my Jaska/Roder manual last night and got more confused. Appreciate advise on clarification. Thanks!

[MD Longhorn]

Incidentally, what was the interference for... what did he do?

[UmpJM]

JPaco,

If there were batter interference - and in this case, there was not - it would properly be penalized by calling the batter out and returning the runner to his TOP base.

When the batter interferes, the batter is always ruled out except in two cases:

1. The batter just struck out on the pitch.

2. There are less than 2 outs AND a runner is attempting to advance from 3B on the pitch (via a steal or squeeze play).

In these cases the runner is out for the batter's interference.

JM

[JPaco54]

I did not see the interference as I was following the throw to 3B, but when I looked up F2 was on the ground and my partner called interference due to the batter runner interfering with F2's throw. I believe it was non-intentional and therefore should not have been called.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

JPaco,

If there were batter interference - and in this case, there was not - JM

Everything else you said was right... but how can you know that there was no interference... he still hasn't described the play. I agree that it's kind of likely that there was none... which is why I asked what I did. But we surely don't know that yet.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

I did not see the interference as I was following the throw to 3B, but when I looked up F2 was on the ground and my partner called interference due to the batter runner interfering with F2's throw. I believe it was non-intentional and therefore should not have been called.

I guess we'll never know then. The previous post answered your questions though.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Everything else you said was right... but how can you know that there was no interference... he still hasn't described the play. I agree that it's kind of likely that there was none... which is why I asked what I did. But we surely don't know that yet.

mbcrowder,

I didn't say there was no interference, I said that it wasn't batter interference.

I know that because the batter had become a runner on ball 4 and rule 6.06(c) doesn't apply anymore.

JM

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

JPaco,

If there were batter interference - and in this case, there was not - it would properly be penalized by calling the batter out and returning the runner to his TOP base.

When the batter interferes, the batter is always ruled out except in two cases:

1. The batter just struck out on the pitch.

2. There are less than 2 outs AND a runner is attempting to advance from 3B on the pitch (via a steal or squeeze play).

In these cases the runner is out for the batter's interference.

JM

3. The catcher's throw retires a runner (the INT is ignored).