The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   batter interference? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/6011-batter-interference.html)

davekoch Mon Oct 14, 2002 08:10am

i am not an umpire, just a coach wanting to understand
the rules better and have found this board to be very
informative.

i also read another "rules" board and came across a question
that i was somewhat confused about. i tried searching the
database here and didn't find anything that fits the exact
description and would like some clarification, the following
was posted:

"Situation, Runner on first base breaks for second on pitch. As catcher retrives ball from his mitt to make a throw, it falls to the ground where it is immediatly struck (inadvertenly) by the batters bat and is knocked away from the catcher."

the poster was then asked to clarify if it was the backswing
that hit the ball out of the way, the original poster responded:

"Yes, the batter was returning the bat after a swing."

first, is this a definition of backswing to be included
with the follow-thru backswing?

second, what is the correct ruling for either case of
"backswing" given that the catcher dropped the ball when
taking the ball out of the glove for a throw and was then
struck by the batter's bat?

thanks,
-dave koch




Roger Greene Mon Oct 14, 2002 11:06am

Quote:

Originally posted by davekoch


the poster was then asked to clarify if it was the backswing
that hit the ball out of the way, the original poster responded:

"Yes, the batter was returning the bat after a swing."

first, is this a definition of backswing to be included
with the follow-thru backswing?

thanks,
-dave koch




Dave,
The "backswing" refered to in the rules would be the follow through of the attempt to strike the ball.

If the batter has completed his attempt to strike the ball (and the attendant folow through/backswing) the movement to return the bat to a "preswing" position could be "any other movement" that could be ruled inteference. Note that I said could, and not would.

Its probably a HTBT situation. If the batter's movement were judged to be part of his normal attempt to strike the ball, and he remained in the batter's box, you might not judge it to be inteference. Particularly since F2 apparently let the ball get away from him in the first place, and therefor caused the ball to be in a place that caused the contact.

Roger Greene

Rog Mon Oct 14, 2002 12:48pm

Please specify what league, i.e. High School, College, Little League, Babe Ruth, etc. and what rules are utilized in this game.

For the most part this is the ruling across the board -

http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/u/base...ers/rules6.htm

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 hinders the catcher's play
at home base.
EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out,
or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference. If the
batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call
"interference." The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on
such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the
last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time
of the interference. If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner
attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual
interference and that runner is out_not the batter. Any other runners on the
base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual
interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no
violation had been called. If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings
so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment,
unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing
before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike
only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall
advance on the play.


davekoch Mon Oct 14, 2002 01:05pm

sorry, the poster from the other board did not
indicate league or rules.

even so, under 6.06(c) would the batter be ruled
as interfering if he was returning to his pre-swing
stance and the bat hit the ball which the catcher
had dropped after taking it out of the glove to make
the throw?

thanks,
-dave koch

Rog Mon Oct 14, 2002 01:15pm

absent an "intentional" action by the batter, I fail to see why the batter should be penalized for the catcher's lack of control of the ball.

What if that same catcher drops the ball just as the plate umpire is stepping back to clear the catcher, and the ball lands on the umpire's foot. Then as the umpire moves, the ball is inadvertantly catapulted into foul territory. Would this be umpire interference?

PeteBooth Mon Oct 14, 2002 01:16pm

<i> Originally posted by davekoch </i>

<b> sorry, the poster from the other board did not
indicate league or rules.

even so, under 6.06(c) would the batter be ruled
as interfering if he was returning to his pre-swing
stance and the bat hit the ball which the catcher
had dropped after taking it out of the glove to make
the throw?

thanks,
-dave koch </b>

This falls under the category of umpire judgement, but in your scenario F2 had a chance to get R1, but erred meaning he dropped the ball getting it out of his mit., so the chance of F2 throwing out R1 (even if the ball hadn't hit the bat) is probably slim. Therefore, unless B1 did something deliberate after F2 dropped the ball, I have nothing.

At most one could rule <i> weak interference </i> meaning B1 is not out but R1 (now R2) is returned to first, however, F2 had a legitimate chance to get r1 but dropped the ball.

Pete Booth

davekoch Mon Oct 14, 2002 01:31pm

thanks for the quick replies!

one last question on this situation, if the
umpire judges NO interference at all,
doesn't the ball stay live, even with inadvertent contact?

thanks a bunch for clearing this up for me,
-dave koch

Rog Mon Oct 14, 2002 05:59pm

No interference = balls still live.....

DownTownTonyBrown Wed Oct 16, 2002 05:31pm

Catcher missed his opportunity. Batter, without intent, did nothing wrong. Strike. No interference call. Safe at 2nd. Ball is live.

NO rules violation anywhere; just a muffed throw


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1