Batter Interference With/Wihout a Play

[Mike Walsh]

I'm new to Fed rules - this will be my first season. Help me understand a point made in class this week. With a runner on first, and no count, the catcher drops the pitch near the plate. The batter nonchalantly bends down, picks up the ball, and hands it to the catcher. This constitutes interference and the ball is dead and the runner stays/returns to first. Is the batter out? Does it matter if the runner was attempting to steal?

What if the batter's actions were obviously unintentional (e.g., he swings and his momentum carries him out of the box where he interferes with the catcher's attempt to throw to a base)?

Is the treatment of any of these situations different than it would be under Pro rules? Thanks for your help.

[greymule]

I didn't think that, even in Fed, a batter picking up a ball as you describe would be interference. Did they tell you the batter should be called out?

Certainly in OBR there has to be a play for interference to occur. In your scenarios, the batter would indeed be out if the runner had been stealing.

If I were the ump, I would still caution the batter that he had done something very risky. I would also call time as soon as the batter touched the ball.

If the batter swings and ends up out of the box, he is risking an interference call. If you allowed batters to let the swing carry them into the catcher, guess what every batter would do whenever somebody was stealing.

[Mike Walsh]

My understanding is that an offensive player picking up a live ball creates a dead ball situation in the same way that it would if an umpire or a non-participating person authorized to be on the field touched a live ball. And my understanding of the OBR treatment is the same as what you described. The explanation in class that I may not have understood fully was that EVEN if the runner was going, you should kill it immediately and send the runner back – it became dead as soon as the batter touched it, so the steal opportunity was lost. No problem with not allowing an advance, but they seemed to be advocating no penalty to the batter. In Pro, the batter would be out; in Fed, just kill the ball, call the pitch, and he’s still up.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Mike Walsh
My understanding is that an offensive player picking up a live ball creates a dead ball situation in the same way that it would if an umpire or a non-participating person authorized to be on the field touched a live ball. And my understanding of the OBR treatment is the same as what you described. The explanation in class that I may not have understood fully was that EVEN if the runner was going, you should kill it immediately and send the runner back – it became dead as soon as the batter touched it, so the steal opportunity was lost. No problem with not allowing an advance, but they seemed to be advocating no penalty to the batter. In Pro, the batter would be out; in Fed, just kill the ball, call the pitch, and he’s still up.

Mike, I've not seen any support for what you say you've been taught relative to Fed.
That is, don't send him back merely because the interference seemed unintentional.
If he was stealing when BR did his action, call batter interference.
What is unaddressed is what happens if R1 is not stealing.......
I'd recommend that if R1 was not stealing, then kill the play and allow no further action that could benefit either team. That is what would be done under OBR rule.

Here is Fed caseplay 7.3.5c which is very specific in dealing with interference by a retired batter:

7.3.5 SITUATION C: With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1.
Ruling: B3 is out for interference. If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base.

Although this caseplay allows the umpire to judge whether the interference could result in 2 being declared out or whether he will return the runner, the caseplay is highly specific to batter interference with the batter striking out. Other wording is very specific that interference need not be intentional. This caseplay is not proof and should not be construed as evidence that all unintentional interference would result in merely returning the runners. IMO, it depends moreso on whether or not another play is occurring at the time.

BTW, in reality I can't remember in the 24 years I've been doing Fed ever seeing a runner returned when the batter interfered after his third strike. Apparently other umpires judge as I do and provide benefit of doubt to the catcher in his ability to retire the runner. They declare B1 and R1 both out. (That is, indeed, the OBR ruling).

The play you presented in your initial post deals with interference when no play is occurring. Greymule provided an excellent answer using CSFP and handling the situation as it would be handled under OBR. Without a play occurring, kill live play, and don't allow any action to initiate as a result of the batter's actions.


Just my opinion,

Freix