All;

It's been a while since I have been around but I have a situation that all of the rules gurus may enjoy chewing over.

R1, 1 out, NCAA rules but I'd be interested in FED and OBR as well:

We have all seen the situation where R1 is stealing and the batter swings at an outside pitch. His momentum causes him to step on the plate and interfere with the catcher's throw to second. About 70% of all umpires are too chicken manure to call interference but the correct call is, of course, interference. Assuming that R1 is not out on the throw, the batter is out and R1 returns to first.

Now consider this:

In an NCAA game that I had recently, R1 was stealing and the pitcher delivered an INSIDE pitch at the knees. The batter jumped the lower part of his body backward to avoid getting cut off at the knee. The upper part of his body fell forward across the plate and interfered with the catcher. Common sense and fair play caused me to ignore the infraction despite a mild protest by the defense.

That was common sense and fair play. Does anyone have the appropriate rules citations, Evans, etc. to go with it?

Peter

Welcome back Peter.
 

No anwers. More questions.

If the batter did the same thing on a steal of home by R3 and prevented the catcher from making a play, would your call have been the same?

I'm trying to figure out if your CS&FP call is based solely on the accidental nature of batter's "interference" or if it takes the consequence into consideration.

GB

Re: Welcome back Peter.
 

Yes, it would have been the same. I felt that it was unfair to penalize the batter for trying to avoid getting hurt.

It would be especially egregious in high level baseball to penalize the batter on a steal of home. One of the taught defenses to prevent a steal of home is to throw at the batter. When the pitcher is in his windup and hears that R3 is stealing, he adjusts his aim to the batter. A hit batsman sends R3 back to third, unless the bases are loaded.

Peter

Your consistency is impressive, and I would agree with your ruling.

I was just checking. Many times on these boards what people express as CS is not FP, and vice versa.

Welcome back again.

I don't think that I would call interference on this play in any particular situation. The batter is required to make an attempt to get out of the way of a pitch if it is going to hit him. I don't see how you could penalize a batter who is trying to get out the way of a pitch and because of that falls across home or gets in the way of a play somehow.

No interference. No reference.

I seem to recall reading a similar situation a few years ago, but I don't have my files handy.

Agreed....no interference. Action of the defense caused the resultant action of the batter leaving the box.


Freix

Im sorry guys, as sure as I am that the batter did not intentionally interfer with the catcher, I am also positive that he did indeed interfer with the catcher.

I generally don't establish criteria to determine intent unless I am positive that it goes both ways. To date, I have not been able to fullfill that statement. Did he interfer? Yes. Batter out.Son, you didn't interfer on purpose, but you did interfer.

And yes, that would also apply to the play at the plate.
I don't believe the rules give me the latitude to decide intent for this situation. But,as long as I stay consistent in all cases, I believe there shoudn't be a problem.

<i> Originally posted by His High Holiness </i>

<b> All;

Now consider this:

In an NCAA game that I had recently, R1 was stealing and the pitcher delivered an INSIDE pitch at the knees. The batter jumped the lower part of his body backward to avoid getting cut off at the knee. The upper part of his body fell forward across the plate and interfered with the catcher. Common sense and fair play caused me to ignore the infraction despite a mild protest by the defense.

That was common sense and fair play. Does anyone have the appropriate rules citations, Evans, etc. to go with it?

Peter </b>

IMO, since we are talking about CSFP, the appropriate call would be "weak interference" meaning B1 is not out and return the runner(s).

I understand that F1 caused B1 to cross into F2's path, however, if F2 is prevented from making a play I don't think it's "Fair" to give the offense a "cheap" base or in the case of a steal of home a "cheap run" either.

Pete Booth

Isn't this a call totally unjustified by the rules? It would seem to me that, in this case, it is either hard interference or it's nothing--both of which can be justified by the rulebook. However, there's no provision for weak interference in this case, unless the NCAA book has something special of which I am not aware. I understand we are talking about CSFP, but we can't discard the rules just to make it "fair".

P-Sz

"but we can't discard the rules just to make it "fair"."

True statement, but it goes both ways. Where in the rules does it say that batter interference shall be decided upon, after the umpire has determined the true intent of the batters actions.

I agree with Pete if your going to make a decision based upon CSFP, make sure it is fair to both sides.

Pete's answer is obtuse.
When you start stretching limits of judgment, it's exactly that---judgment.
They can appeal all they want, but it's still your judgment decision within the rules.
It's your application of the rule.

When you start adjusting penalties to that which is not applicable by rule to the situation you'll soon find yourself in much greater difficulty than you imagine.

So, are you going to make a 3 base award when the batted ball rolls under the fence in the corner because you felt the batter would have had a triple had it stayed on the field of play? Wouldn't that be fair also?

NOT........


Just my opinion,

Freix

"When you start stretching limits of judgment, it's exactly that---judgment.
They can appeal all they want, but it's still your judgment decision within the rules."

I agree, but what or where in the rules, allows us to judge intent of the batter.

And I don't buy off on the ole OBR 9.01c,"The umpire has the authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules".

Mabey Im missing something here.

Especially if it clearly states in the NCAA rule book that the Batter is out if he "intentionally or unintentionally interfers with the cather's fielding or throwing"

Peter's initial question dealt with applying CSFP since it was the batter's immediate reactive <u>need</u> to avoid the pitch that caused his leaving the box. When the situation happened to Peter, he stretched his area of judgment to rule interference was not going to apply due to mitigating circumstances. He was looking for support from written interpretation, yet I could find none. However, I don't disagree with his judgment.

I'd liken the situation to a BR being hit with a throw while running in fair territory (outside the running lane) after his dropped third strike deflected toward the 1B dugout and F3 was leaning over foul territory calling for the throw. CSFP says this runner was attempting to avoid interfering with the play by running away from F3, and it obviously was not his fault when F2 threw the ball where it would strike him instead of making a throw directly to F3. You'll not find me making a lane violation call there despite the complaints of the defensive manager. Yet, I'm not going to call the play a do-over in saying that "penalty" would be the fairest to both teams involved.

I've stretched the CSFP of judgment by not making the interference call. Still, I've not had to resort to fabricating some off-the-wall penalty in an attempt to balance fairness of the situation. You either declare the interference or you don't, but don't muddy the water with attempts at applying some nonsensical 9.01(c) application and obtuse penalty that doesn't apply to the situation.


Just my opinion,

Freix

the rule continues "... by stepping out of the batter's box or by making a movement that hinders the catcher's throwing or fielding." (I hope that's right --it's from memory).

I interpret the words "stepping" and "making" as active verbs -- requiring a (reasonably) conscious effort on the part of the batter. If it's just a reaction to the pitch, then it's nothing.

IOW, it's similar to (but not quite the same as)interference by persons authorized to be on the field. If they *actively* affect the ball, then it's interference, even if they didn't *intend* to interfere.

I agree that intentionally "stepping out of the batter's box or by making a movement that hinders the catcher's throwing or fielding," are "active verbs -- requiring a (reasonably) conscious effort on the part of the batter."

But what is unintentionally, "stepping out of the batter's box or by making a movement that hinders the catcher's throwing or fielding?" Are those inactive verbs, that do not require "a (reasonably) conscious effort on the part of the batter."

Im am not being a hard a__ here, but I see no supporting documentation that allows the umpire gods to make a determination of intent here, in favor of the offense and at the expense of the defense.

Didn't that used to be the problem with the FPSR in HS? The official was to determine if there was intentional interference at second, before calling the batter-runner out also.

If I may quote out of context, from Mr. C hisself, "The umpire is absolutely certain B1 did not intend to interfer. Ruling: The umpire is also absolutely certain that B1 has interfered and that somebody is going to be penalized".
pg26 "The Umpire's Answer Book"

This in no way implies on my part that Mr Childress agrees or disagrees with the situation we are presently discussing.

General statements:

If the batter *meant* to move, it's interference, whether the batter *intended* to interfere, or not.

If the batter is *forced* to move, it's not interference.

Play: F1 pitches inside and batter goes down in a heap (i.e., moves). F2 trips over the batter while attempting a throw. The batter made no other movement.

My ruling: Play on.

Your ruling: Interference, even though it wasn't "intentional"????

This isn't a situation where CS&FP allows us to ignore an infraction of the rules. Although there are many of those types of calls in baseball, this isn't one of them.

Instead, this situation is one in which two rules are diametrically opposed. The batter is required to make an attempt to avoid the pitch. In avoiding the pitch, the batter is then placed in a position of illegal action.

As far as I'm concerned, the batter's first responsibility is to avoid the pitch. If that causes him to hinder the catcher's play, tough noogies. As we have learned from delayed dead ball situations, baseball rules are ruled upon in order. The first situation in the play requires the batter to make an attempt to avoid the pitch. If the result of that attempt to avoid places him in a position of illegal action, that is irrelevant.

However, if the batter, in my judgement, uses the inside pitch as an excuse to stumble across the plate and thereby interfere intentionally, then I wouldn't hesitate to ring him up. It would have to be pretty obvious to me though. The batter gets the benefit of the doubt when he's attempting to avoid in my game.

I agree with jicecone. In this case it's not up to me to make a judgement on the intent of the batter or the reason he interfered with the catcher. The fact that he indeed did interfere is all I must rule on. Ding, ding...somebody is out!
I already have to make too many "judgement" calls - for example, was the batter "frozen" by that inside pitch, or did he just let it hit him? Based on which one of those I judge to be correct, I will either award a base or not.
But that's why we get the big money:)