Batters Interference?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mattmets

Had a game tonight and think I had BI, but wanted to get others' thoughts (good or bad).

JV, played by NFHS rules. R2, 2 outs. Runner steals on the pitch. Batter swings and misses. F2 attempts to throw out R2, but the throw hits the bat, which is raised above the batter's head. Throw sails off near F6 and rolls into left field, runner scores. I call BI for the bat being in the way of the throw because it was above the batter's head. Had the bat been shoulder high or a normal backswing, I wouldn't have called BI. Batter was still located in the box at the time of the throw.

Did I nail it or kick it? Also had CI and umpire interference by my partner- this was an odd game to say the least.

FWIW- IMO R2 would have been out by 3-4 feet had the throw been online.

Unless the batter moved the bat to be in the way after the pitch, you kicked it. He has no requirement to move from his position in the batter's box -- the catcher is expected to throw around him.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Unless the batter moved the bat to be in the way after the pitch, you kicked it.

Not necessarily. Intent is not required.

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

He has no requirement to move from his position in the batter's box

Being in the box does not render the batter immune from interference.

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

-- the catcher is expected to throw around him.

Not necessarily.

[Rich Ives]

Bad call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Matt

Not necessarily. Intent is not required.



Being in the box does not render the batter immune from interference.



Not necessarily.

I'm talking about a pitch that went straight from the pitcher's hand to the catcher's glove. Not talking about any exceptions or oddities, such as a pitch that bounced up or anything like that. If it's a simple pitch-catch-throw, the batter has no duty or responsibility to do anything, including lowering the bat.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

I'm talking about a pitch that went straight from the pitcher's hand to the catcher's glove. Not talking about any exceptions or oddities, such as a pitch that bounced up or anything like that. If it's a simple pitch-catch-throw, the batter has no duty or responsibility to do anything, including lowering the bat.

That's funny--since I didn't say anything like that.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

Not necessarily. Intent is not required.

Being in the box does not render the batter immune from interference.

Not necessarily.

Given the OP, are you saying you thought the call was right? If so, I believe you are incorrect. In a sitch like the OP, without intent, this is NOT interference.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Given the OP, are you saying you thought the call was right?

Asked and answered. I don't know. Wasn't there.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If so, I believe you are incorrect. In a sitch like the OP, without intent, this is NOT interference.

Take the word intent and throw it away. Intent is not required.

[DG]

It is amazing the number of times we see HTBT as a response. I can read what is written and comment on it as written without having to be there.

Not interference in this case, as written.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

It is amazing the number of times we see HTBT as a response. I can read what is written and comment on it as written without having to be there.

Not interference in this case, as written.

Okay, God, why was the bat above his head?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Matt

Okay, God, why was the bat above his head?

Most batters have the barrel end of the bat above their heads when in a hitting stance. They are not required to lower it when a player is stealing. Are you reading that the bat was raised up higher than the normal stance?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Matt

Okay, God, why was the bat above his head?

You've never seen a batter end up with the barrel above his head after a swing? Happens all the time after a swing.

Unless he was trying to swat the throw out of the air, why does it matter where the bat was?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Matt

Okay, God, why was the bat above his head?

You might have seemed less antagonistic by leading with the thought that the batter holding the bat above his head qualifies as an abnormal movement making him liable for interference.

I think it's unclear from the OP whether the position of the bat was a natural consequence of a normal swing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

Take the word intent and throw it away. Intent is not required.

On a batter that just swung at a pitch, it sure is. Describe for us a situation where the batter swings at a pitch, is hit by the ball being thrown from the catcher to a base, and there is no intent to interfere by the batter, where you believe interference to be the right call.