Bi??

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by kylejt

The batter can't be required to disappear when there's a pinball game going on behind him at the backstop. Sure, he needs to try to back away. But if he makes an attempt to vacate, that should be enough to protect him from INT.

Let's put a lot of the blame where it belongs. The pitched ball is shooting around the backstop, here fellas. You really need to make a strong case for the batter getting in the way. It's the defense that caused all this mess in the first place.

The rules do a good job of balancing things like this. Just go by the rules. Don't insert your feelings about fairness or blame.

This is just wrong.

If the batter does not have time to vacate because the play happens to fast, the onus is on the defense. But in a play like the OP, the batter has plenty of time to find the ball and get out of the way. Failing to do that by either negligently standing in the batters box while the play develops around him, or by moving TOWARD the ball and making the play more difficult is interference, plain and simple. If they have time to move, they MUST get out of the way.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If the batter does not have time to vacate because the play happens to fast, the onus is on the defense. But in a play like the OP, the batter has plenty of time to find the ball and get out of the way. Failing to do that by either negligently standing in the batters box while the play develops around him, or by moving TOWARD the ball and making the play more difficult is interference, plain and simple. If they have time to move, they MUST get out of the way.

Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?

What I would like to know from the OP is whether the throw would have gotten to the plate if it had not hit the batter, or whether it was way off line when it hit him. That's actually more relevant than the batter's distance from the plate.

If the throw was way off line, then I would not have called BI. If it was not off line and the batter was negligently in the way, then I'd agree with the call of BI.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?

Anywhere he's not interfering with the throw or the play.

Originally Posted by mbyron

What I would like to know from the OP is whether the throw would have gotten to the plate if it had not hit the batter, or whether it was way off line when it hit him. That's actually more relevant than the batter's distance from the plate.

If the throw was way off line, then I would not have called BI. If it was not off line and the batter was negligently in the way, then I'd agree with the call of BI.

I think the OP made it clear there would have been a play.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Matt

I think the OP made it clear there would have been a play.

Every one can get a "brain fart". For example, when I first read the OP, I visualed a poor throw by F2. But that didn't jive with the responses given, so I went back and read it again. On a second read-through, I think the key phrase is, "Play would have been close at home plate." It could only have been close if it was a quality throw, so that changed my visualization of the play completely, and I have BI here too. Batter should have looked to see where the ball really went; a couple steps up the line would have cleared the throwing lane.

[Publius]

The batter vacated the area around the plate. Unless he interfered with a player attempting to make a play, I've got nothing.

The batter has to interfere with a fielder's ability to make a throw, receive a throw, or attempt to tag a base or runner, to be guilty of interference. Ten feet from the plate, he didn't interfere with F2's ability to make a throw from near the screen, and based on the OP saying the play would have been close, F1 or whoever was covering home must have been well removed from the batter, so the batter didn't interfere with that fielder, either.

Interfering with a thrown ball is far different than interfering with a fielder's attempt to make a throw or receive a thrown ball. The batter must vacate the area around home plate so as not to interfere with the PLAY. He did. If he interferes with the THROW, it must be intentional.

You got it wrong.

[Dave Reed]

Publius,
I don't agree. 7.08(b) says a runner may not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
7.09(c) is the applicable rule for this situation, and it covers either a batter or runner on a play at home before two are out and there is a runner on third. They may not hinder a play at the plate. "Play" is defined in the MLBUM, and a throw to put out a runner is one example of a play. Intent is not required.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Publius,
I don't agree. 7.08(b) says a runner may not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
7.09(c) is the applicable rule for this situation, and it covers either a batter or runner on a play at home before two are out and there is a runner on third. They may not hinder a play at the plate. "Play" is defined in the MLBUM, and a throw to put out a runner is one example of a play. Intent is not required.

A throw to put out a runner is a play. A thrown ball isn't.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?

Away from the plate is irrelevant. The batter moved TEN FEET toward the ball and got in the way of the play. That's all that matters. The batter needs to get OUT OF THE WAY. Distance away from the plate means nothing. All that matters is that the batter get out of the way of the play.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?

Ten feet in a different direction.