Bi??

[tibear]

Pretty sure we got this one right but just confirming with the experts!!

2 out and R3 stealing home on a wild pitch, ball hits the backstop and rolls along the fence up the third base side. Right handed batter backs up about 10 feet from the home plate and stands facing the plate wanting to watch the play.

Catcher grabs the ball and sidearms it to homeplate without looking and hits the batter right in the middle of the back. Play would have been close at home plate. PU calls the batter out BI.

Of course the offense said that the batter was no where near home plate so they could not be called for interference however, our opinion was that instead of being an observer of the play at the plate that the batter should have ensured that they were positioned in such a way as to not get in the way of the catcher's throw.

Did we make the right call?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tibear

Pretty sure we got this one right but just confirming with the experts!!

2 out and R3 stealing home on a wild pitch, ball hits the backstop and rolls along the fence up the third base side. Right handed batter backs up about 10 feet from the home plate and stands facing the plate wanting to watch the play.

Catcher grabs the ball and sidearms it to homeplate without looking and hits the batter right in the middle of the back. Play would have been close at home plate. PU calls the batter out BI.

Of course the offense said that the batter was no where near home plate so they could not be called for interference however, our opinion was that instead of being an observer of the play at the plate that the batter should have ensured that they were positioned in such a way as to not get in the way of the catcher's throw.

Did we make the right call?

Sounds like you got it to me, assuming your statement that the play would have been close is true. The statement by the coach that "batter was no where near home plate so they could not be called for interference" is really dumb.

[Jay R]

Correct call in OBR. With less than two outs, the runner would have been called out I believe.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Jay R

Correct call in OBR. With less than two outs, the runner would have been called out I believe.

True for NCAA and NFHS, but don't believe that's true in OBR.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

True for NCAA and NFHS, but don't believe that's true in OBR.

OBR as well.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

OBR as well.

I looked for it. Can you give me a rule reference? Thanks!

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

I looked for it. Can you give me a rule reference? Thanks!

7.08(g)

[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.

[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.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

7.08(g)

Thanks!

[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.

[DG]

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 batter should watch the ball and move so as not to interfere, he has plenty of time to do so. It may mean moving forward instead of backward. He should not stand watching the plate with back to ball on a line between the plate and the catcher so as to get plunked in the back.

Guilty. BI.

[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.