BI/Steal
 

What are you looking for in order to determine if batter interference is called in this scenario.

R1 stealing
BR swings and his follow through brings him across the plate.
Catcher throws to 2nd.

Let's assume there is no contact between the batter and the catcher.

Are you looking to see if the catcher has to hesitate?
If he has to move around the batter?
Does it matter if has to throw around the batter?

Is the rule the same between FED and OBR?

Thanks

Same rule for FED and OBR. Delayed dead ball; if the first throw retires a runner, that out stands and the batter resumes his at bat; otherwise, the batter is out and the runner returns.

If the batter has stepped across the plate and the F2 comes up to throw, I've got BI. The batter has no right to step out of the box, so it doesn't matter what else happens. (Some will get into the finer points of whether the batter prevented a throw, but I give the benefit of doubt to the defense here.)

You don't have to wait to judge if there was actual hindrance to the play: the rule has that built in. Call it immediately when you see it.

Neither contact nor intent is required for you to rule BI correctly.

Stepping across the plate by itself is not automatically INT. The batter has to alter the catcher's throw. I have seen plays where the pitch is so far outside in the other batter's box and the catcher has to go so far, that the batter doesn't even come close to interfering.

With that said, 99.9 percent of the time, the batter alters the play in some fashion if the pitch is decent. Give the benefit of the doubt to the catcher when this play happens.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote:

"If the batter has stepped across the plate and the F2 comes up to throw, I've got BI."

Nothing you say contradicts my statement. Indeed, your requirement that F2 actually throw the ball is incorrect. You don't have to have a throw to have BI.

Extremely unsanitary!:eek:

Only if they're dirty.

He didn't put words in your mouth. They're his words. And they're correct.

Well if he steps across the plate in my games, then he has altered the catcher's throw. I'm not going to ever bail out the batter on this type of intentional play.

Thanks
David

If the F2 makes no kind of effort to show he was interfered with then I'm not likely to call interference. That said the F2 is getting all benefit of the doubt.

If it sounded like I meant F2 HAS to throw the ball, that is not what I meant at all. I realize that if F2 tries to throw and the batter steps across the plate, you can have INT without a throw.

You said:
You do have to see if there is hindrance to the play, because like I said, the batter has to alter F2's play since stepping out of the batter's box by itself is not INT.

It is possible (unlikely, but possible) that the batter falling across the plate does not alter F2's throw at all. That would not be INT. Having said that, I agree with most here that F2 gets ALL benefit of the doubt, and I believe I could count the Non-INT's I've had on one hand.

According to some posters here, the batter should dive to a prone position as if he heard incoming artillery. :D

For there to BE interference, the batter has to interfere. You get to decide if he interfered. That's why we get the big money. :rolleyes:

JJ

But there does have to be interference in some manner. It isn't automatic.

Sometimes, no matter where the batter may be located, F2 starts to throw and doesn't because he sees he has no play. I think you have to be able to recognize those situations.

Sometimes, because of where the batter is located, the catcher starts to throw and doesn't because he CAN'T see! I agree, we as umpires have to recognize those situations.

Also think about the catcher holding his throw back because of instinct of not wanting to break a finger on the batters helmet or bat.