If he moves there after the catcher has the ball and I feel it's done in order to "get in the way" I have no problem calling this.

:mad: Listen folks - the whole reason that the batter is semi-imune in the box is so the catcher can't just plunk the batter to get a cheap out. Don't help the catcher get a cheap out.

Gentlemen, use your judgement. If a batter, in the box, is doing what he normally would, I don't have any inteference. If he carelessly moves out of the box and hinders the catcher or does something intentional to hinder the play, call interference. Most times you will know it when you see it.

Get DirecTV.;)

It's posts like these that make teaching what BI is (and isn't) difficult.

Why would this be difficult for you? Please explain.

The rule book defines what is interference, but on the field you need to use judgement as to what actually happens. It seems everytime there is contact or an unusual situation, a coach starts hollering "interference" when it may be nothing more than incidental contact.

For example, Legion game, batter lays down a bunt and catcher throws ball wide to the foul side first. F3 moves to field the ball and there is a bump between F3 and the BR. Ball is not caught and goes down the right field line. First base coach starts hollering "interference". (what he really meant was obstruction). I judge incidental contact, both runner and F3 were doing what they were supposed to be doing. BR winds up at third so he really wasn't impeded.

Too often umpires feel they need to make a call. Don't be afraid to use common sense judgement.

Because every sentence was incomplete or incorrect. Let's see...

A batter can be doing what he normally would and still interfere.

If he moves out of the box in any way, shape or form, and hinders the catcher, it is BI, even if he's trying to avoid it. Doesn't have to be careless or intentional.

If he doesn't hinder the play, there's no interference.

Even if this had been interference, it's not BI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
Why would this be difficult for you? Please explain.

Because every sentence was incomplete or incorrect. Let's see...

Nonsense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
If a batter, in the box, is doing what he normally would, I don't have any inteference.

A batter can be doing what he normally would and still interfere.

This is true but simply standing up out of his crouch would not be interference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
If he carelessly moves out of the box and hinders the catcher

If he moves out of the box in any way, shape or form, and hinders the catcher, it is BI, even if he's trying to avoid it. Doesn't have to be careless or intentional.

True, but you are nit-picking here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
or does something intentional to hinder the play, call interference.

If he doesn't hinder the play, there's no interference.

Thats also true, but in my post I said he did hinder the play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
The rule book defines what is interference, but on the field you need to use judgement as to what actually happens. It seems everytime there is contact or an unusual situation, a coach starts hollering "interference" when it may be nothing more than incidental contact.

For example, Legion game, batter lays down a bunt and catcher throws ball wide to the foul side first. F3 moves to field the ball and there is a bump between F3 and the BR. Ball is not caught and goes down the right field line. First base coach starts hollering "interference". (what he really meant was obstruction). I judge incidental contact, both runner and F3 were doing what they were supposed to be doing. BR winds up at third so he really wasn't impeded.

Even if this had been interference, it's not BI.

The point you are missing is any interference is going to be a judgement call. Which was the only point I was trying to make.

Yes, actually, it can be.


You're absolutely right, which is why I have an issue with your original post. BI has intricacies based on what happens with the ball, batter, and catcher, and is evaluated conditionally based on those facts. Blanket statements such as yours that are inaccurate gloss over those intricacies and find themselves as improper guidelines that actually get used.

So, yes, I'm going to nit-pick, because I want it called correctly.

OK, I want it called correctly also. The highlighted part above is judgement, isn't it.

I don't think my original post was wrong, although it may have been incomplete. But I think you are reading too much into it. I just tried to keep it simple. There is no doubt in my mind that you and I both know what constitutes interference and will make the approprite call.

No. "Evaluated conditionally" is interpretation.

Judgment only refers to answering the question "What did I observe?" Any rule-based contextual evaluation or analysis of what you observed is interpretation.

Come on Matt, All I ever wanted to interject into the discussion was that in almost every situation there is a degree of judgement involved. Are you denying that is true?

It seems that you are saying BI is cut and dried and there is no room for judgement.

Wishful thinking.

What is wishful thinking? That judgement is involved?

Batters that take a step or two back and hinder the throw are guilty of interference.