More on Batter Interference

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by FED Case Book

7.3.5 SITUATION E: With less than two outs, R1 on second and B2 at the plate,
R1 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging
or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2
throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2
throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and
must R1 return to second? RULING: B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b).
B2 is entitled to his position in the batter’s box and is not subject to being
penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2
has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a
runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

So this seems to be the clause grounding your interp. Just so I understand what you're saying, you'll call BI if the batter is still in the box and makes no abnormal movements?

What's odd about this case play is that the ruling in BOTH cases (a) and (b) is no interference. Then the RULING provides a principle on which to call it. Very strange.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So this seems to be the clause grounding your interp. Just so I understand what you're saying, you'll call BI if the batter is still in the box and makes no abnormal movements?

What's odd about this case play is that the ruling in BOTH cases (a) and (b) is no interference. Then the RULING provides a principle on which to call it. Very strange.

Sit. R2, B2 (RH) at the plate. R2 stealing third on the pitch. B2 follows the pitch, thinks about swinging, but the pitch is low and outside. As a result, he leans forward and down as catcher receives the pitch. B2 then leans back up to his original stance as F2 throws to third in an attempt to throw out R2.

Interference? Was this move abnormal?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So this seems to be the clause grounding your interp. Just so I understand what you're saying, you'll call BI if the batter is still in the box and makes no abnormal movements?

What's odd about this case play is that the ruling in BOTH cases (a) and (b) is no interference. Then the RULING provides a principle on which to call it. Very strange.

I would argue that such a move is abnormal. Standing back up after leaning out to block a catcher's throw would be abnormal movement, in my mind.

Are we arguing about something on which we violently agree?

[MrUmpire]

The problem stems from trying to insert a word which does not, apparently, have a universal meaning to all people. It is also unnecessary. The rule is worded just fine the way it is.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

I would argue that such a move is abnormal. Standing back up after leaning out to block a catcher's throw would be abnormal movement, in my mind.

Really? Now your trying to insert yourself into the game. You may have a better argument that if the play was at second, the Batter could be called for leaning over the plate, but returning to his original stance is stretching it.

Batter ducks for a pitch just over his head and when he returns to his normal stance he gets hit with the throw to a base. I suppose your calling that BI too.

[CT1]

A well-trained F2 won't have a problem with a batter who remains in the box.

[Mrumpiresir]

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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

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.

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

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Really? Now your trying to insert yourself into the game. You may have a better argument that if the play was at second, the Batter could be called for leaning over the plate, but returning to his original stance is stretching it.

Batter ducks for a pitch just over his head and when he returns to his normal stance he gets hit with the throw to a base. I suppose your calling that BI too.

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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.

Get DirecTV.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

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.

I'd call that 'abnormal.'


Batter's not obligated to get on all fours/prone to avoid F2's throw.

YMMV.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by LMan

I'd call that 'abnormal.'


Batter's not obligated to get on all fours/prone to avoid F2's throw.

YMMV.

I don't expect him to move at all. But if he does move, he comes under additional scrutiny. That's all I'm saying.