More on Batter Interference
 

These couple posts about BI makes me wonder what it would take to get a BI call. Specifically on pick-offs to third base. Many batters will notice the catcher pop up and take a step or two back in an attempt to get out of the way to avoid the call. Sometimes those actually get into the way of the catcher. I've never called it because I want to understand the call better before making it.

If the batter remains in the box and makes no abnormal movements, he is immune to BI, no matter where F2 throws the ball.

If he steps out or makes abnormal movements, and if he consequently hinders the defense, it is BI.

It's not that difficult in practice.

Ugh. The movement doesn't have to be abnormal to be interference.

+1 (unless R3 is coming home)
I would define "abnormal movements" as any movement not related to or in conjunction with a legitimate swing.

+1
Most "abnormal movements" I would be looking out for would be intentional in nature. I suppose there might be some unintentional ones but they are very infrequent.

It's not difficult for me to call. Sometimes it is very difficult to explain it to some hothead coach who's kid you just called out.

If the batter remains in the box, yes, it does.

No, it does not.

Very well put - basically the batter is safe in the box for most baseball.
If he does something abnormal, you as an umpire will know it.

Thanks
David

Any published case plays support your interp?

The first one I can think of is for FED. 7.3.5e says if the batter moves after the pitch is caught, he is liable for 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.

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?

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?

What we have here is failure to communicate
 

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.

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.

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

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.

Methinks you need to learn what the word OR means.

.... simply standing up out of his crouch would not be interference.
Matt, please provide an example of interference if a batter simply stands up out of his crouch.

It thoroughly amazes me how some people can take a simple thing and complicate it so damn much! BI is not that hard to recognize if you stop adding all the "what if's" and the "what about" crap. Learn the definition of interference, learn when a batter may and may not vacate the box and you have all you need. It really isn't that hard! :eek:

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.

I wasn't addressing the word "or." Any movement makes him liable, abnormal or not.

All of them, unless the throw would have hit him anyway. The catcher is not obligated to predict what the batter is going to do.

Well, that opinion is contrary to the MLBUM, JEA, and J/R interpretations.

No -- that it is cut & dried. There are few calls where judgment is NOT involved.

While I understand your logic, it is contrary to all guidance we've been given at multiple levels of clinics as well as written materials produced by various entities.

I urge you to discuss this interpretation with your higher-ups at the next available clinic.

So, after the swing, the batter is supposed to instantly 'freeze' in place in the box. Uh huh. Sure he is.

Your hole is deep enough...stop digging.

My revisions (for simplicity sake) :

If the batter remains in the box and interferes , call it.
If the batter steps out of the box and interferes, call it.

Simplicity seems to be rather unhelpful, especially regarding in obliterating the distinction between being in and out of the box.

I was trying to obliterate your use of the term 'abnormal' and replace it simply with the term, 'interfere'. We see interference, we call it. For example, a pitcher might make an 'abnormal' looking pick off, that might not be a balk.

What counts as interference is different depending on whether the batter is in the box. Normal movements in the box are legal; normal movements out of the box might not be.

Your formulation is content-free and useless: call interference when the batter interferes. The point of the thread is to illuminate what the batter can and cannot do, and your post doesn't help.

IMO the word abnormal complicated everything.

Stepping back after the catcher has the pitch, even if the batter is still in the box, is very normal, but he is still responsible for his movements as to not interfere. So any normal movement would still be considered interference.

Which I think Matt was trying to emphasize.

As most have said, you'll know it when you see it!

Well, it's not.

Ed Zachary.

Yes, he is. You're going to let a batter move after a swing and interfere with a throw?

Why? Because I'm right?

Methinks youthinks you be Bill Shakespeare.;)

Methinketh this thread has turned abnormaleth....

Thou thinkest most wisely.

Sigh. Sure, ok - you are right. EVERYONE else is wrong. (Hint: USUALLY when that happens and you're not in a room full of morons (this room is not), don't you think you should bother to check with someone YOU trust to make sure you're right? Your interp is wrong - at every level.)

You really should re-read the thread.