The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 05:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 20
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 05:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 06:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 08:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
If the batter remains in the box and makes no abnormal movements, he is immune to BI, no matter where F2 throws the ball.
+1 (unless R3 is coming home)
I would define "abnormal movements" as any movement not related to or in conjunction with a legitimate swing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
If he steps out or makes abnormal movements, and if he consequently hinders the defense, it is BI.
+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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
It's not that difficult in practice.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 09:11pm
Is this a legal title?
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
Ugh. The movement doesn't have to be abnormal to be interference.
If the batter remains in the box, yes, it does.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 09:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius View Post
If the batter remains in the box, yes, it does.
No, it does not.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 10:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 01, 2012, 08:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
No, it does not.
Any published case plays support your interp?
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 12:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 07:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 08:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NeverNeverLand
Posts: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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?
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 09:38am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 11:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 11:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by GROUPthink View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 03, 2012, 07:16am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
A well-trained F2 won't have a problem with a batter who remains in the box.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Umpire Interference / Batter Interference bob jenkins Baseball 17 Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:57pm
Batter Interference dileonardoja Baseball 7 Thu May 26, 2011 05:30pm
Batter Interference Spence Baseball 2 Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:19pm
Batter Interference Stair-Climber Softball 6 Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:03am
Batter interference? jesmael Baseball 7 Thu Jun 10, 2004 02:08pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1