More on Batter Interference

[teccan9nja]

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Matt

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

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

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Publius

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

No, it does not.

[David B]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Matt

No, it does not.

Any published case plays support your interp?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[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.