DK3 Interference?

[bigda65]

RH batter (his dugout on the same side).
Batter swings and misses on third strike. Catcher misses, and the ball ends up in the lefthand batters box @ corner where foul line meets.

The batter takes a step toward his dugout, then turns and runs and contact is made with catcher.

What would the call be for three different scenarios
1) Catcher in the process of getting to the ball
2) Catcher has the ball
3) Catcher in the process of throwing the ball

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bigda65

RH batter (his dugout on the same side).
Batter swings and misses on third strike. Catcher misses, and the ball ends up in the lefthand batters box @ corner where foul line meets.

The batter takes a step toward his dugout, then turns and runs and contact is made with catcher.

What would the call be for three different scenarios
1) Catcher in the process of getting to the ball
2) Catcher has the ball
3) Catcher in the process of throwing the ball

The Fisk/Armbrister play illustrates tangle/untangle at the plate.

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigda65

What would the call be for three different scenarios
1) Catcher in the process of getting to the ball
2) Catcher has the ball
3) Catcher in the process of throwing the ball

1. Nothing, unless intentional by either one
2. Nothing, unless F2 tags the BR, in which case he's out.
3. Nothing, unless intentional by BR

[RPatrino]

Remember, there are times when there is contact and no rules are violated. In this case, both players are doing what they are supposed to be doing. The contact is not flagrant or malicious. Give the 'thats nothing' sign and play on.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by bigda65

RH batter (his dugout on the same side).
Batter swings and misses on third strike. Catcher misses, and the ball ends up in the lefthand batters box @ corner where foul line meets.

The batter takes a step toward his dugout, then turns and runs and contact is made with catcher.

I disagree that this play is the same as the Frisk/Armbruster play because neither Frisk nor Armbruster hesitated in what they were doing. Each moved immediately in the direction that they were supposed to go and this is why the ruling was made as it was.

There was another play similar about a year or so later in which the batter hesitated, then proceeded and made contact with F2. That was ruled as interference on the batter. Wish I could remember the players and umpire (all MLB).

In this stich, the batter hesitated and even took a step toward his dugout (which is behind him). Therefore, because of this hesitation, I would rule the batter interfered.

[SAump]

Probably not related.
Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | LAD@LAA: Kemp is called out on batter interference - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

But interesting enough to post here.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SAump

Probably not related.
Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | LAD@LAA: Kemp is called out on batter interference - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

But interesting enough to post here.

BFD~Angel Hernandez called one last night..............

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

BFD~Angel Hernandez called one last night..............

That wasn't a batted ball or a dropped third strike or any other situation where the batter was the runner being played on. It was an over-swing by the batter while the catcher was making a throw on a runner stealing second.

[bigda65]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I disagree that this play is the same as the Frisk/Armbruster play because neither Frisk nor Armbruster hesitated in what they were doing. Each moved immediately in the direction that they were supposed to go and this is why the ruling was made as it was.

There was another play similar about a year or so later in which the batter hesitated, then proceeded and made contact with F2. That was ruled as interference on the batter. Wish I could remember the players and umpire (all MLB).

In this stich, the batter hesitated and even took a step toward his dugout (which is behind him). Therefore, because of this hesitation, I would rule the batter interfered.

Ozzy,

Does this imply interference in all three instances?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by bigda65

Ozzy,

Does this imply interference in all three instances?

Yes, if the batter makes contact with F2 after hesitating the way he did, I will be calling interference

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by SAump

Probably not related.
Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | LAD@LAA: Kemp is called out on batter interference - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

But interesting enough to post here.

Close enough!

[WWUmp]

Originally Posted by bigda65

RH batter (his dugout on the same side).
Batter swings and misses on third strike. Catcher misses, and the ball ends up in the lefthand batters box @ corner where foul line meets.

The batter takes a step toward his dugout, then turns and runs and contact is made with catcher.

What would the call be for three different scenarios
1) Catcher in the process of getting to the ball
2) Catcher has the ball
3) Catcher in the process of throwing the ball

Since contact was made in area around the batter's box and assuming BR did not immediately realize F2 dropped the pitch (meaning not until he had taken the step toward the dugout), I think BR was doing what he was supposed to be doing and F2 was also doing what he was supposed to be doing. I'm also assuming there was no intent to interfere or obstruct. Under these assumptions there is no INT or OBS on this play.

So....

1) no call
2) BR is out if tagged
3) no call I suppose, except F2 in the act of throwing is unlikely given the proximity of the players to the play (I might call INT on this one depending on how I personally saw the play)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by WWUmp

I think BR was doing what he was supposed to be doing

Can you show me the page number where it says doing what you're supposed to be doing makes you immune to the rules?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I disagree that this play is the same as the Frisk/Armbruster play because neither Frisk nor Armbruster hesitated in what they were doing. Each moved immediately in the direction that they were supposed to go and this is why the ruling was made as it was.

There was another play similar about a year or so later in which the batter hesitated, then proceeded and made contact with F2. That was ruled as interference on the batter. Wish I could remember the players and umpire (all MLB).

In this stich, the batter hesitated and even took a step toward his dugout (which is behind him). Therefore, because of this hesitation, I would rule the batter interfered.

It was a U3K Oz, not a batted ball. You need to give the batter (and catcher perhaps) the opportunity to realize it. That's where the hesitation comes in. Even on a batted ball that is near the plate the batter will often take a moment to locate it before running. A brief hesitation is normal, not abnormal so please don't try to use that as an excuse.

And don't forget who made the initial screw-up. Heck - if the batter accidentally kicks the ball in the vicinity of the plate it's not interference (Interp # 45 in the current MLBUM).

[bigda65]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It was a U3K Oz,..........
And don't forget who made the initial screw-up. Heck - if the batter accidentally kicks the ball in the vicinity of the plate it's not interference (Interp # 45 in the current MLBUM).

This was my initial thought on this play, hence the reason for posting.

The catcher missed the ball and I felt he was beyond the step and reach criteria, so I was leaning a little toward obstruction for the first two scenarios.

I was undecided on the third, I would more than likely have to see this play.

thoughts??