batter interference
 

Count 2-1 runner on 1st 1 out

On the pitch, runner takes off for 2nd. Pitch is inside and at the knees- off the plate. Batter slides feet back slightly and head drops down slightly. Catcher slides to catch ball and come up throwing. Batter hasn't moved except to stand up (still clearly in batters box) catcher hits batter in helmet as he is throwing to 2nd

Is this interference? Batter didn't move position (feet) or attempt to he in the way. He was as the pitch was inside thus moving the catchers position.

Thoughts --is this just an interpretation by umpire right there?

Thanks

It's a HTBT but from your description, I have nothing. The Batter just can't disappear after the pitch and you said he's still in the batter's box and did nothing but stand up.

I agree its a HTBT situation. however as much as the batter did not intend to interfere (and can't disappear) with the catchers throw, he did interfere.

I probably would have call it.

I'm leaning towards INT.

As described I have no INT. Batter bent over due to an inside pitch near the knee and then stood up and catcher hit him in the helmet. Catcher needs to make a better throw, and in fact, if he has to slide to catch the ball, he is probably not going to throw a runner out who is stealing on the pitch.

Basically your saying that the batter did not intentionally interfere therefore, it is the fault of the catcher. That is NOT what the rule says. Intent has no bearing on whether or not the batter interfered with the catchers throw.

Advantage - Offense.

The batter was in the box. He made no unusual movements. So where's the interference?

I'd be POed at the catcher if it was my catcher. Let F2 learn how to play the position.

Hmm -- I thought I replied to this thread.

No INT, as described (and as I picture it).

This is not interference at any level, in any ruleset.

At any level, Mike?

I believe I did say "at any level". Let me check ... yup, there it is. What's your actual question?

As you see fit, thanks.

I can't think of a level where I'd have INT on this either.

(And, if the play is changes so that it is INT, then it is INT at all levels where steailing is allowed.)

Again, this was a HTBT situation however, how much difference would this be if a batter ducked on an inside pitch and stood up and interfered with the catchers throw. Whether or not the batter leaves the box is not relevant.

NFHS 7.3.5c "Interfere with the catchers fielding or throwing by: making any other movement including backswing interference , which hinders actions at home plate or the catchers attempt to play on a runner,or"

Even though it may have been a normal reaction to return to a position your body was originally in, the batters movement did interfere. Whether intentional or not.

IMO BI happens more times then it is called. Advantage Offense.

I would have nothing here if the batter stayed in the box and didn't do anything extraordinary to interfere.

I would distinguish "make any movement" from reacting to and taking evasive action from an errant pitch to protect himself. No way I see this as INT.

That's not what happened in the OP. This was after the pitch.

As I'm reading and it envisioning it, the batter is recovering and standing from his evasive action in the same motion. Not INT to me.

1. Leaving the box has nothing to do with the criteria for judging interference in this play.

2. Did he interfer with the throw? The batter can not vaporize however there was an area that the catcher deemed available to throw the ball and then, up popped a head.

Again it was a HTBT situation and possibly a natural evasive movement which may have negated calling interference but, I still think BI happens way more times than it is called at the amateur level.

That wouldn't be part of his movement in reaction to the pitch.

It certainly could be, depends on how it happened.

No, basically, I did not mention intent, and while I agree that intent has nothing to do with it I see no interference in the batter's actions. It was the fault of the catcher.

On the contrary, whether or not the batter left the box is one of the criteria for judging batter interference. In this situation, because the batter remained in the box, he is afforded a degree of protection.

NFHS Casebook: 7.3.5E: 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 to re-establish 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.

According to OP, the only movement the batter made after the catcher received the pitch was to stand up in place.

So the question is: Does standing up in place constitute re-establishing position?

IMO, no. We always determine a players position based on the placement of his feet e.g. In/Out of running lane or In/Out of the batter's box. If his feet haven't moved, he hasn't re-established a position in the box.

Personally, I would not penalize the batter in the play described above.

Your right it is "ONE OF" the criteria but, definitely NOT the only deciding factor in making BI determinations. As shown in the Case play. I agree.

As far as re-establishing position, the case play answers this however, you choose to disagree with the ruling. Why the batter sttod up and interfer and the fact that he DID interfer are two different things. INTENT has NO bearing on the call.

As far as feet moving being directly related to re-establishing position, I disagree, unless you have some official authoratative interpretation relevant to that.

Does the ball remain live after hitting the batter/equipment?

There was a play this morning where F2 tried to throw to F3 to catch R2 stealing. The throw hit the batter's bat while he was in the box and ended up going against the 3rd base dugout. R2 ended up scoring and R1 ended up on third.

Coaches were questioning if the play should be declared dead after hitting the bat.

If there's nothing, it's live. If there's interference, it's live until the initial throw doesn't retire the runner being played upon.