batter interference

[smbbcoach99]

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

[nopachunts]

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.

[jicecone]

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.

[Matt]

I'm leaning towards INT.

[DG]

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.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by DG

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Hmm -- I thought I replied to this thread.

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

[MD Longhorn]

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

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

At any level, Mike?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

At any level, Mike?

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

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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.)

[jicecone]

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.

[zm1283]

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