Dropped 3rd Strike/Interferrence

[IAUMP]

I had this happen in the little league game I called last night. On a dropped 3rd strike, the catcher blocked the (low inside pitch) ball and it went directly to the batters foot as the b/r started toward 1st. I let the play go and the b/r reached 1st safely. The VC asked about interferrence and I informed him that there was no interferrence because while the ball struck the b/r it only did so because of the deflection off the catcher, and the b/r did not intentionally interfer with the play. Was this correct?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IAUMP

I had this happen in the little league game I called last night. On a dropped 3rd strike, the catcher blocked the (low inside pitch) ball and it went directly to the batters foot as the b/r started toward 1st. I let the play go and the b/r reached 1st safely. The VC asked about interference and I informed him that there was no interference because while the ball struck the b/r it only did so because of the deflection off the catcher, and the b/r did not intentionally interfere with the play. Was this correct?

Yes.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by IAUMP

I had this happen in the little league game I called last night. On a dropped 3rd strike, the catcher blocked the (low inside pitch) ball and it went directly to the batters foot as the b/r started toward 1st. I let the play go and the b/r reached 1st safely. The VC asked about interferrence and I informed him that there was no interferrence because while the ball struck the b/r it only did so because of the deflection off the catcher, and the b/r did not intentionally interfer with the play. Was this correct?

Absolutely that is the correct call. When the unintentional kick by the BR occurs you should verbalize, "That's nothing" and give the safe sign.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Absolutely that is the correct call. When the unintentional kick by the BR occurs you should verbalize, "That's nothing" and give the safe sign.

Because you have nothing, you say nothing. The B/R is neither safe nor out so do not signal safe.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Because you have nothing, you say nothing. The B/R is neither safe nor out so do not signal safe.

MTD, Sr.

Disagree -- doing nothing makes it look like you didn't see it and invites the mgr.'s question.

Signal that you saw it and cut the question off before it happens.

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

That is an interesting change. Thanks for bringing that up Bob

-Josh

[robbie]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Disagree -- doing nothing makes it look like you didn't see it and invites the mgr.'s question.

Signal that you saw it and cut the question off before it happens.

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

What was the change? Because to ME that seems VERY clear.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by robbie

What was the change? Because to ME that seems VERY clear.

It can make the OP interference although most think it shouldn't be. Punishes the innocent.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Disagree -- doing nothing makes it look like you didn't see it and invites the mgr.'s question.

Signal that you saw it and cut the question off before it happens.

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Sounds like the change allows for an interference call should the BR do something even unintentionally that could prevent the catcher from making a play, such as kicking the loose ball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Sounds like the change allows for an interference call should the BR do something even unintentionally that could prevent the catcher from making a play, such as kicking the loose ball.

I kind of agree - but it would have been clearer had they actually used the word "intentionally".

"hinders" doesn't necessarily require intent - I agree that some umpires are going to read that (and not go to clinics) and think that if the ball hits the batter-runner and ricochets funny, that it hindered the catcher's ability... I don't believe that's what the rules makers wanted.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Disagree -- doing nothing makes it look like you didn't see it and invites the mgr.'s question.

Signal that you saw it and cut the question off before it happens.

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Bob:

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Along time ago in a different century (and BillyMac, it was the 20th Century and not the 19th Century, LOL) I was given the following advice from a basketball officiating mentor: "You have nothing until you have something."

We have nothing in this play. If the Defensive Head Coach wants to ask a question about it after the play is over, we should entertain and answer his question. It is no different than when we just point toward Fair Territory for a Fair Ball and verbalize a Foul Ball: A Fair Ball is nothing and a Foul Ball is something. Players are supposed to play until we tell them to stop or at least their coaches should be teaching them that. And if their coaches are not teaching them that then shame on their coaches.

MTD, Sr.

[IAUMP]

If we use the safe signal to show there wasn't interferrence couldn't that be interpreted as we are saying the player is safe and the play is over?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I kind of agree - but it would have been clearer had they actually used the word "intentionally".

"hinders" doesn't necessarily require intent - I agree that some umpires are going to read that (and not go to clinics) and think that if the ball hits the batter-runner and ricochets funny, that it hindered the catcher's ability... I don't believe that's what the rules makers wanted.

I'm a little confused also but the MLBUM seems to say that is what the rule makers wanted. "it no longer matters if the batter is in the vicinity of home plate...when the infraction occurs."
The MLBUM allows umpire judgement of clearly hindering without referencing intent. "the location of the batter-runner is no longer relevant."

I think there was a play in MLB a month or two ago that was called that way.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It can make the OP interference although most think it shouldn't be. Punishes the innocent.

Since we are talking about LL we might not have to go with the new OBR change. LL has not changed the wording to reflect the OBR change. However, the RIM never had the "vicinity" exemption in it but I believe that's how LL wanted it called.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IAUMP

If we use the safe signal to show there wasn't interferrence couldn't that be interpreted as we are saying the player is safe and the play is over?

Play is never over when we signal Safe, unless something else happened that requires us to kill play and make an announcement. So I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that if we signal Safe while a runner is nowhere near a base, the defense is going to stop playing.