Batter Interference

[oregonjack]

Pursuant to ASA rules,what's the call and nuances/discretion, if any, of the umpire? Runner at second, batter lunges forward to swing with front foot momentarily steppping out of batter's box into "fair territory". Runner steals third, catcher attempts throw, runner beats throw with such throw unimpeded by catcher; intially called safe by umpire. Opposing coach argues with Umpire alledging "batter interference" by sole virtue that batter had stepped our of batter's box (ie, one foot). Umpire reverses call, calls batter out. After discussion with both coaches, Umpire now calls runner out and "recalls" batter from dugout to resume batting. Questions Preface: I understand that IF there is batter interference, the runner (s?) is out as they should not be advantaged from the batter's interference. Questions: 1. If a batter steps out of the batter's box when the catcher is attempting a throw on an attempted stolen base, is the runner AUTOMATICALLY out, regardless of whether the batter impeded the catcher's throw? 2. Assuming that "stepping out" is an automatic out, does it matter "which way" a batter steps out, ie, into fair or foul territory? Said differently, is any attempted throw by a catcher at a stealing runner an automatic out if the batter has a foot outside the batter's box. 3. Is there any discretion by the umpire? 3. If an umpire reverses his initial decision (calling the runner safe), then calls the batter out, then reverses and calls the runner out, under ASA rules, is there an appeal process? For all of those who had the patience to read all this and opine, thanks. Any citations to the ASA rules would be appreciated. In the unlikely event any of you found this interesting, I have several equally esoteric rule questions. - Oregonjack

[wadeintothem]

I'll take a shot just for my own help and testing.. but there will be other umps who have far more experience who may correct me or provide more info. This will take time to work through so they may even respond while i'm responding...

Originally posted by oregonjack
Pursuant to ASA rules,what's the call and nuances/discretion, if any, of the umpire? Runner at second, batter lunges forward to swing with front foot momentarily steppping out of batter's box into "fair territory".

Ok - no contact.. no penalty on the swing...

Runner steals third, catcher attempts throw, runner beats throw with such throw unimpeded by catcher; intially called safe by umpire.

Ok I dont really know what this means. Unimpeded by catcher? Or throw unimpeded by batter?

A batter may not INTENTIONALLY interfere with a catcher by staying in the box, and may not step out of the box to get in the cathers way. Intention is key when the batter is in the box.

If it happens - Dead Ball Batter out Runners Return

Opposing coach argues with Umpire alledging "batter interference" by sole virtue that batter had stepped our of batter's box (ie, one foot).

Without seeing it.. running blind.. you said he stepped out momentarily while swinging and missing at the pitch.

I would say no dice coach.

Umpire reverses call, calls batter out. After discussion with both coaches, Umpire now calls runner out and "recalls" batter from dugout to resume batting.

Bad Call IMO.. at most.. with intentional interference - batter out.. runners returned.

Questions Preface: I understand that IF there is batter interference, the runner (s?) is out as they should not be advantaged from the batter's interference.

No, the intereference is on the BATTER. The punitive punishement against the batter is he is out. To remove the advantage, the runners are returned.

Questions: 1. If a batter steps out of the batter's box when the catcher is attempting a throw on an attempted stolen base, is the runner AUTOMATICALLY out, regardless of whether the batter impeded the catcher's throw?

This is different than how I read your question. It seems to say he stepped out momentarily on a swing (which missed). The batter may step completely out of the box on any play.. as opposed to when they are taking calls. They cannot intentionally step out of the box into the way of the catcher making a play.

2. Assuming that "stepping out" is an automatic out,

It is not. Only if the ball makes contact with the bat.

does it matter "which way" a batter steps out, ie, into fair or foul territory?

The rule concerning batters is the batters box.

Said differently, is any attempted throw by a catcher at a stealing runner an automatic out if the batter has a foot outside the batter's box.

No, as explained above.

3. Is there any discretion by the umpire?

Of course there is.. especially when determining intent.

3. If an umpire reverses his initial decision (calling the runner safe), then calls the batter out, then reverses and calls the runner out, under ASA rules, is there an appeal process?

The appeal process, which I am not an expert on, but mike is, would likely involved calling the runner out instead of the batter if the interference was upheld at all.. but not sure there.

For all of those who had the patience to read all this and opine, thanks. Any citations to the ASA rules would be appreciated.

Read ASA Rule 7 re batting. all of it. It's all important

In the unlikely event any of you found this interesting, I have several equally esoteric rule questions. - Oregonjack

np.. I've learned allot on this board from reading, answering, being wrong, etc..

[Edited by wadeintothem on Apr 21st, 2004 at 01:17 AM]

[chuck chopper]

Way too much verbiage. Intentional Interference by batter-Batter out, runner returned. Not Intentional-Batter OK, runner returned. If you think no interference-leave everything as it happened.

[mcrowder]

Nothing is automatic, and the umpire has judgment. However, I believe the batter is required to have control of his swing. If there was no contact and you feel catcher was unimpeded, no interference, play on. If there was contact, but it was A)unintentional and B) not the result of a batter not in control of his swing, no interference, play on.

Now, if it was intentional - easy call. Batter out, runner returns.

The judgement part comes in when the batter swings and is out of control (falls into the catcher, jumps up after swinging, etc). If that causes the catcher to be unable to make an unimpeded throw - batter out, runner returns.

As to your other question about appeals, and such. It doesn't apply here. But if the umpire sends someone to the dugout who shouldn't have been sent to the dugout, they are not called out for abandonment or anything like that due to the umpire's error... I THINK that is where you were going with that.

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by oregonjack
Questions: 1. If a batter steps out of the batter's box when the catcher is attempting a throw on an attempted stolen base, is the runner AUTOMATICALLY out, regardless of whether the batter impeded the catcher's throw?

No. According to ASA POE 32, the batter must intentionally interfere with the catcher's throw on an attempted steal. In the case you present, there wasn't even any interference. You stated the throw was unimpeded.

2. Assuming that "stepping out" is an automatic out, does it matter "which way" a batter steps out, ie, into fair or foul territory? Said differently, is any attempted throw by a catcher at a stealing runner an automatic out if the batter has a foot outside the batter's box.

No. There must be an attempt to interfere. Just as the batter's box is not a haven for the batter, neither is stepping out of the batter's box an automatic "interference."

3. Is there any discretion by the umpire? 3. If an umpire reverses his initial decision (calling the runner safe), then reverses and calls the runner out, under ASA rules, is there an appeal process?

Batter interference is totally at the discretion and judgement of the umpire. As to the second part of the your question here, apparently it was the appeal that got the umpire to, errantly by your reporting, reverse his call. If you are now asking if this is a protestable situation, it would only be protestable if the umpire failed to apply the rule correctly. You cannot protest an umpire's judgement.

I hope this helps.

[Andy]

Sounds like all of the replies are right on target, I can't add anything there. I did, however, think of this question in relation to this thread.

Is a throw or an attempt at a throw (ie. releasing the ball) required by the catcher in order to have interference on the batter?

Now, I don't mean "by rule", I'm trying to get individual philosphies on this play. To my way of thinking, I can't always tell if the catcher held the ball because of the position of the batter or if she held the ball because she didn't think the throw would get the runner. I'm interested in what all of you think.

[Dakota]

There has to be a play to be interfered with. No play, no interference.

[Ed Maeder]

What did she interfer with if no attempt to throw was made. I think Dakota is right on if no play is made, no interference.

[Edited by Ed Maeder on Apr 22nd, 2004 at 03:29 AM]

[Andy]

Originally posted by Ed Maeder
What did she interfer with if no attempt to throw was made. I think Dakota is right on if no play is made, no interference.

[Edited by Ed Maeder on Apr 22nd, 2004 at 03:29 AM]

Although I completely agree with both you and Tom, no throw = no play to be interfered with, what do you do with the catcher that starts to throw but does not release the ball (similar to a pump fake)? The coach or catcher will tell you that they didn't throw because the batter was in the way. I know what I would say, but I am just bringing this up for disucussion.

[Ed Maeder]

I think I would have to say "she can't interfer with something that didn't happen." Any other suggestions?

[SamNVa]

I don't completely agree with the "no throw, no INT" philosophy. IMJ, if the batter moves in the bx and makes contact with the catcher, or causes the catcher to abort her throw in order to avoid contact with the batter. then an INT call is justified even without a throw.

SamC

[Edited by SamNVa on Apr 22nd, 2004 at 01:28 PM]

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by SamNVa
I don't completely agree eith the "no throw, no INT" philosophy. IMJ, if the batter moves in the bx and makes contact with the catcher, or causes the catcher to abort her throw in order to avoid contact with the batter. then an INT call is justified even without a throw.

SamC

original post was "no play/no interference" .. a catcher trying to make a play is a play.

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by SamNVa
I don't completely agree eith the "no throw, no INT" philosophy. IMJ, if the batter moves in the bx and makes contact with the catcher, or causes the catcher to abort her throw in order to avoid contact with the batter. then an INT call is justified even without a throw.

SamC

Then try this one on for size. Last night during a meeting we were discussing some of the things we have seen this season in HS ball. Several umpires stated that they have seen batters square to bat on steal plays, especially on those where the runner is on 1B, and then bring the bat back with the pitch in line with the catcher's eyes. Is this act alone, in your opinion, enough to constitute interference?