Runner on 1B, steals, batter jumps across homeplate, causing catcher to pull back on her throw. Umpire ruled runner out for batter interference. is this the correct ruling? I don't have access to my rulebooks. i saw this yesterday in tourney game.

The way you describe that play.

<b>NO</b>

Batter is out.[NFHS]

That may be an old NFHS ruling. If I remember correctly, the runner use to be called out unless it was the 3rd out of the inning.

Fed folks, help me out here.

If I remember correctly, the runner use to be called out unless it was the 3rd out of the inning

You remember correctly. It was changed in 2002 (or 01) to, in all cases, call the offending player out for interference rather than a runner (excepting the retired runner rule).

Now - is interference correct for this situation? Sure the batter committed an intentional act. But - NO THROW!

Are we to assume that F2 did not throw because someone was in her way? Or was the runner too fast and F2 had no play and she chose not to throw? Did the ball slip in her hand and she didn't have a good grip and decided not to chance an error?

No throw, no interference!

WMB

<i>Are we to assume that F2 did not throw because someone was in her way? Or was the runner too fast and F2 had no play and she chose not to throw? Did the ball slip in her hand and she didn't have a good grip and decided not to chance an error?</i>

Batter has no business crossing HP. Situation did not
say batter swung at the bat. I am taking the out. :D
Although I will take the out on the batter and send the
runner back.

Well on the play F2 cocked her arm -then batter jumped across plate-F2 then didn't release ball. So IMO she didn't throw the ball because the batter jumped across the plate.

"No throw, no interference!"

Sorry, but you're wrong. It's interference if the batter hinders the ability of the catcher to make a throw. You're confusing this situation with the BR attempting to advance to 1B. Apples and oranges, to coin a cliche'.

Bob

Blue Zebra
 

Your INTERP seems to make more sense. Any chance you a reference ?

Dead ball
Batters interference , batter is out and runner returns to 1st .
Look at intent .
The batter jumped across so the runner could steal and the catcher is hindered or confused , the catcher pulls back on the throw .

If it is strike three the runner would be out.

Re: Blue Zebra
 

NFHS 2005 Book Rule 7 sec 3 Art 5...

ASA 2005 Book Rule 7 sec 6 P 1.

NFHS 2005 Book Rule 7 sec 3 Art 5...

"A batter shall not interfere with the catcher's throwing by stepping out of the batter's box."

So the batter steps out of the box. Catcher cocks her arm, then decides she has no play and drops her arm. But the umpire jumps up and says "By golly, we have interference here" and calls the batter out and sends the runner back. And the catcher turns her back so the umpire won't see her laughing.

Or - the catcher jumps up, points to the batter and turns to you and says, "I can't throw, Blue. She is in my way!" And you say, "Poor baby, I'll protect you and call the batter out!" Yeah, right!

Or do you say, "Sorry Catch, no throw, no play. Next time, at least attempt to make a throw and I will call the interference?"

In the absence of any attempt to throw, how do you know why the catcher chose not to throw? Without guessing!

WMB

Nice way to end up in court. Catcher nails the batter with the ball and when asked why, states, "the umpire told me I had too!"

Quote:

In the absence of any attempt to throw, how do you know why the catcher chose not to throw? Without guessing!

It's called judgment.

batter out, return runner

Without being there, this seems like text book batter interference - Batter is out, runners return - no throw required.

NO throw required for interference. But look at the entire situation.

1. What level of ball is this.

2. Did the catcher have a legitimate shot had she thrown the ball and had the catcher demonstrated in warmups and or the game she could even make a throw.

3. Did the batter actually interfere? as stated before did she bobble the ball have problems getting the ball out of the glove ect.

This call can only be made by the umpire at the game not on a message board, every situation will have it's own unique characteristics and should be judged as such. I can see very little chance of having interference on a batter in 10u if the catcher cannot throw the ball back to the pitcher, or the runner is 5 foot from the base when the supposed interference takes place.

WMB: In the absence of any attempt to throw, how do you know why the catcher chose not to throw? Without guessing!

Irish: It's called judgment.

OK, let's take the guessing out; let's have the catcher tell us why she chose not to throw.

For posters that are basing their answer strickly on the batter's action without regard for any play, please answer honestly the following:

Catcher jumps up, turns and complains to you, "I can't throw, Blue. She is in my way!"

WHAT DO YOU SAY?


WMB

For posters that are basing their answer strickly on the batter's action without regard for any play, please answer honestly the following:

Catcher jumps up, turns and complains to you, "I can't throw, Blue. She is in my way!"

WHAT DO YOU SAY?

I doubt I make any comment to the catcher at all.. we have dead ball, batter out for interference and runners return. I'm not going to sit and have a convo about it with the catcher, I make the call. (of course htbt but if its as I see it and int)

"How do you know if you haven't tried?" If the catcher jumps up and immediately turns to the umpire to complain, there obviously was no attempt to put the runner out, hence, nothing with which to interfere.

The catcher is going to have to come up at least giving me the impression there was some type of effort to put the runner out. Does she have to throw it? Nope. Does she have to bang her hand on the batter's helmet? Nope. She just needs to show me she is playing the game, not simply whining for a call.

If a catcher gets in my face screaming about a play that hasn't even been addressed, it's possible I'll kill the ball and eject her depending on the manner in which it is done. If it was INT, it will be called and ruled upon, but I'm not having that catcher stick around and think she is calling the game for me.

I dunno.. seems simple to me.

If the batter interfered with the catchers play.. its interference.

If the batter did not, its not.

Adding a bunch of mumbo jumbo to create a grey area HTBT then declare one side inherently right or wrong does nothing.

The batter cannot interfere with a catchers play on a runner.

If the batter takes action that does interfere with that catchers play, that batter is out... dead ball, etc

Seems like too much is being made out of a very simple to understand rule.

Well what if the batter jumps to the other box while R1 is stealing 2b and the catcher reaches into his chest protector and pulls out a hotdog (with mustard) and begins eating it..

What if the catcher begins to throw but holds up

What if the catcher is faking like is he is going to throw, but really had no intent .. and is drawing the int call.. (aiding considerably by the fact the batter seems to feel the need to jump across the plate in the middle of a steal)

IMO blah blah blah

If the batter interferes by taking an action interfering with the catchers play, hes out.

Its so simple it boggles the mind.

Heres the Sit:

Runner on 1B, steals, batter jumps across homeplate, causing catcher to pull back on her throw. Umpire ruled runner out for batter interference. is this the correct ruling? I don't have access to my rulebooks. i saw this yesterday in tourney game.

Thats INT (umpire called the wrong person out, but thats INT). I dont see how it can be otherwise, the batter dancing around during a steal caused the catcher to pull back a throw.

Had the batter not decided that most opportune time to switch sides was during a steal play by his team mate, he wouldnt be heading towards the dugout called out for INT. I'm not guessing the catchers intent, I'm SEEING the int by the batter.

Now you've gone and ruined this for everyone!

The only way the runner should have been called out is if the batter was already out (strike three). Perhaps this is what happened.