FED ?????

[Chess Ref]

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.

[whiskers_ump]

The way you describe that play.

NO

Batter is out.[NFHS]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
The way you describe that play.

NO

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.

[WestMichBlue]

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

[whiskers_ump]

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?

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

[Chess Ref]

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.

[bluezebra]

"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

[Chess Ref]

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

[debeau]

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 .

[Rachel]

If it is strike three the runner would be out.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Chess Ref
Your INTERP seems to make more sense. Any chance you a reference ?

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

ASA 2005 Book Rule 7 sec 6 P 1.

[WestMichBlue]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
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?"

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!"

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.

[azbigdawg]

batter out, return runner

[wadeintothem]

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