Batter Interference?

[bigsig]

Here I go again. Doing a 14U ASA Tournament today. Swinging 3rd strike gets by F2. The bench is yelling to the BR to run. F2 can’t find the ball (it’s at the fence about 15 feet down the 1st base line. BR throws her bat and takes off running for 1st. The bat hits F2’s hand as she is trying to retrieve the ball, causing her to drop the ball. There is no play made at 1st, the BR is safe.

I was the PU. I conferred with the BU and we agreed that there was no intent to interfere by the BR when she threw her bat, therefore play stands, no interference.

I’m looking through the rule book. POE 33 : 3B Says that batter interference "could occur" (my emphysis) when a batter releases her bat in such a manner that it hits the catcher and prevents her from making a play.

It doesn’t say “it does occur”.

I’ve put a call out to my UIC and I’m waiting for his response. I need some help on this one?

[wadeintothem]

in your reading, you've probably realized by now that intent is not mentioned in the rules or POEs regarding discarding the bat.

[AtlUmpSteve]

The batter had full choice of 360 degrees and any reasonable distance to discard her bat. She hit the catcher preventing F2 from making a play, and you don't think it was intentional?

Sorry, man; I have interference.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by bigsig

...it’s at the fence about 15 feet down the 1st base line.

If that's where the ball, catcher and bat all ended up, then I think the bat getting there was either intentional or "criminal negligence." I would have called interference.

[debeau]

I too have interference .
A point is that we now have a batter/runner so what are your POEs for this type of play on a batter/runner

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by debeau

I too have interference .
A point is that we now have a batter/runner so what are your POEs for this type of play on a batter/runner

Didn't we call interference????????????

[debeau]

Yes Yes
I am interested in your POEs regarding this and have no problems or disagree with the interference.
I am a NZ ump and we dont have a rule book with POEs so I am genuinely interested .

[bigsig]

Well the consensus is that we blew the call. I'm just looking to get better. Thanks for all of your feedback

[David Emerling]

Although intent is not specifically mentioned for this violation, I think there must be some room for some common sense.

We have to concede that the batter *is* going to drop her bat.

If the batter does something unusual or completely illogical - I think interference must be considered.

I would have to see this play in order to rule. I would be focused on whether the batter did something reasonable.

What about THIS play:

Batter swings, tops the ball, and sends it rolling a few feet in front of the plate, in fair territory. The batter immediately drops her bat and takes off running, as the catcher leaps out from her position, the catcher trips over the bat which was dropped in the immediate vicinity of the plate.

Interference?

No!

Yet, the batter DID drop her bat in such a way that it DID hinder the catcher's opportunity to make a play.

Batters drop their bat. That's a reality. The catcher has to be aware of that.

I'm not saying the play in question is not necessarily interference, but the simple dropping/throwing of the bat, that just happens to hinder the catcher, is not sufficient for interference - in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Although intent is not specifically mentioned for this violation, I think there must be some room for some common sense.

We have to concede that the batter *is* going to drop her bat.

If the batter does something unusual or completely illogical - I think interference must be considered.

I would have to see this play in order to rule. I would be focused on whether the batter did something reasonable.

What about THIS play:

Batter swings, tops the ball, and sends it rolling a few feet in front of the plate, in fair territory. The batter immediately drops her bat and takes off running, as the catcher leaps out from her position, the catcher trips over the bat which was dropped in the immediate vicinity of the plate.

Interference?

No!

Yet, the batter DID drop her bat in such a way that it DID hinder the catcher's opportunity to make a play.

Batters drop their bat. That's a reality. The catcher has to be aware of that.

I'm not saying the play in question is not necessarily interference, but the simple dropping/throwing of the bat, that just happens to hinder the catcher, is not sufficient for interference - in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I see what you are saying.. but you gotta make the call. If you are working a 12U rec league game, you can probably get away with not calling it.. if you are working 18G, the rules essentially require a thinking batter. He/she must not discard their bat in a manner that interferes with defense. If she taps the ball in front of the plate then discards the bat in a manner that interferes with F2 (say right in front of the plate as well) and you dont make the call, you are not applying the rules. There are no rules that says the batter must discard the bat in front of the plate. In fact, they dont have to discard it at all.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I see what you are saying.. but you gotta make the call. If you are working a 12U rec league game, you can probably get away with not calling it.. if you are working 18G, the rules essentially require a thinking batter. He/she must not discard their bat in a manner that interferes with defense. If she taps the ball in front of the plate then discards the bat in a manner that interferes with F2 (say right in front of the plate as well) and you dont make the call, you are not applying the rules. There are no rules that says the batter must discard the bat in front of the plate. In fact, they dont have to discard it at all.

In my scenario (ball tapped in front of the plate), I'm not saying that the batter throws the bat at the catcher. She simply drops it in a location where it is between the catcher and the ball. The catcher springs from her position, pursues the ball in front of the plate, and trips over the bat.

I would say that it is perfectly reasonable for the batter to immediately discard her bat - even if it's in the vicinity of the plate. I certainly wouldn't require the batter to hold on to the bat for fear that she might place it somewhere that is inconvenient for the defense.

I would also say that the catcher must be aware of this and find a way to retrieve the ball without stumbling over the bat.

Again, I would base the ruling on whether the batter did something normal, reasonable, and unintentional.

Tossing the bat a great distance is not normal.

Tossing the bat in a direction that is unreasonable is not normal.

Holding on to the bat, THEN tossing it in the direction of the catcher would cause me to conclude that it was intentional - no matter how good of an acting job the batter did.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[debeau]

Interference doesnt have to be intentional .
If whatever the offence impedes hinders or confuses a defensive player making a player then we have interference .
You cant say she didnt mean to do it as you may have a protest on your hands even though interference is a judgement call you have in your scenario faile to follow a written rule .

[IRISHMAFIA]

SS takes throw from F4, drags back foot to touch 2B and then proceeds to drill the runner (who cannot just go "poof" the second F6's trailing foot touches the base.

Are you ruling INT? If so, are you familiar with the game, "dodgeball"?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

SS takes throw from F4, drags back foot to touch 2B and then proceeds to drill the runner (who cannot just go "poof" the second F6's trailing foot touches the base.

Are you ruling INT? If so, are you familiar with the game, "dodgeball"?

I am next year. The runner clearly commited an act by trying to reach the base

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by debeau

Interference doesnt have to be intentional .
If whatever the offence impedes hinders or confuses a defensive player making a player then we have interference .
You cant say she didnt mean to do it as you may have a protest on your hands even though interference is a judgement call you have in your scenario faile to follow a written rule .

It is true the defininition of interference does not include intent. It is also true that not ALL interference requires intent - and the rules indicate this by not mentioning intent in those cases. However, some rules (2006) DO require intent, and the rules themselves say so. Please refer back to my earlier post listing the rules that require intent for interference.

Which of those rules do you believe should NOT require intent?