Batter Interference

[umpharp]

First game of the season last night
JV contest....

Had a play where I wasn't 100% sure on the call

Runner on 2nd.
Runner steals. As the catcher releases the ball to 3rd, the Batter steps back. The ball hits her in the helmet.

I called Batter Interference and called the runner going to third out. Is this correct?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by umpharp

First game of the season last night
JV contest....

Had a play where I wasn't 100% sure on the call

Runner on 2nd.
Runner steals. As the catcher releases the ball to 3rd, the Batter steps back. The ball hits her in the helmet.

I called Batter Interference and called the runner going to third out. Is this correct?

No, if you ruled interference on the batter, then the batter is out.

[LIIRISHMAN]

Just to fill in Mike's answer. Your call would be Deadball Batter is out for Interference ,place runner back at 2B

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by LIIRISHMAN

Just to fill in Mike's answer. Your call would be Deadball Batter is out for Interference ,place runner back at 2B

If the runner had not reached 3rd at the moment of INT.

[Hoosier_Dave]

Unless strike 3 on batter, then R1 is called out.

[mcrowder]

Wow - 4 responses, and none that said that this was probably the wrong call.

OP - did you determine intent on the BR's part? If not, this is very likely NOT interference unless her movement was egregious. Was her step back "normal"-looking?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Wow - 4 responses, and none that said that this was probably the wrong call.

Mike's initial response said that it was the wrong call, though apparently not for the reasons you think it is.

Originally Posted by mcrowder

OP - did you determine intent on the BR's part? If not, this is very likely NOT interference unless her movement was egregious. Was her step back "normal"-looking?

If she was out of the batter's box, then by rule the batter has interfered and she is out. I think that this is the way that most are reading the OP's OP. However, if the batter merely took a step back, and the umpire felt that she was trying in no way to interfere, then there would have been a no call. Also, OP said batter, not BR.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Wow - 4 responses, and none that said that this was probably the wrong call.

OP - did you determine intent on the BR's part? If not, this is very likely NOT interference unless her movement was egregious. Was her step back "normal"-looking?

There is no intent required in that rule, when moving out of the box.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

There is no intent required in that rule, when moving out of the box.

See mcrowder, I think that is the way most readers interpreted the OP.

[umpharp]

Thanks for the responses.

When the play happened, I knew that I wasn't 100% on the call, but I was working with a partner who is a very nice guy, but anything beyond safe/out, ball/strike, is out of his league.

The Batter moved out of the batters box as the catcher bobbled the ball, When the catcher picked up the ball to throw, the batter stepped back. I think she was trying to move out of the way, but she stepped right into the throw. I don't think she did it on purpose, nor do I think she really knew where to go or what to do. Since she was out of the box and took a step back as the catcher tried to throw, I knew I had Interference. I just had the penatly wrong.

At least the mistake was early in the season, now I can be that perfect umpire that the coaches and parents expect.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

See mcrowder, I think that is the way most readers interpreted the OP.

Fair enough.