interference question

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Does any of that really matter? Doesn't the batter leave the batters box at risk of creating interference with a play? Unless standing in the batters box and not actively hindering, the only question I see is if there was a play that was interfered with.

Not sure I can think of a case where the batter had a reason to leave the batters box that exempted her from interference with a play(well, as long as the ball is still live).

Steve,

Just looking for info. From the clarification offered by MJT, it seems that this may have been a slapper based on where she ended up on the field after the swing.

Remember, this was a delayed action by the catcher. I don't think we can expect every LHB with a runner on 1B drop to the deck and wait for an "all clear" before attempting to return to her position. If that were the case, is it possible the catcher has been instructed to make a throw anytime the batter moves into a precarious position?

What I am searching for is evidence the batter did anything wrong. If there was time for the batter to swing at the pitch, move into the infield, turn and return near the foul line, that is one helluva delay for the catcher.

I just don't think there is enough here to say that the batter being struck with the thrown ball is automatically INT. Since MJT was there, I will obviously respect and support his call, but he is the one who raised a question. I'm just trying to note alternative views.

To the second part of his post, if there was not INT, yes, the runner would be awarded two bases.

[MJT]

So here is the next question. If the ball had not gone out of play with runners on base, if in doubt you may rule no INT. But since their was a runner on base and the ball did go OOPlay, we either have INT, and an out, or the runner advances 2 bases. IMO, if in doubt and you have to rule one of those 2 things, I am not giving 2 bases to the offensive team when if they had been in the batters box, there would not have been any contact and the ball would not have went in DB territory.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MJT

So here is the next question. If the ball had not gone out of play with runners on base, if in doubt you may rule no INT. But since their was a runner on base and the ball did go OOPlay, we either have INT, and an out, or the runner advances 2 bases. IMO, if in doubt and you have to rule one of those 2 things, I am not giving 2 bases to the offensive team when if they had been in the batters box, there would not have been any contact and the ball would not have went in DB territory.

Except you make up your mind about the INT at the moment the INT occurs or doesn't; not seconds later when the ball goes OOP. If it's INT, the ball is dead before the OOP anyway.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MJT

So here is the next question. If the ball had not gone out of play with runners on base, if in doubt you may rule no INT. But since their was a runner on base and the ball did go OOPlay, we either have INT, and an out, or the runner advances 2 bases. IMO, if in doubt and you have to rule one of those 2 things, I am not giving 2 bases to the offensive team when if they had been in the batters box, there would not have been any contact and the ball would not have went in DB territory.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. It is not up to you to base your rulings on whether you want to award a runner(s) bases or not. If you think it is, you are doing the teams, game and fellow umpires a disservice.

Besides, unless you have a crystal ball telling you otherwise, you have no idea what would have happened had the batter been in the box.

[CecilOne]

We have so many discussions about batter interference that it is obviously one of the hardest things to judge and call, especially in the instant of occurrence. There are often plays when the batter, either by position or movement, makes a play more difficult for the defense; and yet not all of them are INT. Even when the answer seems obvious in discussion, 99 shades of gray seem to exist in actual plays. Is it possible to boil these down to those always INT and those never INT?
Yes, I know the batter motionless in the box is not guilty, unless there is a play at the plate. The part I don't get is if the batter makes a perfectly natural movement out of the box and unknowingly gets in the way of the catcher reaching/chasing a loose ball or unknowingly gets in the way of a throw or the catcher attempting to throw, etc. etc. etc. Some of these seem grossly unfair to the batter; even if preventing a play/out by the defense.
Shouldn't the batter be treated the same as any other obstacle to the catcher like the backstop, umpire, her own mask, home plate or whatever?

All of this excludes intentional interference, it's just about normal actions with no intent to interfere. Also, this is kind of generic, no specific book in mind but only care about NFHS, ASA, PONY, USSSA and NCAA.

[debeau]

If we change the rules as you say Cecilone , we will have batters becoming experts at unintentionall interference .
The rules are " simple " batters stay in the box unless they want to cause interference . (Unless there is a play at home of course) .
What is described here is interference .
The runner is trying to get back to 1st , the batter is in the way of the catcher making a play .

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

We have so many discussions about batter interference that it is obviously one of the hardest things to judge and call, especially in the instant of occurrence. There are often plays when the batter, either by position or movement, makes a play more difficult for the defense; and yet not all of them are INT. Even when the answer seems obvious in discussion, 99 shades of gray seem to exist in actual plays. Is it possible to boil these down to those always INT and those never INT?
Yes, I know the batter motionless in the box is not guilty, unless there is a play at the plate. The part I don't get is if the batter makes a perfectly natural movement out of the box and unknowingly gets in the way of the catcher reaching/chasing a loose ball or unknowingly gets in the way of a throw or the catcher attempting to throw, etc. etc. etc. Some of these seem grossly unfair to the batter; even if preventing a play/out by the defense.
Shouldn't the batter be treated the same as any other obstacle to the catcher like the backstop, umpire, her own mask, home plate or whatever?

All of this excludes intentional interference, it's just about normal actions with no intent to interfere. Also, this is kind of generic, no specific book in mind but only care about NFHS, ASA, PONY, USSSA and NCAA.

But, the rules (NFHS 7-3-5, ASA 7-6-P) are fairly clear that hindering the catcher making a play when out of the batters box is interference; neither intent nor "actively" doing something is applied, just the hindrence. Leaving the batters box creates the added risk; and the batter must assume that risk when doing so.

That is the same situation as the NFHS running lane ruling, which then had the Chicken Little reaction in the softball community that catchers would be taught to peg batter runners.

This isn't that complicated, either. First, a slapper has no added rights over any other form of batter; she leaves the batters box at risk of interfering with a play. There is no rules basis to treat that style of hitting differently, and "just doing her job" is clearly not a rules justification to interfere (see obstruction rules). Second, a slapper taught properly is to run at the pitcher, not down the first base line, so she isn't even "doing her job" if she is down the first base line. Third, if the catcher simply pegs the batter, you have the same options and thought process as the running lane rule (was there a play that was interfered with, was it a quality throw that might have resulted in a play, do you have USC on the catcher for simply pegging a batter out of the batters box with a throw that wasn't a play).

Back to your actual point, the rules that I see do not accept there is anything that is a perfectly natural movement outside the batters box. Batters have some protection inside; not outside. The ASA rule keeping one foot in the box provides exclusions, but not against interfering with a play. I conclude that the rulesmakers intend that batters have a responsibility to either 1) stay in the batters box to bat, or 2) make sure they do not interfere, even accidentally.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Second, a slapper taught properly is to run at the pitcher, not down the first base line, so she isn't even "doing her job" if she is down the first base line.

Batter wasn't "down the first base line", but 3-4 feet in fair territory, just where most slappers end up after passing on a pitch

Third, if the catcher simply pegs the batter, you have the same options and thought process as the running lane rule (was there a play that was interfered with, was it a quality throw that might have resulted in a play, do you have USC on the catcher for simply pegging a batter out of the batters box with a throw that wasn't a play).

Again, at what point may the batter move back into their position in the box considering the given delay by the catcher regardless of the sanctioning body?

As previously stated, I have no problem with the call make. However, I'm still looking for something that actually interfered with the play other than the catcher nailing the batter in the helmet. If this isn't a requirement, then you just as well have catchers throwing the ball anytime a batter may move into a throwing lane.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...That is the same situation as the NFHS running lane ruling, which then had the Chicken Little reaction in the softball community ...

That's the second time you've used that phrase on two different boards to characterize those who criticized NFHS for adopting a lone-wolf interpretation on the running lane violation after a BOB. I guess you like it.

They (NFHS) deserved the ridicule they got for this. Don't mistake intense criticism and ridicule with irrationality.

[Dakota]

On the OP situation, I agree with those who are saying the umpire should not be thinking about who "deserves" which penalty, but rather making the call based on the players actions, etc.

Go back to the modified situation that the OP wherein he stated it would be fair to call this not interference if the ball did NOT go out of play. Why would that be fair if there WAS interference?

Barring something unstated happening on the base paths (runner asleep, etc.), successful pick-off throws are usually very quick - catch and fire. A delayed pick-off sounds like an afterthought, and perhaps not an actual play being interfered with at all, just a random throw to F3.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

That's the second time you've used that phrase on two different boards to characterize those who criticized NFHS for adopting a lone-wolf interpretation on the running lane violation after a BOB. I guess you like it.

They (NFHS) deserved the ridicule they got for this. Don't mistake intense criticism and ridicule with irrationality.

Responding separately so as to not confuse the points. I fully agree that the NFHS interpretation on the running lane after a BOB is absurd. The interpretation should be criticized and ridiculed, even. Yet, the ruling is to be followed in NFHS rules games, until and unless changed.

That isn't the same as predicting (as many did) that the interpretation would result in wide spread dodgeball scenes, where coaches directed catchers to peg the "walkers" if they left the running lane, and that umpires would honor that interpretation in that instance. I can't speak for your area, but I have NOT EVEN ONCE seen or heard of that happening in Georgia High School.

Now we have a rule which hasn't changed; the wording of interference when batter is out of the box is that same it has been almost forever. Yet, again we have a prediction of wide spread dodgeball, catchers throwing at batters whenever they leave the batters box. I liken that anticipation to Chicken Little; the sky just hasn't fallen, and I don't see that it will.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. It is not up to you to base your rulings on whether you want to award a runner(s) bases or not. If you think it is, you are doing the teams, game and fellow umpires a disservice.

Besides, unless you have a crystal ball telling you otherwise, you have no idea what would have happened had the batter been in the box.

So if you were in this situation and you have to either award 2 bases, or an out, BOTH have a big impact on the inning, you are not going to lean towards not rewarding the team that was "in the way." As I stated above caseplay 7.4.4 gives us some guidelines to follow, which does say to use the batters box as a one of these guidelines.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MJT

So if you were in this situation and you have to either award 2 bases, or an out, BOTH have a big impact on the inning, you are not going to lean towards not rewarding the team that was "in the way." As I stated above caseplay 7.4.4 gives us some guidelines to follow, which does say to use the batters box as a one of these guidelines.

You keep citing this case play, but the ASA case play 7-4.4 deals with an uncaught third strike. What rule set are you citing?

BTW, the impact on the inning is irrelevant to the call of any good umpire. I'm not going to lean in any direction other than the rule book.

Personally, I don't know where you are going with this. You pose a request, you receive responses and now you want to argue with a case play that you are neither identifying by rule set or providing.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You keep citing this case play, but the ASA case play 7-4.4 deals with an uncaught third strike. What rule set are you citing?

BTW, the impact on the inning is irrelevant to the call of any good umpire. I'm not going to lean in any direction other than the rule book.

Personally, I don't know where you re going with this. You pose a request, you receive responses and now you want to argue with a case play that you are neither identifying by rule set or providing.

The caseplay is from the NF book, not ASA. I did lean on the rule book, which shows if they are out of the box, you would have INT.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by MJT

So if you were in this situation and you have to either award 2 bases, or an out, BOTH have a big impact on the inning, you are not going to lean towards not rewarding the team that was "in the way." As I stated above caseplay 7.4.4 gives us some guidelines to follow, which does say to use the batters box as a one of these guidelines.

I think that once an umpire starts looking at things in terms of how important a situation is or who gets rewarded and whether that team deserves to be rewarded ... or thinking about whether the results of a play/decision are FAIR - we start getting ourselves into trouble.

Rule on what you SEE ... don't concern yourself with importance of a situation, or whether a "reward" is fair or deserved. Just decide, simply (in this case) - did the batter interfere with a play? From what you say, sounds like a yes to me. Then implement the penalty.