interference question
 

We had this one today, and we were pretty sure we got it right. Batter is out of the batters box and down the line a foot or two and turns around and is walking back towards the foul line when the catcher makes a delayed throw to first base to pick off the runner. The throw hits the batter in the helmet and goes into to the dugout. We said since she was out of the batters box it was interference and she was out and the runner had to go back to first. 99% sure we got it right. Do you agree?

Now, if it would not have been interference, batter in the box and did not do anything wrong, the runner on first would get 2 bases cuz that is the base she was on when the throw was made. Correct?

Not all the information. I assume it was a foul ball or, was ther 2 outs and a droped third strike. Give us more exact info. How did you decide it was interference.??

If the ball were still alive, I've got nothing but a poor throw by F2. Ball goes into DBT, runner(s) awarded two bases. Unless the batter made a deliberate move to hinder F2's throw.

Bob

The ball was still alive. The batter did not make a deliberate move to hinder the throw, but did move after F2 caught it and was out of the batters box at the time of the contact. We got it right. Caseplay 7.4.4 states "B2 is entitled to her position in the batter's box and is not subject to interference unless she moves or re-establishes her position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attemping a play on a runner." The runner was no longer in the box and her movement did prevent the catcher from making a play on the runner.

7.4.4 does not say you can have interference only if the batter made a deliberate move to hinder F2's throw, but does say what she cannot do. After finding the caseplay, we definitely got it right.

I'm with Appswl, need more info. Why was the batter out of the box? Did something happen that caused the batter to leave the box.

Also, if the batter is down the line a foot or two and turns around, don't you mean she was walking back toward the plate, not the foul line she was already on?

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).

Ok, I'll try to clarify. I don't know why she was out of the box. Nothing caused her to be out of the box, she did after her swing. She was 3-4 feet up the line and 3-4 feet in fair territory, and was walking back towards HP, but mostly towards the foul line at the time she was hit.

AtlUmpSteve really nailed it with his last comment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.