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.

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.

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.

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

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.

You can't base this on what happens afterward - you can't be "in doubt" at all - either the Batter interfered or she didn't - it's not wise to wait to see what happened later before making your decision (or, even if the ball went OOP immediately, it's not wise to make that decision based on the fact that it went OOP).

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.

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.

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.

On second thought, I do see the resemblance to the NFHS interp on running lane / BOB.

Perhaps it is just more common regionally, but I see plenty of cases of a delayed pickoff. Typically, it is used against a more aggressive baserunner that uses (and often fakes using) a delayed steal. So the sequence is 1) runner gets aggressive lead, 2) catcher feints a return throw to pitcher, 3) runner leans toward advance base on the feint, 4) catcher throws behind runner in pickoff attempt.

Actually pretty common here; and it would be interference in my mind if batter out of the box is hit by a throw that appeared on line.

Yes; I did use the same phrase, cutting and pasting on the same question posed on several message boards. I have seen you do the same, Tom.

To answer your question, Mike, I submit that the batter who has left the box is responsible to avoid interference until there is no further play. If runner returns, and/or ball is returned to the pitcher (in the circle), then the batter can safely return. Otherwise, I see a rules basis to hold them accountable for interfering, and no rules basis to hold them harmless without judging no play, or USC, no matter how long the delay by the catcher in making "a play".

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.

That's what I mean by more information about what was going on. Basically, was there an actual play or was the catcher making a late throw that was not going to do anything useful?

I have no problem with the interference ruling here, so long as there was an actual play and not just a pointless throw.

I have no problem with cutting and pasting answers from different boards. I noted that only to point out that you must like that characterization, and to also point out that NFHS deserved the criticism that was directed at them for that ruling; it was not irrational "sky is falling" fear-mongering.

Dumb play, throw the damn thing back to the pitcher.Or maybe when it's obvious there is really no further play availble, we just kill the play and get ready for the next pitch. :D :D :D

You see the coach mentality on eteamz. "Hey, if the ump isn't going to call it, I'll just keep having the catcher nail the batter in the head every time."

Speaking ASA, this is one place where the updated manner in which to approach INT calls may actually cause more debate.

Now, I'm really going to muck up the waters. Remember, I'm referring to ASA here. Please cite the rule which supports the batter being called out without an act of INT.

Rule 7.6 THE BATTER IS OUT.

P. When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box.
Q. When actively hindering (redundant) the catcher while in the batter's box.
R. When intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.

Well, which is it? R clearly requires intention with a "thrown" ball, while P just says hindering the catcher which can be contrued as just about anything which involves the catcher. I was in the room when the proposed change to R was defeated, so I wonder what the Playing Rules committee was saying with that vote?

Remember, even the rules where the wording was changed, it was clearly stated by the NUS that they wanted the umpire to be judging interference, not intent. Based on that alone, is it not possible to not consider the batter to have committed and act of interference especially with a possible contradiction set between P & R above?

Don't get upset. I am playing devil's advocate to some level. I just don't believe that merely getting hit by a thrown ball alone necessasrily qualifies as interference. BTW, did I mention that there is no rule requiring the batter to remain in the box in this case?:confused:

The ball was in the dugout a split second after it hit the batter in the helmet. The PU asked me to come in from the my position between 1st-2nd to discuss it with him so we had time to talk about it. I think we got it right.

Responding to the above, and certainly not upset; a scholarly discussion. Here's how I read the rule sections to state (and mean), so as to not contradict, but to attempt to clarify and support all possible instances. We are attempting to cover all possible instances; the batter leaves in the box and interferes with the catcher attempting to field or throw (P), the batter stays in the box and interferes with the catcher attempting to field or throw (Q), any other throw where another play isn't happening (R), and any other play at the plate while still a batter (S).

P. When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box. The key word here (if not an unintended typo, and I have no reason to believe it is) is [/b]BY[/b]. It doesn't say when, or if, it says by. That alone has the significance to tell me that if there is a play (and that is required by the definition of interference), then the result of the play being hindered by the batter out of the box is (ipso facto) automatic interference. The absence of "actively" or "intentionally" speaks to the result; anything, unintended or not, active or not, passively standing with back turned, is interference if it hinders the defense from making a play, by being out of the batters box.

Q. When actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box. Assume my interpretation of P is correct (okay, asking a lot :D). So, the batter stays in the box; that gives B some added protection, that F2 must throw around them, because they belong there, unless B does something specific (actively) to hinder. Not ipso facto as a result of hindrance, in the box it must be an active hindrence. The wording (actively) may appear redundant, but we all know we replaced "intentionally", and still need to impart that B must do something specific, an action, that failing to vacate their hitting location or other passivity isn't interference.

R. When intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box. The final catch-all coverage for anything other than the catcher picking up the ball and attempting a play (and this has to be the result of a specific play happening that lead to this rule); we know by the exception in the rules (listed after S, but necessarily applying just to S; in fact, I think it should be the exception to R) that if there is no play, and the return throw accidentally hits B, it is a dead ball, no harm no foul. <b>BUT</b>, if B intentionally interferes, it doesn't matter that there was no play at the time, R makes it interference.

That is how I understand and interpret these, as not contradictory, but as complementary, to cover any and all circumstances. And yes, in R, there is an interference even without a play. Finally, I agree that the rules do not <b>REQUIRE</b> a slapper to stay in the batters box; but the risk of interference remains higher when B is out of the box. Section P states that risk (as stated above), and does not exempt <b>ANY</b> reason for being out of the box; it says <b>BY</b> being out of the box.

Okay, you are correct, it says by. It continues stepping out of the batter's box. Semantics being what they are :D , the batter was stepping back into the box. IOW, she did not step out of the box and hinder the catcher making a play. For that matter, the batter was doing exactly what she is supposed to do by returning to the box.

I consider Q irrelevant to the discussion

Quote:

R. When intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.

I disagree. If the EXCEPTION is exclusive to S, why is it not placed subsequent to that paragraph? It is, however, directly beneath the EFFECT. Also, the EXCEPTION basically notes that if there is no play, there is no foul.

So. let's go back to P. If the EXCEPTION does not apply to P, a batter with no one on base, steps forward after a swing and miss to do a little housekeeping of dirt or chalk and gets hit by the catcher's return throw should, by rule, be called out.

Nowhere in P, Q or R is there a requirement for the catcher to be making a play to rule INT. Meanwhile, S is the ONLY rule included in the EFFECT package that does require a play. Given that fact, the EXCEPTION would be a direct contraction as it state, "If no play is being made"

This is why I believe P & R to be two separate rules. R involves interfering with a throw and P involves interfering with a person.Ah, but the rule doesn't say BY BEING out of the box, does it?:D

There needs to be some reins on the catcher (or any defender) or it just becomes target practice.