BR interference with catcher fielding bunt

[reccer]

Do the normal interference rules apply when it involves a catcher and a BR on a bunt play? The catcher is little and extremely quick. On each of these scenarios she is knocked on her keister by the larger slower BR. In each case assume RH batter.

1. Bunt up third base line, batter still completely in box.
2. Bunt in front of plate, batter has one foot in the box.
3. Bunt towards first base line, batter completely out of box.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by reccer

Do the normal interference rules apply when it involves a catcher and a BR on a bunt play? The catcher is little and extremely quick. On each of these scenarios she is knocked on her keister by the larger slower BR. In each case assume RH batter.

1. Bunt up third base line, batter still completely in box.
2. Bunt in front of plate, batter has one foot in the box.
3. Bunt towards first base line, batter completely out of box.

Speaking ASA

As long as the BR and C are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, this is nothing. However, if either does something not associated with the play (i.e. push the other), it could be either INT or OBS.

[Four Seam]

ASA Rule 8-2-f says a batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Per Definitions, the catcher is a fielder. In the post, isn't the batter-runner interfering with a fielder attemptin to field a batted ball? Am I missing something?

[reccer]

Not wanting to take chances with a novice batsman like Eastwick, Anderson selected the latter option. He called upon backup outfielder Ed Armbrister, a mere .185 hitter during the regular season but an acceptable bunter. Armbrister’s job was simple: move Geronimo to second base and allow the formidable top of Cincinnati’s order to drive home the winning run.

Squaring himself into bunting position, Armbrister nubbed the ball in front of the plate. Perhaps not realizing that he had hit the ball into fair territory, Armbrister hesitated before breaking toward first. Just as he started running, Red Sox catcher Carlton Fisk stepped over home plate in an effort to field the bouncing bunt. Fisk and Armbrister collided, delaying the catcher’s pursuit of the ball. Once Fisk picked up the ball, he extricated himself from Armbrister with a sturdy glove-hand shove, set himself quickly, and hurtled a throw toward second base. The ball sailed high and to the right of Rick Burleson’s fully extended arm, tipping off the edge of the shortstop’s glove and carrying into center field. Fred Lynn retrieved the ball and unfurled a strong throw to third, but Geronimo slid into third just before Rico Petrocelli’s quick tag made contact with his body. Armbrister, in spite of his late start from the plate and his momentary tangle with Fisk, settled in at second base.

Vaulting themselves from their seats in the dugout, Red Sox players and coaches screamed for an interference call on Armbrister. Fisk joined his teammates in pleading with home plate umpire Larry Barnett. "He bunted the ball, it shot right up in the air, he stood there. I had to go up for a rebound over him to get the ball, he stood right there," Fisk explained to Murray Chass of The New York Times. "He’s got to get out of my way. If he stays in the [batter’s] box, there’s no argument. But he’s in fair territory, in front of the plate… Why can’t there be [interference called]? You might as well throw a body block at the catcher, then run to first."

In watching the play develop from the opposing dugout, Johnny Bench believed that Fisk might have anticipated the call of interference as he fielded the ball. "At that particular instant, I think [Carlton] thought about the [possibility of] interference," Bench recalls. "I think more than anything, rather than reacting to the play—because Ed was still standing at home plate and [Carlton] had all the time in the world to throw it to second—and I think that for that split-second, he thought about interference. He was waiting for the call. He could make that play 990 times out of a thousand if you gave him that chance." Instant replays showed that once Fisk had pushed Armbrister aside, there was enough separation between the two of them to allow the catcher to set himself and make a strong throw. Fisk made a strong throw, but not an accurate one.

Fisk also had a chance to tag Armbrister on the play and then make the throw to second base in an effort to complete a double play. "When I did shove [Armbrister] aside, he stopped," Fisk explained to Lowell Reidenbaugh of The Sporting News, "and maybe I tagged him out, I don’t know." Television replays showed that Fisk had tagged Armbrister all right, but with his empty glove hand, and not with his bare hand, which cradled the baseball.

If Fisk had tagged Armbrister properly, Geronimo still would have been allowed to advance to third, with only man out; that would have remained a tough situation for Boston. A call of interference by Barnett would have provided the Red Sox with a far better scenario: Armbrister would have been called out for obstructing Fisk—and Geronimo would have been ordered to return to first base.

Not surprisingly, Armbrister saw things far differently from Fisk and the Red Sox. "After I bunted," Armbrister told The New York Times, " I kind of watched it for just a second. As it took a high bounce, I think [Fisk] came from behind me. He reached out and hit me on the leg. He interfered with me."

Yet, Barnett didn’t see any legitimate cause for calling interference on Fisk—or, more significantly, on Armbrister. "When the ball was hit," Barnett explained after the game, "I yelled ‘Fair, fair, in play!’ Armbrister did nothing intentional to interfere with Fisk."

The question of Armbrister’s "intent" was apparently not raised by Barnett during his on-field argument with Johnson, but became a burning issue after the game. "It is only interference when the batter intentionally gets in the way of the fielder," Barnett told Ron Fimrite of Sports Illustrated—after the game. A referral to one of the sections in the Official Baseball Rules seemed to support Barnett’s rationale. According to subsection H of Rule 7.09, says interference should be called "if, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play." The rule stipulated that if the umpire deemed such interference intentional, then a double play should be called.

Yet, some members of the media questioned whether Rule No. 7.09 (H) should really be applied to a situation like the one involving Armbrister and Fisk. As legendary sportswriter Red Smith aptly noted in the October 15th edition of The New York Times, that particular rule had been put in place several years earlier as a specific response to a trick play used by Hall of Famer Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers. On more than one occasion, Robinson had intentionally allowed batted balls to hit him between first and second base. Although the existing rules of the day obligated umpires to call Robinson out for obvious interference, the fielding team no longer had the chance to turn a double play. Since Robinson’s ploy created an unfair advantage for the offense, a new rule was created.

Therefore, perhaps Rule No. 7.09 didn’t apply to a collision between a catcher and a batter, at all. Some members of the media felt that Rule No. 6.06, which made specific mention of the catcher, should become the reference point for Armbrister-Fisk. According to that rule, a batter should be called out if he "interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." The rule contained no stipulation that interference on the part of the batter had to be "intentional." And while Armbrister had not stepped out of the batter’s box in making contact with Fisk, he had certainly "hindered" the catcher in both fielding the ball and making the throw. Based on the interpretation of this rule, it seemed that Barnett had erred in making the call.

Yet, in reality, the umpires weren’t being governed by either of the two conflicting rules in question. "It was merely a collision," Barnett told reporters in explaining the nature of the contact between Armbrister and Fisk. Merely a collision. That was the key word in Barnett’s dictionary. According to a supplemental instructional rules book given only to major league umpires and not made available publicly—a book that helped them interpret vague or confusing rules and situations—a collision between the catcher and batter on a batted ball was to be treated as incidental to the play. "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball," the supplemental instruction stated, "there is generally no violation and nothing should be called."

"The instructions specifically cover this play," said George Maloney, the second base umpire in Game Three, as part of a revealing interview with the Louisville Times. "[The instructions] clearly state that no call will be made involving contact between a batter and a catcher. They are saying, in essence, that both have rights: the catcher to field the ball, the runner to advance to first. It is to be treated as a collision—nothing else."

An appeal of the call to first base umpire Dick Stello produced only additional support for Barnett’s call—and for Maloney’s explanation. "The batter," explained Stello, "has as much right to go to first base as the fielder has to go for the ball." End of argument. Or at least the umpires hoped so.

With Stello and Barnett holding firm on their decision, the call stood on its original platform: no one out for interference, and runners at second at third. As Sparky Anderson, in conversation with Sports Illustrated, would so aptly summarize the controversial soap opera involving Armbrister, Fisk, Barnett, and Stello: "The guys in the bars will be talking about that play until spring training." And then some.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Four Seam

ASA Rule 8-2-f says a batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Per Definitions, the catcher is a fielder. In the post, isn't the batter-runner interfering with a fielder attemptin to field a batted ball? Am I missing something?

$-Seam,
Yes, you are missing something. This wreck with the batter-runner and catcher is the exception. As Mike said, as long as both B-R and F2 are doing what they should be doing, it's nothing.

Reccer - How many boards are you posting this one?

[reccer]

Reccer - How many boards are you posting this one?
--------------------------------------------
Why do you ask?

[Harshblue]

reccer
You have interference in this one , no question .
Irish
What sort of statement is that " as long as the catcher(fielder) and BR are doing what they are supposed to be doing we have nothing ."
Thats hogwash the BR or R cannot inerefere with a batted ball they have to get out of the way
same as if BR crashed into the fielder 3 up 1st base line its interference .
And Ive been called lenient on my INTF calls ,some of you guys need to read the INTF rule

[Az.Ump]

Originally Posted by Harshblue

reccer
You have interference in this one , no question .
Irish
What sort of statement is that " as long as the catcher(fielder) and BR are doing what they are supposed to be doing we have nothing ."
Thats hogwash the BR or R cannot inerefere with a batted ball they have to get out of the way
same as if BR crashed into the fielder 3 up 1st base line its interference .
And Ive been called lenient on my INTF calls ,some of you guys need to read the INTF rule

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!
[yelling]
BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports!
[whop]
[creak]
CROWD: A witch! A witch!
WITCH: It's a fair cop.

You might try reading the exceptions.

Paul

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Az.Ump

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!
[yelling]
BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports!
[whop]
[creak]
CROWD: A witch! A witch!
WITCH: It's a fair cop.

You might try reading the exceptions.

Paul

Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.

[Harshblue]

Tell me then I still have INTF

[Four Seam]

[QUOTE=Steve M]$-Seam,
Yes, you are missing something. This wreck with the batter-runner and catcher is the exception. As Mike said, as long as both B-R and F2 are doing what they should be doing, it's nothing.

Bassman's tale involved major league baseball rules, not ASA.

Can you cite an ASA rule or POE that supports such an exception? I don't have my 07 book here, but in the 04 book from my bookshelf, Rule 8-2-f and POE 32 seem pretty explicit and don't mention any exception for batter-runners and catchers situations. Extract from POE 32: Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field...without being hindered.

Also, if a runner is running from second base to third base after a ball has been hit, and the shortstop is trying to field the batted ball, aren't both of them doing what they should be doing, and does that mean that if the runner runs into the shortstop it's nothing?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Please go to page 236 in the 2007 ASA Rule Book, Umpire Manual and start reading at the top of the page.

In the 2004 book, it is on page 233

[Four Seam]

Page 233 of my 2004 ASA rule book has to do with Council Meetings, but if you say there is an exception in the Umpire's Manual or somewhere, that's good enough for me.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Four Seam

Page 233 of my 2004 ASA rule book has to do with Council Meetings, but if you say there is an exception in the Umpire's Manual or somewhere, that's good enough for me.

Mike was talking about the Umpire Edition of the rule book. You apparently have the coach's edition.

[IamMatt]

Is the reason that plays are treated differently when the BR and catcher are involved (I think Steve M used the term 'exception') that the the immediacy of the play and proximity of the BR and F2 make it virtually impossible (in some plays, like the ones in the OP) for them to react in a way (while playing normally) that would prevent any sort of interaction between them?

IOW on some plays, they are potentially tangled up on their first step, with no time to avoid one another, in contrast to the sitch posted of a runner from 2B to 3B interfering with F6 fielding a batted ball in which the runner generally has sufficient reaction time to avoid interfering(?)