Interference or Nothing?
 

ASA

R1 on 2B, full count on RH batter.

On a delayed steal, R1 attempts to reach 3B. The pitch is called ball four. Staying in the BB, the BR steps back and tosses the bat toward 3B dugout. As she turns and steps toward 1B, the catcher pops up and bumps into BR trying to make a throw to get R1, but does not throw the ball.

For your ruling, assume the C had a viable play on R1.

What, if any, call is there to be made at this point?

Steps back in or out of the batter's box??? Just curious. :D

I would have to say nothing based on the fact that she is moving toward 1B and the stepping back/tossing of the bat was prior to the bump.

Since the point of this is to dissect the play and make (or not) a call, I won't take the easy way and say HTBT to see the play. :)

As a general rule of thumb, I would want to see the catcher attempt to throw the ball before I will rule interference. Since F2 did not throw the ball, I don't see an interference call here. I'm not going to try to read her mind as to whether she intended to throw and pulled up or was just faking a throw.

As a second point, is the B/R really interferring? With ball four, her status has changed from a batter to a batter/runner, does this take away the "protection" of being in the BB? From the description, I don't envision the B/R doing anything she should not be doing. I would expect her to drop her bat and move toward first base. Would this play be similar to a bunt in front of the plate with F2 coming out to play the bunt and B/R running to first and they get tangled? I don't have access to the book here at work...I'm leaning toward a no call here.

My first reaction was no call, like the others here, but as stated, she is a BR, not a batter. We do have this rule:

8-2-F-2
Notice... "interferes with a fielder attempting to throw".

Was the catcher attempting to throw? As stated, yes. Did the BR interfere? As stated, yes. If you're looking for a definitive act of interference, she stepped back and then forward, she didn't just move forward toward 1B.

What exactly is the BR's protection in the BB?
As described this sounds like interference, a runner moved into the space the catcher needed to make the throw. The catcher wisely didn't throw the ball since that would have resulted in an errant throw given the interference and the catcher wasn't sure the umpire would call it. Why would we need a throw to have interference, she had a play and couldn't make it because the batter interfered.
________
Bong review

From being out if she contacts a batted ball; that's about it. The batter's protection (7-6-P & Q) does not apply.

I don't know, what do you think?

"Staying in the BB, the BR steps back and tosses the bat toward 3B dugout."

I would call Dead ball, BR called out, return R1 to 2b.

You know...maybe I should quit reading these while I am at work. I always skim over things and miss vital elements. Sheesh....

Assuming the viable play, then I will have to go with Tom and say that yes, there is interference based on the rule he quoted. No throw is required.

I had a game last week. Batter called out on third strike. R1 on 2b stealing 3b on pitch. recently called out batter steps back into the catcher causing the throw to go into left field. What is your call?

Mike:

FP or SP w/ stealing?

Give us a hard one.
R1's now out also. ASA 8-7-P

Not any of this should be hard.

Take your pick. I don't believe it makes a difference.

Well... it does.

If the game is SP with stealing, and the called ball was due to the ball landing in front of the plate, then the ball would be dead. At that point, there would be no interference... send R back to 2B and put the BR on 1B.

But that's not what you were getting at, was it? ;)

Very good, but it would never happen. Why? Since it was a "delayed steal", you know that the runner wouldn't bother once s/he saw the umpire give the appropriate dead ball signal. :rolleyes:

But to make it easier for our comrades in the Northwest, let's say it is FP.

I'm not sure what else can be said, as this is the definitive answer. Much as you may want to fall back on "the BR was doing what she is expected to do", the fact is the rule makes clear that the BR is expected to avoid interfering with a fielder attempting a throw, and is responsible to know when that is possible to happen. If the BR failed to pay attention, didn't know there was a delayed steal, didn't know there might be a throw, and didn't avoid interfering, then 8.2-F(2) applies.

The exception I could consider isn't stated as part of the scenario posted, thus doesn't apply. If I judged intent on the part of the catcher to create that contact rather than make a legitimate attempt to throw, then I would consider it a nothing. Absent that, I see no option to applying the rule as stated.

Then I'm on board with the interference call.

However, do we really know that F2 held the throw due to the contact with the BR? IF the ball sails into LF, it's pretty darn obvious that the INT happened; i.e. F2 "sold it".

I will sometimes judge the lack of throw - did F2 intend to throw to 3B and held up due to the contact, or was it a pump-fake the whole time? One might draw an INT call from me, one might not. Judgement call.

That is why we get the big bucks to make those judgment calls.

I love the people who refuse to call something because they "cannot read the player's mind". If you are an umpire with any experience, you know INT or OBS when you see it, just like you know a bunt or a batter looking to get hit when you see it.

Well then my vote goes to HTBT.... coz the OP doesn't give me the detail i need. :)

Maybe.

Maybe not.

The OP tells you the catcher had a play. It tells you that as the catcher came up trying to make a throw, the batter moved in a manner which caused contact which is active and hindering.

Intent is irrelevent.

If I'm a UIC and a coach protested the umpire's ruling, given this information, I would probably rule this as INT. Remove the fact that there was definitely a play, and I go to "no call". That's the bad part about being a UIC. You are only given a scenario and need to make a decision based solely on that. If you actually saw the play, you are a lucky UIC.

The OP does not give you an instant reply for you to make an INDEPENDENT judgment, but the OP clearly gives you the judgment made... the batter-runner stepped back and then stepped forward and collided with F2 who was attempting a throw. IF you had seen the play, THEN you could argue the judgment stated was not correct. But, without seeing the play, you are left with the judgment stated.

"relied" as past tense of rely, or re-lied, as in telling the lie again? ;)

I was all ready to chime in with agreement on the INT out since B1 was now a BR, until I read 8-2-F-1.

"BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.

F. When the batter-runner interferes with:

3. a thrown ball while out of the batter's box."

I agree that if in PU's judgement F2 was about to make a throw than the throw need not be completed to have an INT call, but the language of this rule seems to indicate the a BR does still have some protection as long as they are still in the friendly confines of the batter's box.

UmpireErnie,

You quote of the rule does not appy here. We are dealing with the actions of the BR in the batter's box (Dakota). The OP makes it quite clear that active and hindering action took place. The call should be immediate: DB, that's interference by the BR and return R1 top 2B.

IrishMafia wrote an OP that was quite clear with little doubt (in my mind) as to what the ruling should be. I am unsure as to why some had a difficult time in assessing this play. It is a play that we need to be aware of and be ready to call. And do not forget about Altump's point of the catcher initiating contact (there are still some out there that do that).

Ron

Ron,

I agree. The BR is out for interferring with an attempt to throw which is in ASA 8-2-F-2, litterally the sentance above the one I quoted.

The rule I was questioning, 8-2-F-3 would apply if F2 had actually made a throw and the ball was interferred with in flight. In that case, if the throw hit the BR while she was still in the box the ruling would be live ball play on unless the umpire judged that the BR intentionally interferred with the thrown ball.

Ernie