Interference

[lildani14]

The other post was getting long so I'll start a new one. I was reading some of the examples and decided I'd try my two cents. Correct me if i'm wrong.

On the ball that the catcher fields and complains that she can't make the throw because the runner in in fair territory. Thats when the 1st baseman moves to the orange bag to take the throw. At least that was how we practiced to handle that in our games. Was that the catcher called outside and 1B moved to catch it.

On the batter in the batters box when a catcher is making a play at 3rd. I as a player will not move. Most of us will make the catcher throw around us. Is that interference? I don't move into her throw or anything. She just has to make the effort to get around me.

Also at a softball camp this summer we were instructed if we were passing in front of a player who was to field a ball to make sort of a stutter step as we passed in front. Nothing huge, just enough to possibly distract though. Is that interference?

[whiskers_ump]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lildani14
The other post was getting long so I'll start a new one. I was reading some of the examples and decided I'd try my two cents. Correct me if i'm wrong.

On the ball that the catcher fields and complains that she can't make the throw because the runner in in fair territory. Thats when the 1st baseman moves to the orange bag to take the throw. At least that was how we practiced to handle that in our games. Was that the catcher called outside and 1B moved to catch it.

I think in Sit. 1, runner would be safe by 1B using orange bag. Under Rule 8 Sec 2M. b.

On the batter in the batters box when a catcher is making a play at 3rd. I as a player will not move. Most of us will make the catcher throw around us. Is that interference? I don't move into her throw or anything. She just has to make the effort to get around me.

I think in Sit. 2, as long as you don't intentionally
interfer, ok.

Also at a softball camp this summer we were instructed if we were passing in front of a player who was to field a ball to make sort of a stutter step as we passed in front. Nothing huge, just enough to possibly distract though. Is that interference?

I think in Sit 3. It would be up to umpires judgement
or whether or not your actions were interference.

JMO's on you questions.


glen

[oppool]

The only time a fielder may use the orange side of the bag for a put-out is if the throw to the fielder is coming from foul territory of the 1st base bag or if the fielder has retrieved the ball from foul territory so in situation #1 the runner would be safe

Sit#2 As Glen said if the umpire does not deemed you did something intentional no call shall be made BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump.

Sit#3 If the move looks intentional "dead ball" runner is out. I have seen and called this play several times, so I believe must vetern umps will catch you on this


JMO

Don

[Steve M]

I agree with Glen & Don - just want to clarify something in your situation 2 a little more. Dani, IF you are in the batter's box and do nothing "abnormal", there will not be any interference - you have to intentionally interfere. But if you're out of the batter's box - as in getting your coach's sign - then you must get & stay out of the fielder's way and any interference does not have to be intentional.

Steve M

[Buck912]

Here's my opinion to your situations. As for #1, our association does not use the double base, so on that one, I'll pass. However on #2..my position is rather simple. The batter does not have to vacate the batter's box to make it easier for the catcher to make a play on a runner stealing a base. (most of the time, it involves 3rd base.) The batters box belongs to the batter. However, she must not make any movment (for example, leaning back or forward) that would prevent the catcher from making the throw. The same thing would apply if the batter does move out of the box, she can't get in the way of or do anything that would hinder the catcher in making the play. Now if there's a play at the plate (like a passed ball and the pitcher is covering home) then the batter must get out of the box or risk an interference call. For #3, I agree with everyone else on that being your judgment as to interference or not.

[David Van Milligen]

"Sit#2 As Glen said if the umpire does not deemed you did something intentional no call shall be made BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."

I disagree with OPPOOL, if the batter does not move it cannot be interference.

[Roger Greene]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Van Milligen
[B]"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."


That would fly in the face of all the official rulings I've seen on interference by a batter. In fact, it would be a direct contradiction of several.

Roger Greene

[IRISHMAFIA]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roger Greene
[B]

Originally posted by David Van Milligen
"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."


That would fly in the face of all the official rulings I've seen on interference by a batter. In fact, it would be a direct contradiction of several.

Roger Greene

I agree, Roger. Sometimes reading too much into a rule gets umpires in trouble.

A comparable example is that the past few years, I've had umpires argue with me that a base coach who gets hit by a thrown ball while still standing in the box should be called for interference. I've even seen this called in a game in which I was participating as a player. A wild throw from left field to home hit my coach in the side of the head as he was covering up and diving in the opposite direction toward a fence to get out of the way of the throw. He ended up on the ground with the beginning of a nice headache and the umpire ruled the runner between 3B and home out for coach's interference.

Their argument: It's the coach's responsibility to know where the ball is at all times and his/her inability to move out of the way should be considered an intentional act.

This apparently got so bad somewhere, ASA added a sentence which did nothing, but reiterate the rule preceding it.

[Buck912]

I want to give one more opinion about the #2 situation and I agree with Mike and Roger. Interference does not have to be intentional. That part should be clear to all of us. As a matter of fact, the majority of the batter interference calls I've made have been when the batter exits the batters box. Then it seems like the more they move to get out of the catcher's way, they just make things worse by getting in the way and preventing her from making the play on the runner, either by a delayed throw, bad throw, or no throw at all. This batter is not doing this intentionally, however, it's interference. That one should not be tough to call. When she leaves the batter's box, she has to give way to the catcher and let her do her job. The best thing for the batter to do (in my opinion) is to just stay in the box, become a statue and make no movement. That cannot or should not be called batter interference. At least, I wouldn't call it. The coaches that know this rule teach their players to do that. The ones that don't know it are the ones that stick to their opinion that the batter has to get out of the box. That's the way I see it, that's my story and I'm sticking to it......

[WestMichBlue]

I agree with the "statue" definition rather than using the batter's box. Catchers should be taught to step around the batter to find a throwing lane. If F2 tries to throw thru or over the batter she gets no help from me. But if the batter moves - while still in the batter's box - and interfers with the throw - she is out and runner goes back.

[Buck912]

Also nicely stated and I agree 100%, wholeheartedly, conclusively, and any other word that means YESSSSS!! Thanks for the input.....

[Roger Greene]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
I agree with the "statue" definition rather than using the batter's box. Catchers should be taught to step around the batter to find a throwing lane. If F2 tries to throw thru or over the batter she gets no help from me. But if the batter moves - while still in the batter's box - and interfers with the throw - she is out and runner goes back.

Correct call West. If the batter does anything while in the box except:
(1) stand still
(2) make a normal attempt to strike the pitch ball (includes a normal and natural follow through or squaring around as if to bunt)
(3) or move to avoid being struck by the pitched ball (required of the batter by rule in all codes)

Then they are subject to an interference call.

Consider this: B takes pitch, R2 attempts to steal 3rd base. F2 attempts to throw to 3rd base, and B ducks down to give F2 room to make the throw, but in so doing moves her bat in the path of the thrown ball.(note that the thrown ball did not hit the bat, but that the bat moved into the path of the thrown ball.)

This is a classic case of battter inteference. The offensive coach will argue that the batter did not "intend" to interfer, but the proper rulling is that the batter did intend to move, and her movement intefered with F2's play. F2 has a right to expect the batter to remain motionless with the 2 exceptions above.

This is very similar to the legal theory that makes a person responsible for the natural and normal consequences (sp) of their act, ie: The person that fires a firearm into the air celebrating New Years Eve, would be guilty of murder, when the falling projectile struck and killed another person several miles away. The shooter did not "intend" to kill the victim, but he did intend to discharge the weapon, and is still responsible for the projectile as it falls bsck to earth.

Roger Greene

[bluezebra]

I consider a "stutter step" in front of an infielder waiting to field a ground ball an intentional move to distract. INTERFERENCE!

Bob

[oppool]

"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."


That would fly in the face of all the official rulings I've seen on interference by a batter. In fact, it would be a direct contradiction of several.

For all of you who have disagreed with this statement


NFSH Rule 7-3 art 5 "By failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw at home and there is time for the batter to move away"

ASA POE 31 B. "The batter's box is not a sactuary for the batter when a play is being made at the plate"

I believe both of these rules cover a batter not moving in the batters box being called for interference.

JMO

Don

[Edited by oppool on Jan 17th, 2003 at 02:03 PM]

[Buck912]

Hmmm, Roger. I'm not so certain that I necessarily agree with you on this one. (although I might could be convinced)How can we say the bat moved into the path of the thrown ball if the ball didn't strike the bat. What if the throw to 3rd was a perfect throw that a fast base runner simply beat? Or better yet, what if she was thrown out at 3rd? I know the ball is dead and the runner must return but that would be a difficult situation to be in by calling the batter out for interference when the catcher made a perfect throw for an out. And no I'm not trying to say that maybe interference calls should be delayed dead ball calls, I'm just saying that we need to look at "what was the result" of the action instead of ruling that the action was interference. That same senario could take place if the batter just stood there motionless, in her normal stance, (like a statue). Are we going to rule that the bat was in the path of the ball, even though the ball does not strike the bat?
I understand that in my example, in one instance the batter is actually moving, by ducking down as versus the other batter remaining motionless, but in both cases are you saying that the bat could be in the path of the thrown ball and should be ruled interference? If I'm understanding you correctly, I can't agree on that interpretation. I know I'm probably opening myself up for some "heartburn" on this one but I'll listen and read all other opinions....