batter's interference

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This is INT. The ball is dead, the batter is out and all advancing runners return to the base occupied at the time of the INT.

Usually. Probably almost always... but not always. I can think of twice where this was not true in actual play.

1) Pitch came inside, batter bailed without falling, and was about 2 steps behind the box. Catcher did not field cleanly and the ball rolled a bit left. Catcher then drilled the batter in the helmet - there was no chance of the batter avoiding the throw.

2) Pitch came out of the catcher's glove rolling toward the batter. Batter danced to avoid the rolling ball, moving toward 3rd. Catcher picked up the ball barehanded and Tekulve'd the ball right into batter's leg.

This is why I asked for more information on the OP.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

\
1) Pitch came inside, batter bailed without falling, and was about 2 steps behind the box. Catcher did not field cleanly and the ball rolled a bit left. Catcher then drilled the batter in the helmet - there was no chance of the batter avoiding the throw.

Okay, I will admit the possibility of a no call is there, but it is possible. Remember, it is the batter's responsibility to avoid getting involved in a play. If the batter was just standing there, I agree, no INT. However, if the batter moved and was hit, even if the intention was to get out of the way, and I'm confident the catcher was throwing to the base, not at the batter's head, that is most likely going to be ruled INT.

2) Pitch came out of the catcher's glove rolling toward the batter. Batter danced to avoid the rolling ball, moving toward 3rd. Catcher picked up the ball barehanded and Tekulve'd the ball right into batter's leg.

Same as above.

This is why I asked for more information on the OP.

Gotcha and there is no doubt that an INT call is almost always HTBT since many scenarios lose one or two things in translation.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

1) Pitch came inside, batter bailed without falling, and was about 2 steps behind the box. Catcher did not field cleanly and the ball rolled a bit left. Catcher then drilled the batter in the helmet - there was no chance of the batter avoiding the throw.

I have argued this for a while now with some of my fellow ASA Umpires. Their position was that this is interference. I have always argued that the batter was doing what she should do, which is avoid being hit, and that if she does not actively hinder the catcher, we have a live ball and a DMC.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by rwest

I have argued this for a while now with some of my fellow ASA Umpires. Their position was that this is interference. I have always argued that the batter was doing what she should do, which is avoid being hit, and that if she does not actively hinder the catcher, we have a live ball and a DMC.

DMC? More like DMP. If she buzzes the batter, that's on her.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

I have argued this for a while now with some of my fellow ASA Umpires. Their position was that this is interference. I have always argued that the batter was doing what she should do, which is avoid being hit, and that if she does not actively hinder the catcher, we have a live ball and a DMC.

"actively hindering" only applies in the BB. And that would be there if it wasn't for a certain Ute.

Even out of the BB, if the batter does something as simple as straighten up into the area where the catcher was going to throw the ball, that is INT. There is some onus on the batter to be aware of the situation.

[NSABill]

I have been accused of being too sensitive.
The ump above is correct thought.
Umpires are inherently very egotistical and sometimes on this board old fuddy duddies that do not have a lot of patience.

We are all brothers (I hope). Maybe sisters. (Do not want to get blasted for being incorrect). That has happened before when I used the term fellas.

Lighten up Francises.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by NSABill

I have been accused of being too sensitive.
The ump above is correct thought.
Umpires are inherently very egotistical and sometimes on this board old fuddy duddies that do not have a lot of patience.

We are all brothers (I hope). Maybe sisters. (Do not want to get blasted for being incorrect). That has happened before when I used the term fellas.

Lighten up Francises.

I think we're so used to putting our collective foot down with coaches that we sometimes forget to make that switch when we come here.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by rwest

I have argued this for a while now with some of my fellow ASA Umpires. Their position was that this is interference. I have always argued that the batter was doing what she should do, which is avoid being hit, and that if she does not actively hinder the catcher, we have a live ball and a DMC.

A slight tangent here...but I posed a question about this play in a thread last month (inside pitch forces the batter out of the box, then the batter is hit by the catcher's throw).

Batter Interference?

[EsqUmp]

No one expects a batter to simply disappear. That's isn't logical and it isn't implied as necessary by the rule book.

No one ever seems to realize that by a right-handed batter stepping out of the batter's box (either over the plate or back out of the box), the batter is almost always opening up a better throwing lane down the 3rd base for the catcher. Where is the catcher and where is the throw coming from that a batter gets in the way more OUT of the box than IN it?

It would most likely be the result of a terrible pitch that drove her/him out of the box and then R2 decided to steal 3rd base. There aren't too many attempts to steal 3rd base in higher level ball. I would have a hard time almost "rewarding" the defense for a terrible pitch. Just a thought...

[IRISHMAFIA]

The purpose for the "intent" that was once required for INT in the BB was to keep they batter in a certain area. That way the catcher KNEW they had a predetermined throwing lane and did not have to guess which way the batter was going.

However, that is also why there was no "intent" attached to interfering outside of the box.

The possibility that a batter bailing out may give the catcher a clearer throwing path is not consistant enough to rely upon for constant enforcement.

[EsqUmp]

Keep in mind that if the batter is ALREADY out of the box when the catcher goes to throw the ball, Rule 7-6-R applies, not Rule 7-6-P.

Rule 7-6-R requires an intentional act.

That's why there are 3 separate rules to address this situation.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The purpose for the "intent" that was once required for INT in the BB was to keep they batter in a certain area. That way the catcher KNEW they had a predetermined throwing lane and did not have to guess which way the batter was going.

However, that is also why there was no "intent" attached to interfering outside of the box.

The possibility that a batter bailing out may give the catcher a clearer throwing path is not consistant enough to rely upon for constant enforcement.

There are two rules regarding interference by the Batter that seem to be at odds with each other: 7-6-P and 7-6-R. I don't have my rule book with me, but 7-6-P says something to the effect of interfering with the catcher throwing or catching the ball by stepping out of the batter's box. I may be too analytical and over thinking this but it does appear to me that ASA makes a distinction with "throwing" a ball and a "thrown" ball. One is still in the hands of the fielder and one has left the hand. In most cases, where ASA uses the word "thrown" the interference has to be intentional. See 7-6-R. This makes sense to me because the fielder is responsible for where she throws the ball.

7-6-R says that the batter must intentional interfere with a thrown ball either in or out of the batter's box. So if B2 bails on an inside pitch and is out of the batter's box and see does nothing to intentionally interfere with the thrown ball to 3rd to retire the running stealing on the pitch, I have no interference. ASA did not remove intent from all interference plays. We still have to judge intent in some cases.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by rwest

There are two rules regarding interference by the Batter that seem to be at odds with each other: 7-6-P and 7-6-R. I don't have my rule book with me, but 7-6-P says something to the effect of interfering with the catcher throwing or catching the ball by stepping out of the batter's box. I may be too analytical and over thinking this but it does appear to me that ASA makes a distinction with "throwing" a ball and a "thrown" ball. One is still in the hands of the fielder and one has left the hand. In most cases, where ASA uses the word "thrown" the interference has to be intentional. See 7-6-R. This makes sense to me because the fielder is responsible for where she throws the ball.

7-6-R says that the batter must intentional interfere with a thrown ball either in or out of the batter's box. So if B2 bails on an inside pitch and is out of the batter's box and see does nothing to intentionally interfere with the thrown ball to 3rd to retire the running stealing on the pitch, I have no interference. ASA did not remove intent from all interference plays. We still have to judge intent in some cases.

Personally, I believe you are misapplying the respective rules. As is EsqUmp.

7.6-P comes first. It says if the batter is out of the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), the batter is responsible to not interfere with the catcher throwing or catching a ball. In other words, whether accidental or intentional, actively getting the way or now passively standing in the way, if it interferes, it is interference.

7.6-Q comes next. It says if the batter stays in the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), standing still or passively being in the way isn't interference. The hindrence must be an action by the batter (other than a normal attempt to hit the ball; again, whether accidental or intentional, an active hindrence is interference.

7.6-R comes last. It doesn't change either of the prior rules. It simply points out that an intentional act to interfere, no matter in or out of the box, is interference. It covers the last possibility not already stated in P or Q, the clearly intentional act. It doesn't contradict either, nor modify them. With better wording of P & Q, it could be rendered unnecessary, but the three items have been tweaked individually, not together.

Claiming that R requires an act once outside the batter's box to be intentional is a misapplication and miscomprehension. It simply states the result if/when it is intentional, which P doesn't make as clear as it might.