Batter Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SRW

Rule reference?

What would be the rule reference for CALLING an out?

[Tex]

Quote by Texas State Rule's Interpreter (ASA and NFHS), pertaining to a similar play, a few years ago.

Pitch ball bounces off catcher and/or backstop. The ball goes between the batter’s legs still in the batter’s box. Batter kicks the ball as she moves out of the batter’s box.

Umpire: Batter interference, batter out, runner back to previous base. The key is a movement by the batter that hinders the catcher. A batter does not have to move, reason being that if we make them move, they are subject to be called out for interference.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Quote by Texas State Rule's Interpreter (ASA and NFHS), pertaining to a similar play, a few years ago.

Pitch ball bounces off catcher and/or backstop. The ball goes between the batter’s legs still in the batter’s box. Batter kicks the ball as she moves out of the batter’s box.

Umpire: Batter interference, batter out, runner back to previous base. The key is a movement by the batter that hinders the catcher. A batter does not have to move, reason being that if we make them move, they are subject to be called out for interference.

Does the interpreter recommend calling an out if no baserunners are attempting to advance and there is no play to be had?

No play = no interference

In the OP, it is not explicitly stated, but I read that the runner on third is only a step or two off of third and did not try to advance UNTIL the ball was kicked away. When the ball was kicked by the batter, there was no "play" available to the catcher.

I like and somewhat agree with mbcrowder's resolution, but the only rule I can begin to stretch that far is 10-1.....

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Andy

In the OP, it is not explicitly stated, but I read that the runner on third is only a step or two off of third and did not try to advance UNTIL the ball was kicked away. When the ball was kicked by the batter, there was no "play" available to the catcher...

That's exactly what happened. No way R1 was going anywhere given that the ball was initially a couple of feet away from F2 until the batter backed away. If the batter hadn't kicked the ball, F2 would have simply picked it up, looked at R1, then toss the ball back to F1. No way in heck would F2 make any play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

That's exactly what happened. No way R1 was going anywhere given that the ball was initially a couple of feet away from F2 until the batter backed away. If the batter hadn't kicked the ball, F2 would have simply picked it up, looked at R1, then toss the ball back to F1. No way in heck would F2 make any play.

If there's no play, there's no play to interfere with, thus no interference. The SPIRIT of the exception Mike mentions is that if there is no play, and batters action is unintentional, but batters action creates an opportunity for advancement, we should simply kill it. Yes, I'm aware that the exception is worded more strictly than this...

But if we're just reading the rules as written, you can't have an out here when no one is trying to advance. The spirit of the exception allows us to prevent the offense from gaining advantage by batter's inadvertent act.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

What would be the rule reference for CALLING an out?

7-6-Q. See above.

Now answer my question to you.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SRW

7-6-Q. See above.

Now answer my question to you.

7-6-Q: By actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.

A) this was not active, it was passive. Active implies an intentional act of some sort.
B) the catcher was not hindered - the ball was.

Going through each line of this rule, none of them says or even implies that this batter should be out.

Edit to add: I'm not intentionally trying to avoid your question. I can not provide a rule reference that says the batter is not out - but we don't call outs simply because we feel like it... outs come from "The batter is out when ..." - and if none of those statements apply, then the batter is not out. There is no section that lists all the things a batter can do and NOT be out...

[shagpal]

when did "active" come to mean "intentional" again?

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

7-6-Q: By actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.

A) this was not active, it was passive. Active implies an intentional act of some sort.
B) the catcher was not hindered - the ball was.

Going through each line of this rule, none of them says or even implies that this batter should be out.

Edit to add: I'm not intentionally trying to avoid your question. I can not provide a rule reference that says the batter is not out - but we don't call outs simply because we feel like it... outs come from "The batter is out when ..." - and if none of those statements apply, then the batter is not out. There is no section that lists all the things a batter can do and NOT be out...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

when did "active" come to mean "intentional" again?

the same day "implies" came to mean "means".

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

She unintentionally heel-kicks the ball as she backs out, and the ball rolls to the backstop,

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

7-6-Q: By actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.

A) this was not active, it was passive. Active implies an intentional act of some sort.
B) the catcher was not hindered - the ball was.

Going through each line of this rule, none of them says or even implies that this batter should be out.

Edit to add: I'm not intentionally trying to avoid your question. I can not provide a rule reference that says the batter is not out - but we don't call outs simply because we feel like it... outs come from "The batter is out when ..." - and if none of those statements apply, then the batter is not out. There is no section that lists all the things a batter can do and NOT be out...

A) "Heel-kicks" the ball is active, in any definition. Holding the foot still while the balls rolls against the heel is the passive alternate.

B) Seriously? Kicking the ball out of the batter's box you don't consider hindering the catcher's opportunity to pick it up?

Pretty sure the Texas rules interpreter (WS) cited was referring to a similar occurence with an ongoing play at a base other than home, and the batter having no valid reason to even consider moving feet while catcher is retrieving the ball. At least, that is the play I recall him ruling on.

All that said, I agree with leaning to a dead ball, no play, as described by others. At the time the ball was actively kicked, there was no play to interfere with; and the intent of the exception noted is clearly and obviously to say the offense can't and shouldn't benefit without an equivalent possible jeopardy.

Rule reference, 10.1, making a decision on a play not clearly delineated within the rules, using the spirit and intent of the most similar rule (and, to my knowledge, not subject to a case play ruling, either).