batter interference

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Semantically, I hear what you're saying...

But if the runner is 1 step from 3rd base, and if the catcher reaches back to throw, but does not actually throw - wouldn't it be more logical to assume the reason for no throw was that the runner was 1 step from 3rd base, and not whatever the batter did? I agree with the idea that we would give benefit of the doubt to the defense in situations like this, but the degree to which 2 of you have taken it seems extreme to me, given a lack of a throw and a better reason for that no-throw.

My comment applied ONLY to the part where it was suggested that umpires can/should judge if an out can be made for (any) interference to be ruled; not if it was an appropriate conclusion in an imaginary case play. I am discussing the degree that judgment (only) might consider, not a hasty conclusion that there was little chance of an out.

At the same time, let us be careful in "assume the reason", as you refer above. We are to make judgments on what has occured; you are close to treading in the "can't judge intent" water that has been removed from the offense, and should not be considered on the defense. Judge the act, not the reason.

If the batter committed an act that can be judged to hinder, and there was a possible play that it may have hindered; don't go backwards and try to rule on the intent of the catcher in pulling the throw down. Unless you KNOW why no throw was made (saw her lose control, no one in position to make the play, or the F5 wave a throw off, for example), rule on the acts and facts you do have.