batter interference
 

We have beaten this to death, but I would like to get your criteria for a fine point.
R1 on 2nd, only runner, goes to 3rd on ball 4 pitch.
Catcher rises, takes throwing stance, batter-runner in the way, slight bump, no throw.

Is the no throw enough for no play, no INT; or is YOUR criteria related to whether R1 could have been out?

Making this ball four makes it easy. Now we have a batter-runner, not a batter. Even if she throws it, you won't have interference on this play unless BR actively tries to interfere with the throw. Fielders have to work their throws around live runners.

see OP edit

What was the edit... this looks exactly the same.

He changed "batter" to "batter-runner". That makes your first post even more relevant.

Ah. Got it. Thanks.

Cecil - are you asking for thoughts on whether or not a throw is required to have an interference call in your play?

Partly, along with the chance of an out, although the OP was about BR, really thinking through batter interference. As far as I know, we have always said there has to be something to interfere with, (i.e., a throw);

but first - wondering if we all agree, especially if the throw is clearly prevented by the batter being in the way

and second - with or without a throw, would the possibility of an out or not at the target base affect anyone's ruling?

Either way, no intent by batter.
Like I said, we have beated this to death in the past, but trying to reinforce or extend my understanding.

My position has always been that if the catcher made a bonafide attempt to throw, but she aborted it because she bumped into the batter while the batter did something other than just stand in the box (e.g., she took a step back, she leaned, she exited the box to look for the next sign, etc.), then I have interference. I don't need to see an actual release of the ball from the catcher's hand.

Now, if the catcher just stood up and looked in the direction of third with her hand in the air as if she's thinking of throwing and doesn't, I would say there is no interference in that case. But the benefit of the doubt goes to the catcher. The onus is on the batter to essentially stand still in the box.

To me, it's easy to convince the coach that the catcher made no attempt to throw when she's trying to go to first base, the batter-runner is 45 feet away outside the lane, and the catcher hesitates or aborts her throwing motion. But with the batter right next to the catcher when the catcher pops up and takes that step to third cocked and ready to bring that arm forward? I have a hard time believing there was no interference there, especially if there's physical contact between the two.

Oh, and to answer your question, I'm not guessing if the throw would have led to an out or not at third base. There is no requirement for us to judge the possibility of an out. Who knows; the runner could be sliding into the base when the catcher tried to release the ball, but the runner could come off the base.

Ummm....Yes there is. In fact, this is probably the key judgement to determine an interference call.

Speaking ASA, (paraphrasing), Interference is defined as the offense hindering the defense from making a play. A play is defined as an attempt to get an out.

Therefore, if there is no chance to get an out (umpire judgement), there is no interference.

A fine semantical line, but if they are hindered from even the attempt at an out, when even a slim possibility exists; we can't be deciding the runner would be safe. We should be deciding if there was even a slim chance; if so, the defense has the right to make the attempt.

So, a runner near a base, possibly even 1 step off can still possibly be out; we don't assume she will be safe 100% of the time. A runner on a base that isn't making any effort to get off the base isn't a play, it's an attempt to draw an interference call.

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.

Even with a runner one step from 3B, the defense should still be afforded the opportunity to make a throw. After all, the runner could take a turn off the bag, trip over it, lose contact on a slide, whatever.

If a runner gets hit with an undeflected batted ball, we don't take into consideration whether or not a fielder behind the runner is in position to field it and make a play. Why should we take into consideration how close a runner is to a base? If we start making concessions for being just one step off, should we do the same for two steps? Three?

Yes, a Play is defined as an attempt to get an out. But there is no caveat in the definition that the out attempt must be obvious.

I hear you, but I'm not sure you're hearing me.

In the play we're discussing, we're talking about a catcher who did not throw the ball ... with the runner 1 step away from the base she did not throw to.

Are you really trying to say that if the batter bumped her inadvertently, you'd assume that the BUMP was the reason she didn't make a throw --- and not the fact that there was no good reason to throw the ball?

I'm pretty sure that most coaches would be on their catcher for making a throw this late - one that had nearly zero chance for an out, but some greater chance to allow another base.

I'm agreeing that in cases where there IS a throw, and the batter did something - that interference COULD be warranted even if the runner was almost there. And I'm agreeing that there could be a case for interference without a throw.

But combining the two and somehow ruling that it was the batter, and not the fact that there was most likely no out to be had here, that caused the lack of throw --- I think you're truly stretching the rules here. If there's no play to be had, MOST catchers are not going to throw it... calling an out because the batter bumped into someone that was most likely not going to throw? Extreme overreach imho.

No, I hear you as well.

The vast majority of the time that a catcher makes a play at third base with a right-handed batter in the box, she is going to pop up after receiving the pitch, and make an immediate throw to the base. She usually doesn't take the time to look around the batter and see if the runner is already there.

So when she pops up and takes that step to go to third base and then doesn't throw because the batter moved back and bumped her, I'm not going to assume that the reason she didn't do so was because she had the time to look over there and see that the runner was already close to the bag. I'm giving her the maximum benefit of the doubt here that she really wanted to make that throw and the batter prevented her from doing so.