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.

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.

A damn lot of "hearing" going on around here.

Waiting for Tommy to stop by

As long as this was such a thorough discussion, I decided to add this.

In which rule set and under what conditions, is a runner ruled out for batter interference?

There's a rulebook for that. Several actually - one for each ruleset. Quoting the relevant sections by ruleset here is a silly exercise, given that you can read them just as easily there.

Okay, I'll play.

Under NCAA rules, a runner is out for batter's interference if she attempts to score with fewer than two outs, and the batter hinders the play at the plate. With two outs, the batter is the one ruled out so that she doesn't lead off the next inning.

I don't believe that same ruling exists in FED or ASA. Under those sets, the batter would be out and the runner would be returned to third base.

Off the top of my head, I think that's the only situation where a batter interferes and a runner is ruled out.

Add to Manny's, and maybe not what you mean, but,

A runner is always out if the interference is by a retired batter (after strike three).

You are correct, although not always easy to find. :rolleyes:
Pardon my laziness :o, but thanks Manny & Steve. :cool:

Not specifically what I meant, but good reinforcement.

That would be runner closest to home, as with any retired BR or R.

Not exactly the same thing, but.....

I could see a situation where the batter swings and misses (strike 3), then intentionally knocks the ball away from the catcher attempting to tag the batter-runner while the runner from third is coming home. In this case, the batter had become a batter-runner when the third strike was dropped, and committed interference which prevented a double play.

It is something I have never seen, but ....

The question specifically mentioned a batter, not a retired batter or a batter-runner, which are covered by different rules. Unless I'm wrong, I think I captured the only scenario where a runner is out by the batter's act.

In your scenario, it's possible to rule a double play if you feel one could have taken place. But the hindrance was with the tag of the batter-runner (I assume the third strike was uncaught; otherwise, why would the catcher try to tag the BR?) so it should be quite evident that the catcher had a potential follow-on play on the runner from third.