batter interference

[CecilOne]

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?

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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?

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

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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

Ah. Got it. Thanks.

[Andy]

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

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Andy

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.