Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

It's me against the world on another thread...

Runner on 3rd, count is 3-0. With a right handed batter, the next pitch is a ball wide outside, and it gets away from the catcher. The runner attempts to steal home, but the batter, upset about walking again, just stands in the box with a sour face. The catcher retrieves the ball and flips it to the pitcher as she comes in to cover the steal, but the batter still has one foot in the box as she's attempting to walk to first and the runner slides in safely around the batters foot. Call?

[teebob21]

I think would have to be there. The way it's written, I've got a big fat nothing. The run scores.

As I read the scenario, other than physically being present near the plate, the batter-runner has not yet interfered with anyone's ability to make a play.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It's me against the world on another thread...

Runner on 3rd, count is 3-0. With a right handed batter, the next pitch is a ball wide outside, and it gets away from the catcher. The runner attempts to steal home, but the batter, upset about walking again, just stands in the box with a sour face. The catcher retrieves the ball and flips it to the pitcher as she comes in to cover the steal, but the batter still has one foot in the box as she's attempting to walk to first and the runner slides in safely around the batters foot. Call?

You tell me; did the (no longer a batter, but a batter-runner that no longer has the right to occupy the batters box or to interfere with a "play") actually interfere with the defense's opportunity to make an out? Seems to me you left out the most important part, the judgment.

Forget intent, or even what she was thinking or why still standing there. Did she interfere?

[MD Longhorn]

Good point, Steve.

Let's assume, for the purpose of the argument, that absent the batter, the throw would have (in the judgement of the umpire) been caught by the pitcher and they would have gotten the runner out.

I'm not sure I agree with your "no longer has the right to occupy the batters box" comment. I don't see a rule to support that. The batter-runner is not required to be in any particular spot - we don't proscribe where she's allowed to run (well... running lane stuff, but that doesn't apply here). To me, this play does not differ from the following:

Runner on 2nd, BR walked and the ball gets away up the first base line a bit. Runner breaks, F2 retrieves the ball and throws to 3rd, striking BR as she proceeds up the line. That's not interference. Why would the OP be?

In every other case (running lane aside), we require intent to call an out when a thrown ball strikes a live runner (or batter-runner). Why would this play be any different?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Good point, Steve.

Let's assume, for the purpose of the argument, that absent the batter, the throw would have (in the judgement of the umpire) been caught by the pitcher and they would have gotten the runner out.

I'm not sure I agree with your "no longer has the right to occupy the batters box" comment. I don't see a rule to support that. The batter-runner is not required to be in any particular spot - we don't proscribe where she's allowed to run (well... running lane stuff, but that doesn't apply here). To me, this play does not differ from the following:

Runner on 2nd, BR walked and the ball gets away up the first base line a bit. Runner breaks, F2 retrieves the ball and throws to 3rd, striking BR as she proceeds up the line. That's not interference. Why would the OP be?

In every other case (running lane aside), we require intent to call an out when a thrown ball strikes a live runner (or batter-runner). Why would this play be any different?

Since the batter has completed the "at bat", what reason is there to be in the batter's box? This is no longer a batter, but is now a batter-runner with the responsibility to advance and with no right to be in the batter's box. So, the question - did she interfere? - is the right question to answer.

[CecilOne]

Impeding a thrown ball, and impeding a fielder are quite different.

The OP reads as the BR has started toward 1st, therefore no "sanctuary" of just completing a pitch or a swing.

Yes, we need to know if the BR impeded/hindered the pitcher and his second post read that way ("absent the batter, the throw would have (in the judgment of the umpire) been caught by the pitcher and they would have gotten the runner out") .

[MD Longhorn]

I'm still looking for "responsibility to advance" and "right to be in the batters box" in my book. Or anything along that line at all. The batters box is no sanctuary ... but it's not a danger spot either. It's just another place on the field at this point in the play - no different than being 4 feet up the line, 30 feet up the line, or halfway to second. There is no obligation anywhere that the runner must proceed forward on the basepaths, and if she doesn't, fielders can throw at her to get her out.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It's me against the world on another thread...

Mike....now you know how I feel regarding the other play from that site....

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

Mike....now you know how I feel regarding the other play from that site....

Ah ... you must be the 2 base award on the ball that was bobbled by a fielder before going over a temporary fence guy. If so, yes, you were out on your own on that one.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ah ... you must be the 2 base award on the ball that was bobbled by a fielder before going over a temporary fence guy. If so, yes, you were out on your own on that one.

You didn't know that?

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It's me against the world on another thread...

Runner on 3rd, count is 3-0. With a right handed batter, the next pitch is a ball wide outside, and it gets away from the catcher. The runner attempts to steal home, but the batter, upset about walking again, just stands in the box with a sour face. The catcher retrieves the ball and flips it to the pitcher as she comes in to cover the steal, but the batter still has one foot in the box as she's attempting to walk to first and the runner slides in safely around the batters foot. Call?

Hey Mike, does one foot in mean the other was out of the batters box? What did you rule? Would you have considered 8.2.F.3?

[UmpireErnie]

As stated by others this is a batter-runner not a batter. Nothing in the rules requires her to run immediately. There has to be some action by her that the umpire judges to be interference.

Did the throw from F2 merely contact the BR as she stood there being disgusted about walking? I probably have nothing, go get the ball, play on. No different from a runner advancing from 1B to 2B and being hit by a throw to the base in an attempt to make a play on her. Unless this runner does something to interfere (i.e. reaches out and knocks down the throw) this is just a bad throw go get the ball play on.

But if (in BUs judgement) the BR intentionally moves into the throw or steps into the throwing lane to screen F1 taking a throw from F2. Now you probably have INT.

As to OBS, if BR is impeded by F1 who does not yet have the ball then it would be OBS but as stated this does not absolve BR of being called for INT. It doesn't matter that she was an idiot for not advancing immediately she still has right of way over a defensive player without the ball.

The PU has to make a judgement call, was BR just trying to advance to 1B and was impeded by F1 or did she run into F1 to break up the play at the plate. Having a foot still in the box or a foot completely out of the bbox does not matter. Judgement.

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

As stated by others this is a batter-runner not a batter. Nothing in the rules requires her to run immediately. There has to be some action by her that the umpire judges to be interference.

Did the throw from F2 merely contact the BR as she stood there being disgusted about walking? I probably have nothing, go get the ball, play on. No different from a runner advancing from 1B to 2B and being hit by a throw to the base in an attempt to make a play on her. Unless this runner does something to interfere (i.e. reaches out and knocks down the throw) this is just a bad throw go get the ball play on.

But if (in BUs judgement) the BR intentionally moves into the throw or steps into the throwing lane to screen F1 taking a throw from F2. Now you probably have INT.

As to OBS, if BR is impeded by F1 who does not yet have the ball then it would be OBS but as stated this does not absolve BR of being called for INT. It doesn't matter that she was an idiot for not advancing immediately she still has right of way over a defensive player without the ball.

The PU has to make a judgement call, was BR just trying to advance to 1B and was impeded by F1 or did she run into F1 to break up the play at the plate. Having a foot still in the box or a foot completely out of the bbox does not matter. Judgement.

According to ASA Rule 8, Section 2.F.3: When the batter-runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batters box the batter runner is out. The original post stated that only one foot was in the batters box and it is supported by rule as a factor that can be used in determining if the rules were violated.