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.

[MD Longhorn]

PS - mentioning hindrance of the PITCHER above, the pitcher has NO rights here, and if they somehow collide ... don't we have OBSTRUCTION, and not interference? After all, the pitcher can't get in the way of an advancing runner if she doesn't have the ball ... right?

[AtlUmpSteve]

If a batter, whose position is IN THE BATTER'S BOX must vacate (anywhere at all) to not interfere, in what world can we assume that the batter-runner, who has a defined responsibility (go to first base) need not?

No immediate access to rules, but I'm making an interference call if batter-runner interferes with the "play".

Not likely I am seeing obstruction, either; batter-runner should have been long gone, and any delay getting to first (it's a walk, an awarded base, for criminy sakes!!) is her fault. Okay, no rule support there, it is surely not defined as an approved exception to the rule; but neither does batter and catcher colliding when catcher is fielding a batted ball meet the definition of NOT interference (yet we are understanding to let that go).

[MD Longhorn]

Steve, I respect your rulings as much as anyone here, and I'm pretty reluctant to disagree with you...

but while I appreciate the desire to punish stupid wherever possible... and clearly the extremely delayed start by the BR is stupid --- I can't see how one would justify any of what you just posted via the rulebook. Maybe, in fairness, the rule OUGHT TO say what you are a proponent of here... but I don't believe that it does.

[Andy]

Does ASA 8-2-G fit this situation?

The batter-runner is out...

When the B/R interferes with a play at home plate in an attempt to prevent an out at home plate.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by Andy

Does ASA 8-2-G fit this situation?

if you think there was intent, then yes. Otherwise, not 8.2.f applies (if the action (or lack there of) by the B/R took away the defense's opportunity to get an out.

[RKBUmp]

What about the just the plain definition of interference. The act of an offensive player that hinders the defense attempting to execute a play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

It is true, there is no rule telling the BR where they must be or when, but there is a rule stating they may not interfere with a play.

The defense DOES have a right to be in position in an attempt to make a play as long as not obstructing the runner. It should be noted, I don't believe it is possible to OBS a BR on a walk since s/he has already been awarded 1B (referring to this scenario only. different story if the BR was trying to advance expeditiously with the possibility of advancing beyond 1B). However, even if OBS the BR, that is not relevant to the runner advancing from 3B. And remember, being OBS does not absolve the BR from INT with a play.

But it still comes down to whether the umpire believes the BR actually interfered with the play.

[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....