squeeze plays?

[redrage]

If the batter misses the pitch on a bunt attempt and catcher catches the ball and try to tag the runner stealing home but runs into the batter when going for tag. It's my understanding that if the batter don't move, interference wont be called. If batter moves, even if he is trying to get out of the way, and catcher runs into him it is interference. 13U USSSA rules. I just wanted to know what is the real rule on this.

[alex7]

didn't see anything in the rules covering this.  http://www.usssa.com/usssa/usssa-general/2013BBRuleBook.pdf

 

I wouldn't make it a definitive generalization like "every time the batter moves and there's contact it's INT."  But yes, if the batter fails at his job (bunting the ball) AND stumbles into the catcher trying to dive and tag the runner, more than likely you'll have INT.  If the C freaks out and shoves the moving batter, who was moving away from the plate, you might have nothing.

[Replacematt]

The batter cannot interfere with the catcher, either by staying still or moving. He must vacate the area necessary for the catcher to make the play. If the catcher is hindered in any way by the batter, it is interference, and the runner is out with less than two out, and the batter is out with two out (6.06c and 7.09c)

 

If he moves and happens to move into the area the catcher needs, it's INT.

If he stays still and hinders the catcher, it's INT.

Simplest thing to do? Watch the catcher and stay out of his way.

[maven]

What Matt said. I'll add only that the batter must vacate the area needed by the defense IF he has the opportunity.

He may remain in the box during the pitch.

[Replacematt]

What Matt said. I'll add only that the batter must vacate the area needed by the defense IF he has the opportunity.

 

On a play at home? Are you sure?

[maven]

 

What Matt said. I'll add only that the batter must vacate the area needed by the defense IF he has the opportunity.

 

On a play at home? Are you sure?

 

 

I'm agreeing with you. What are you asking.

[Replacematt]

 

 

What Matt said. I'll add only that the batter must vacate the area needed by the defense IF he has the opportunity.

 

On a play at home? Are you sure?

 

 

I'm agreeing with you. What are you asking.

 

 

It seemed that your original statement indicated (that the batter must vacate the area only if he has the opportunity) applies to all plays. I'm asking if you are sure that it applies to plays at home.

[maven]

Yes, the batter has the right to offer at the pitch. On a squeeze, he often will.

 

If he misses or declines to offer, then he must vacate the area if he has the opportunity (not "only if," as you attribute to me).

 

The rule requiring the offense to vacate any area needed by the defense is indeed the same on a play at the plate. The unusual element is the penalty (< 2 out, R3 is out for batter's INT).

[Replacematt]

Yes, the batter has the right to offer at the pitch. On a squeeze, he often will.

 

If he misses or declines to offer, then he must vacate the area if he has the opportunity (not "only if," as you attribute to me).

 

The rule requiring the offense to vacate any area needed by the defense is indeed the same on a play at the plate. The unusual element is the penalty (< 2 out, R3 is out for batter's INT).

 

The "opportunity" piece is the issue. It's irrelevant on a play at home. Yes, he gets his shot at the pitch, but once that shot is gone, he has to avoid hindering the fielder. He may not have the opportunity to move, but that's TS for him if he hinders.

[maven]

The "opportunity" piece is the issue. It's irrelevant on a play at home. Yes, he gets his shot at the pitch, but once that shot is gone, he has to avoid hindering the fielder. He may not have the opportunity to move, but that's TS for him if he hinders.

Please cite something that requires the batter to disappear. Nothing in the rules you cited above supports this interpretation.

[Rich Ives]

With a suicide squeeze, what batter do you know that can offer at the bunt and miss and still have time to clear out before the runner gets there?

 

(With the safety squeeze the runner isn't coming until the bunt is down)

[Replacematt]

 

The "opportunity" piece is the issue. It's irrelevant on a play at home. Yes, he gets his shot at the pitch, but once that shot is gone, he has to avoid hindering the fielder. He may not have the opportunity to move, but that's TS for him if he hinders.

Please cite something that requires the batter to disappear. Nothing in the rules you cited above supports this interpretation.

 

 

Yes, they do. They don't offer exceptions to the batter's obligation not to hinder. Now, if you can find an interpretation that applies to plays at home in the same vein that applies to BI on throws, then you may have a case.

[Rich Ives]

So if I'm the catcher all I have to do is catch the pitch and jump into the batter and I get an out?  Wonderful! Saves the trouble of trying to tag the runner.

[Replacematt]

So if I'm the catcher all I have to do is catch the pitch and jump into the batter and I get an out?  Wonderful! Saves the trouble of trying to tag the runner.

 

I didn't say that, did I?

[noumpere]

 

 

The "opportunity" piece is the issue. It's irrelevant on a play at home. Yes, he gets his shot at the pitch, but once that shot is gone, he has to avoid hindering the fielder. He may not have the opportunity to move, but that's TS for him if he hinders.

 

Disagree.  The rule is something like "steps in front of the plate or MAKES ANY OTHER MOVEMENT that hinders the catcher"  Just standing there (when there hasn't been an opportunity to move) is not likely to be INT on a squeeze play.

 

He's allowed a "normal" bunt attempt (which I recognize is not a rule book term).  If he does something else (and hinders), it's likely INT.  If he does nothing else, it's likely not INT (even if the catcher is hindered).

[redrage]

that's what I have been wanting to know. I wanted to make sure I have a argument when other coach claims int on play. If a kid misses the squeeze bunt, he is probably in a postion not to quickly move out of the way or he int with catcher trying to move out of the way. better for him to just freeze.

[Rich Ives]

 

So if I'm the catcher all I have to do is catch the pitch and jump into the batter and I get an out?  Wonderful! Saves the trouble of trying to tag the runner.

 

I didn't say that, did I?

 

 

You said this: " . .  once that shot is gone, he has to avoid hindering the fielder. He may not have the opportunity to move, but that's TS for him if he hinders."

 

I'm going to jump into the batter as I attempt to reach to tag the runner. Voila! I'm hindered.

[Replacematt]

 

 

So if I'm the catcher all I have to do is catch the pitch and jump into the batter and I get an out?  Wonderful! Saves the trouble of trying to tag the runner.

 

I didn't say that, did I?

 

 

You said this: " . .  once that shot is gone, he has to avoid hindering the fielder. He may not have the opportunity to move, but that's TS for him if he hinders."

 

I'm going to jump into the batter as I attempt to reach to tag the runner. Voila! I'm hindered.

 

 

Can't be hindered if you're not making a valid attempt.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

The "opportunity" piece is the issue. It's irrelevant on a play at home. Yes, he gets his shot at the pitch, but once that shot is gone, he has to avoid hindering the fielder. He may not have the opportunity to move, but that's TS for him if he hinders.

 

Disagree.  The rule is something like "steps in front of the plate or MAKES ANY OTHER MOVEMENT that hinders the catcher" 

 

No, it's not. It states "hinders." No exceptions, no definitions. That part you are referring to is nowhere in 7.09b.

 

The problem that you guys are having is you are conflating the interpretation of interference on a throw by F2 with what constitutes interference on a play by F2. 6.06c covers the former, 7.09b the latter. The point where 6.06c stops being relevant here is when the pitch is fielded (I included it in my first post because it is relevant to the OP until that point.)

[maven]

 

 

 

 

The "opportunity" piece is the issue. It's irrelevant on a play at home. Yes, he gets his shot at the pitch, but once that shot is gone, he has to avoid hindering the fielder. He may not have the opportunity to move, but that's TS for him if he hinders.

 

Disagree.  The rule is something like "steps in front of the plate or MAKES ANY OTHER MOVEMENT that hinders the catcher" 

 

No, it's not. It states "hinders." No exceptions, no definitions. That part you are referring to is nowhere in 7.09b.

 

The problem that you guys are having is you are conflating the interpretation of interference on a throw by F2 with what constitutes interference on a play by F2. 6.06c covers the former, 7.09b the latter. The point where 6.06c stops being relevant here is when the pitch is fielded (I included it in my first post because it is relevant to the OP until that point.)

 

 

Matt, you and I are ordinarily on the same page, but I just can't accept that the batter can be guilty of INT without doing something to interfere. Standing in the box when he has no opportunity to clear the area is not interference under 7.09( c) (BTW, you're citing ( c), not (b) from 7.09).

 

It seems to me that the problem you're having with 7.09( c) is in thinking that the batter being in the box might by itself possibly constitute a hindrance. I disagree with that interp.

 

It IS possible for a ruling to require that a player "disappear": in a rundown, for instance, the fielder may be in the runner's path when he has the ball. Once he throws the ball, he must be out of the way. I'm sure you've called that OBS: when the fielder throws, the runner wheels around, and there's a collision with the fielder who just threw the ball.

 

But there's a general principle grounding that ruling: the fielder may not be in the runner's path without the ball. When he has the ball, he's good; the instant he throws the ball, he's liable for OBS. On some plays, that makes it seem as if he must disappear.

 

In the play at the plate, the only comparable principle is the one that requires the batter to vacate the area needed by the defense. No principle requires that the batter disappear or be liable for INT on plays at the plate. To assert that his standing there by itself might constitute a hindrance is bald assertion by you, and it puts an unfair burden on the offense (which is what Rich Ives is responding to).

[Replacematt]

To NOT have that burden on the offense is unfair to the defense. The offense is the one running the play. The defense is doing its job, and all the offense has to do to prevent that from happening is to set a pick? "Oops, I missed the bunt. I just happen to be between the catcher and where my runner is."

[noumpere]

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE.  My answers are based on what the rule IS.

[Replacematt]

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE.  My answers are based on what the rule IS.

 

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06. 

[maven]

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE. My answers are based on what the rule IS.

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06.

The absence of guidance in 7.09 regarding what constitutes 'hindrance' is not license for you to interpret it as you please.

There is no default definition. It's a form of BI, and the BI guidance applies. There's a different rule because the penalty is different (runner out, not batter).

[Replacematt]

 

 

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE. My answers are based on what the rule IS.

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06.

 

The absence of guidance in 7.09 regarding what constitutes 'hindrance' is not license for you to interpret it as you please.

There is no default definition. It's a form of BI, and the BI guidance applies. There's a different rule because the penalty is different (runner out, not batter).

 

 

I'm not the one interpreting it as I please. I'm using black-letter law. There is no guidance that indicates that what is to be adjudged on a throw is also to be adjudged on a play at home. MLBUM 6.8 specifically only applies to 6.06.

[noumpere]

 

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE.  My answers are based on what the rule IS.

 

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06. 

 

Then you're wrong.  The batter can't just "disappear" and if that failure to do so hinders the catcher that is not, in and of itself, interference.