HBP?

[CougarUmp]

10U rec game.  Batter reaches out and tries to catch the pitched ball.  It wasn't going to hit him.  It was just an inside pitch.  It was an honest mistake on his part.   I called 'no pitch'.   Right or wrong?

[basejester]

Call time.  Call a ball or strike according to the location of the pitch.

[Tksjewelry]

Could also be batters interference if there were runners on but you'd be really hard pressed to get me to call that in 10u rec. IMO, I would do what base jester said but I'd follow it up with a very quick explanation to the batter of why not to do that. If your 10u fall ball rec leagues are anything like here, teaching leagues, then I bet it would be appreciated. I've not yet had a coach, parent, or club director that didn't appreciate me asking a player after a play "hey bud, do you know why I made that call?" and 90% of the time you get a deer in the headlights "no" from the kid. Now, It would not appropriate at any other level except young rec fall ball. Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[maven]

Call time.  Call a ball or strike according to the location of the pitch.

I'll add: in 10U, tell the batter not to do that.

[grayhawk]

Could also be batters interference if there were runners on but you'd be really hard pressed to get me to call that in 10u rec. IMO, I would do what base jester said but I'd follow it up with a very quick explanation to the batter of why not to do that. If your 10u fall ball rec leagues are anything like here, teaching leagues, then I bet it would be appreciated. I've not yet had a coach, parent, or club director that didn't appreciate me asking a player after a play "hey bud, do you know why I made that call?" and 90% of the time you get a deer in the headlights "no" from the kid. Now, It would not appropriate at any other level except young rec fall ball. Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Please explain.

[basejester]

Please explain.

If the batter prevents the catcher from making a play on a base runner, this might be applicable:

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—

. . .
(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s
box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.
EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or
if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

[grayhawk]

If the batter prevents the catcher from making a play on a base runner, this might be applicable:

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—

. . .
(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s
box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.
EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or
if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

I disagree. The batter can't interfere with a pitch.

[kylejt]

It's gotta be SOMETHING, though. If you have a runner stealing, and the batter grabs the pitch, we have to figure out something. 

 

[grayhawk]

It's gotta be SOMETHING, though. If you have a runner stealing, and the batter grabs the pitch, we have to figure out something. 

 

Sure. Add a ball or strike depending on pitch location, keep the batter at the plate (unless it was ball 4 or strike 3), and send runner(s) back.

[Jimurray]

Sure. Add a ball or strike depending on pitch location, keep the batter at the plate (unless it was ball 4 or strike 3), and send runner(s) back.

Wouldn't the batter be infering with the catcher with the catcher if he grabbed the pitch to protect a runner, who, let's say got a bad jump or a stumble? 

What would this be: runner stealing, batter shows bunt, pulls bat back deliberately into catcher's mask as pitch approaches and catcher misses pitch?

[grayhawk]

Wouldn't the batter be infering with the catcher with the catcher if he grabbed the pitch to protect a runner, who, let's say got a bad jump or a stumble? 

What would this be: runner stealing, batter shows bunt, pulls bat back deliberately into catcher's mask as pitch approaches and catcher misses pitch?

What would it be? A completely different situation.

[Tksjewelry]

If the batter prevents the catcher from making a play on a base runner, this might be applicable:

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—

. . .
(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s
box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.
EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or
if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

@grayhawk, I don't understand how this couldn't be interference, especially if you have a runner (say) breaking for second and the batter grabs the ball. Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

@grayhawk, I don't understand how this couldn't be interference, especially if you have a runner (say) breaking for second and the batter grabs the ball. Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Because this isn't interference by rule. If the batter sticks out his elbow (instead of grabbing the pitch), would you call interference even if you judged that he permitted the pitch to hit him? I sure hope not and the OP is no different.

[Tksjewelry]

Because this isn't interference by rule. If the batter sticks out his elbow (instead of grabbing the pitch), would you call interference even if you judged that he permitted the pitch to hit him? I sure hope not and the

OP

is no different.

You're right. I called my trainer and had him explain it. You can't interfere with a PRESUMED play, that makes sense now. Dead ball/ball or strike, runners return. Still feels like it should be more but I understand why it's not. Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[CougarUmp]

Thanks for the replies.   I'll tell you what, the little guys(and girls) always keep things interesting.   Luckily, I had level headed coaches and we all agreed how to address the situation.  

This is a great forum.  You guys have helped me a ton of times.  

[Jimurray]

Thanks for the replies.   I'll tell you what, the little guys(and girls) always keep things interesting.   Luckily, I had level headed coaches and we all agreed how to address the situation.  

This is a great forum.  You guys have helped me a ton of times.  

I need help with the rule and what a presumed play is. Let's forget the 10U OP.  I think this sit has been discussed before here and I don't know what my take was on it then but this is my take now pending education. A batter seeing his runner as a dead duck on a steal takes a dead ball strike vs a take strike because he is smart enough to recognize the sit. If you judge intent, which is not in the BI rule, why can't you use the rule to call BI? He "made a movement". 

I'm not understanding the presumed play premise. If as I posted earlier, a batter showed bunt on a steal and prevented the catcher from catching the pitch by pulling his bat back into the catcher's mask does that mean you can't presume the catcher would have attempted a throw?

 

[grayhawk]

I need help with the rule and what a presumed play is. Let's forget the 10U OP.  I think this sit has been discussed before here and I don't know what my take was on it then but this is my take now pending education. A batter seeing his runner as a dead duck on a steal takes a dead ball strike vs a take strike because he is smart enough to recognize the sit. If you judge intent, which is not in the BI rule, why can't you use the rule to call BI? He "made a movement". 

I'm not understanding the presumed play premise. If as I posted earlier, a batter showed bunt on a steal and prevented the catcher from catching the pitch by pulling his bat back into the catcher's mask does that mean you can't presume the catcher would have attempted a throw?

 

I don't know about the "presumed play" terminology as it wasn't mine.  My contention is that there is no play at all because the ball was dead on the pitch.  I know we "feel" like we need to add a penalty because the batter made it so obvious by just reaching out for the pitch, but it's really no different than when a batter sticks out an elbow or a knee to get hit by the pitch when runners are stealing.

The scenario you presented is completely different because the batter didn't get hit by the pitch and the ball is still live.  It's a bit of a TWP since I just don't credit a batter to be able to assess that the runner will be easy pickins and react fast enough to either reach out for the pitch, or jam his bat back into the catcher to prevent him from making a play.  The OP only happened because it was a scared 10 year old kid whose first instinct, when the ball was headed towards him, was to stick his hand out.  When my son played, one of his team mates used to do the same thing.  We eventually got him to turn away instead, but it wasn't easy.

I think you're asking for trouble (and possibly a protest) if you call the batter out on interference for this.  It's much cleaner, and within the rules, to add a ball or strike (erring on the side of a strike if you can get it), keep the batter in the box (unless it's ball 4 or strike 3) and send runners back.

[maven]

I guess I don't see the problem. When the batter grabs the pitch, how is that an advantage to the offense? The runners can't advance (the pitch hit the batter and becomes dead), the batter can't advance (it was intentional, so no HBP), and it might be a strike (if the pitch was in the zone). Even if the pitch is a ball, the offense gets no advantage from touching it.

If there's no possible advantage to be had from the infraction, why would anyone feel the need to penalize this act? Penalties are properly imposed on players who by their actions take unfair advantage.

[basejester]

Let me emphasize I've never seen anything at all like this and consider it distinctly a third world play.

Suppose the defense sniffs out a suicide squeeze.  The pitcher makes an impromptu pitch out while still engaged.  The batter jumps out onto the plate, reaches out, and catches a pitch he couldn't reach to bunt from within the batter's box.  The offense gets an advantage -- their dead-meat runner is returned to third base.   

[maven]

Let me emphasize I've never seen anything at all like this and consider it distinctly a third world play.

Suppose the defense sniffs out a suicide squeeze.  The pitcher makes an impromptu pitch out while still engaged.  The batter jumps out onto the plate, reaches out, and catches a pitch he couldn't reach to bunt from within the batter's box.  The offense gets an advantage -- their dead-meat runner is returned to third base.   

Still not batter INT.

If you judge that it's intentional, unsporting, AND confers an advantage that demands being negated, penalize it under the rule appropriate for penalizing unsporting nonsense (FED 3-3-1f, OBR 8.01(c)/9.01(c)).

Given the infinitesimal probability of this being an intentional act in response to events a fraction of a second earlier, I'd never be sufficiently confident in my judgment that it was intentional to invoke such a penalty. I would be able to tell the batter to KTSO; if it happened again, that would be sufficient evidence of intent.

[basejester]

Still not batter INT.

If you judge that it's intentional, unsporting, AND confers an advantage that demands being negated, penalize it under the rule appropriate for penalizing unsporting nonsense (FED 3-3-1f, OBR 8.01(c)/9.01(c)).

Given the infinitesimal probability of this being an intentional act in response to events a fraction of a second earlier, I'd never be sufficiently confident in my judgment that it was intentional to invoke such a penalty. I would be able to tell the batter to KTSO; if it happened again, that would be sufficient evidence of intent.

If I deemed that it conferred an advantage and didn't break any rules, I would consider it clever rather than unsporting.  If it's not interference, then nobody should have a beef with a player doing it.  In fact, I should teach players to do this.

 

[grayhawk]

If I deemed that it conferred an advantage and didn't break any rules, I would consider it clever rather than unsporting.  If it's not interference, then nobody should have a beef with a player doing it.  In fact, I should teach players to do this.

 

Do you honestly think that a batter could react quickly enough to step over the plate and reach out with his hand (which only the most, umm, "intellectually challenged" would even attempt), when it's almost impossible for a batter to even get their bat on the ball on a pitch out in a suicide squeeze situation when they are told that they must get a bat on it no matter what?  Also, they would have to do all this in a fraction of a second.  No way, Jose.

[JaxRolo]

Only Little League has a do-over rule

 

[Rich Ives]

Only Little League has a do-over rule

 

Cite please.

[JaxRolo]

Cite please.

Seen it in the LLWS so it must be true.