Batter interference

[Guest 1smartdude]

Catcher throws to 3rd in attempt to catch runner stealing, throw hits batter who never moved. Ruling? 

[Senor Azul]

Here’s the applicable OBR:

6.03 Batter Illegal Action

(a) (6.06) A batter is out for illegal action when:

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.

Federation and NCAA rules are essentially the same. The Fed case book play 7.3.5E explains the rule best:

…The batter is entitled to his position in the batter’s box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after the catcher has received the pitch, which then prevents the catcher from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move so the catcher can make a throw is not batter interference.

[Stk004]

Nothing. 

[Aging_Arbiter]

[maineump]

Catcher is supposed to be taught to go behind the RH hitter to make that throw. If the batter backs into the throw, then interference..

[Rich Ives]

Motionless is OK.  We can't call interference every time. If we did the catcher would just hit the batter to get an out.

[grayhawk]

You mean like this?

 

[BT_Blue]

On 11/21/2016 at 2:36 PM, Rich Ives said:

Motionless is OK.  We can't call interference every time. If we did the catcher would just hit the batter to get an out.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 3:38 PM, grayhawk said:

You mean like this?

 

Damn Steve! Jumped all over that one. And I had the exact same thought.

Also... Am I a bad person for getting a chuckle ok of this video every time? Especially with the douchebag F2 turning to the guy on the dish wondering why he didn't get BI.

[grayhawk]

On 11/24/2016 at 0:10 AM, BT_Blue said:

 

Damn Steve! Jumped all over that one. And I had the exact same thought.

Also... Am I a bad person for getting a chuckle ok of this video every time? Especially with the douchebag F2 turning to the guy on the dish wondering why he didn't get BI.

I get the same chuckle.  We are both bad people.

[BT_Blue]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I get the same chuckle.  We are both bad people.

But it feels so good.

[JaxRolo]

Nothing but a live ball

[VolUmp]

This video shows clearly the intent of the catcher to hit the (innocent) batter (look at his motion!) and fish for a cheap INT call.

In a FED game, I've probably got an EJ.

[Replacematt]

25 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

This video shows clearly the intent of the catcher to hit the (innocent) batter (look at his motion!) and fish for a cheap INT call.

In a FED game, I've probably got an EJ.

NCAA wants an EJ here as well.

[BT_Blue]

22 hours ago, Matt said:

NCAA wants an EJ here as well.

And should get one.

[Stk004]

Just now, BT_Blue said:

And should get one.

That would be a fun discussion of "Yes he did" "No he didn't" with the manager. 

[BT_Blue]

1 minute ago, Stk004 said:

That would be a fun discussion of "Yes he did" "No he didn't" with the manager. 

Lol... if I am running F2 for this I am not giving the HC much time on this.

[VolUmp]

I recall a little pr*ck who played catcher with my son about 7 years ago in high school who hit a kid in the helmet intentionally at point blank range and then bragged about it.  His mother told me she knew it was intentional because he told her the game before he'll do it the next time a batter doesn't get out of his way with a runner taking 3B.

He wasn't coached well ... he honestly thought the batter was required to move, but this is Malicious Contact - pure and simple.  Intent to injure.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, VolUmp said:

I recall a little pr*ck who played catcher with my son about 7 years ago in high school who hit a kid in the helmet intentionally at point blank range and then bragged about it.  His mother told me she knew it was intentional because he told her the game before he'll do it the next time a batter doesn't get out of his way with a runner taking 3B.

He wasn't coached well ... he honestly thought the batter was required to move, but this is Malicious Contact - pure and simple.  Intent to injure.

No, this is unsportsmanlike conduct.

[maven]

7 hours ago, Stk004 said:

That would be a fun discussion of "Yes he did" "No he didn't" with the manager. 

No discussion of judgment should ever take more than a sentence or two.

Me: "He did [whatever]"

Coach: "No, he did not!"

Me: "Coach, in my judgment he did."

And we're pretty much done there. Coach can express his disagreement again (politely or not, depending on whether he has better things to do), but we're not discussing further. If it's polite — some version of, "I saw it differently," — then I usually just say, "OK."

The trap umpires get into is thinking that they not only need to be right, but that they must convince coach that they're right.

Apologies for the hijack.

7 hours ago, VolUmp said:

He wasn't coached well ... he honestly thought the batter was required to move, but this is Malicious Contact - pure and simple.  Intent to injure.

Matt's right: intent to injure is one marker of MC, but we can't have MC without the C (bodily contact between opponents). No disputing the penalty, however.

[VolUmp]

Here's a question ...

How did Quintero get away with his act in the above video?

Isn't this ejectable at the pro level?

[maven]

59 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Here's a question ...

How did Quintero get away with his act in the above video?

Isn't this ejectable at the pro level?

In pro ball, this kind of action is left to players to "police." An umpire who ejected for this would be dinged by supervisors (and probably have a difficult game following the EJ). IIRC, Quintero got his comeuppance the next day; but players have long memories for this kind of crap, and retribution can occur weeks or even years later.

In amateur ball using pro rules (OBR), ejection is warranted under 8.01(d). We should NOT allow amateur players to police such contact themselves.

[Senor Azul]

Humberto Quintero did this dastardly deed in a game against the Durham Bulls on May 1, 2015 played in Pawtucket. His game log found on milb.com shows that Quintero did not play again until May 5 in Toledo. He did not play against Durham again until July 16 and 18. His stats show that he was hit by a pitch three times during that season with Pawtucket and none by a Durham pitcher.

[BT_Blue]

And I would be willing to bet these were all in the square of the back (or higher).