Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0
fishnfed

Batter interference?? Who is out??

Question

FED rules: 1 out, 3-2 count.  R1.  B/R swings and misses.  His momentum carries him in front of F2.  R1 steals 2nd. I have B/R out, R1 returns to 1st base.  What says the knowledge base?  Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
18 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

I consider a batter saying he 'tipped it's as in, it was a foul tip (catcher caught it), so ball stays live and batter still isn't absolved of BI liability.
 

In the play, the pitch was in the dirt.

19 hours ago, grayhawk said:

The RH batter swings at a slider in the dirt....

In general, yes, a foul tip would be a live ball, and batter INT would still be a possibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0

 

On 1/16/2018 at 7:29 PM, Richvee said:

R1. Count irrelevant.. Batter swings and misses. His follow through hits F2 pretty hard on the shoulder, but F2 remains in control of the baseball, or it falls right in front of him.   R1 took a normal lead, and normal secondary lead on the pitch, and after the pitch, doing nothing more than leading off 1B or maybe even walking back towards the bag.. R1 never attempts to steal, never tried running after the batter's follow trough hit F2.......

Does FED want a BI call here? I don't think so, since he didn't hinder any play. But now I'm not sure..:shrug:

I'm guessing you have judgment to determine if F2 had a play on R1 at first base?  As worded, the rule doesn't say anything about stealing, only about hindering a catcher's attempt on a runner.

In practice, you probably want to see the catcher do something to show he wanted to make a play on the runner returning to first before ruling the batter interfered with anything (when a runner is stealing, an attempt by the catcher is (usually) implied...a backdoor pickoff on a runner returning to an already occupied base is a greyer area, based on experience, and past habits of the catcher, to determine if there could/would have been a play)

However, think of it this way...in your scenario the runner was never going, and even after the ball dropped in front of the catcher, had no designs to go.  But let's say as a result of the batter bumping the catcher the ball rolled away 15 feet.   As a result of that, the runner advanced...you would call the batter out and return the runner, right?  However, if the runner stayed put (because he was sleeping, or slow, or had a bum ankle), you wouldn't call anything?  This would mean BI is now determined by the runner's reaction to the play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

However, think of it this way...in your scenario the runner was never going, and even after the ball dropped in front of the catcher, had no designs to go.  But let's say as a result of the batter bumping the catcher the ball rolled away 15 feet.   As a result of that, the runner advanced...you would call the batter out and return the runner, right?  However, if the runner stayed put (because he was sleeping, or slow, or had a bum ankle), you wouldn't call anything?  This would mean BI is now determined by the runner's reaction to the play?

We've discussed this very scenario, and the consensus was yes, call the batter out for BI, and return the runner. Personally, I have real hard time with  penalizing an alert, hustling runner's team with an INT call that wouldn't be called anything if he was asleep, slow,or lazy, trotting back to his bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/18/2018 at 12:08 PM, beerguy55 said:

However, if the runner stayed put (because he was sleeping, or slow, or had a bum ankle), you wouldn't call anything?  This would mean BI is now determined by the runner's reaction to the play?

The batter INT is determined by whether the batter hinders play at the plate. With no runner to play on (for whatever reason), there cannot be INT. No hindrance = no INT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
17 hours ago, Richvee said:

We've discussed this very scenario, and the consensus was yes, call the batter out for BI, and return the runner. Personally, I have real hard time with  penalizing an alert, hustling runner's team with an INT call that wouldn't be called anything if he was asleep, slow,or lazy, trotting back to his bag.

Unfortunately for this alert, hustling runner his teammate committed interference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, maven said:

The batter INT is determined by whether the batter hinders play at the plate. With no runner to play on (for whatever reason), there cannot be INT. No hindrance = no INT.

Yes, and the hindrance is determined by how the runner reacts to a situation.  The batter caused F2 to miss the ball and caused the ball to roll 15, 20, 30 feet away from F2.  If the runner stays put, there is nothing.  If the runner breaks, the batter is out.  

So, the batter INT is indeed determined by the actions of the runner, after the fact.  I significant difference from runner stealing THEN BI.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Yes, and the hindrance is determined by how the runner reacts to a situation.  The batter caused F2 to miss the ball and caused the ball to roll 15, 20, 30 feet away from F2.  If the runner stays put, there is nothing.  If the runner breaks, the batter is out.  

So, the batter INT is indeed determined by the actions of the runner, after the fact.  I significant difference from runner stealing THEN BI.

Exactly the problem I have with this interp. If the runner starts running AFTER the fact, kill it when the runner takes off and return him. Yhat seems to be much more justifiable to me. 

I actually don't see this much different than a runner stealing, ball fouled off, and then F4 gets in the way of the running R1, and calling OBS and awarding R1 2B.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/19/2018 at 6:06 PM, Richvee said:

Exactly the problem I have with this interp. If the runner starts running AFTER the fact, kill it when the runner takes off and return him. Yhat seems to be much more justifiable to me. 

I actually don't see this much different than a runner stealing, ball fouled off, and then F4 gets in the way of the running R1, and calling OBS and awarding R1 2B.

Agreed - you either kill it and just return R1 (no outs)....or you call the batter out in both scenarios, regardless of what the runner did (under the guise that the batter interfered with the catcher's ability to catch the pitch...or make a possible play on the runner at first base - and, more importantly, to be consistent).   

Calling the batter out based on how the runner reacts is the worst of all possible ways to handle this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Agreed - you either kill it and just return R1 (no outs)....or you call the batter out in both scenarios, regardless of what the runner did (under the guise that the batter interfered with the catcher's ability to catch the pitch...or make a possible play on the runner at first base - and, more importantly, to be consistent).   

Calling the batter out based on how the runner reacts is the worst of all possible ways to handle this.

But as maven points out, no hindrance = no INT. If there's no play to interfere with we have nothing, but if R1 makes a break for it the batter has hindered the catcher's ability to play on R1. What you deem the worst way to handle it is the proper way to handle it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Stk004 said:

But as maven points out, no hindrance = no INT. If there's no play to interfere with we have nothing, but if R1 makes a break for it the batter has hindered the catcher's ability to play on R1. What you deem the worst way to handle it is the proper way to handle it. 

Might be proper, but IMO, it's horribly unfair.  You're expecting a runner to determine for himself if the ball popped out away from F2 or if B2 caused the ball to pop away. Not to mention know the rule and then act accordingly. A runner is conditioned to get a secondary lead, and if he sees the ball trickle away, they to advance if he thinks he can. His job is not to judge if B2 caused the missplay by F2.

If a runner is running on the pitch, I completely understand FED's backswing INT rule.  However, if no runners are moving when the backswing hits the catcher, an immediate dead ball seems more inline with the spirit of fair play.  :2cents:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
18 hours ago, Stk004 said:

But as maven points out, no hindrance = no INT. If there's no play to interfere with we have nothing, but if R1 makes a break for it the batter has hindered the catcher's ability to play on R1. What you deem the worst way to handle it is the proper way to handle it. 

It is only "proper" because that is what has been advised/dictated by those interpreters in authority...who may or may not have actually played the game.  It doesn't make it "right".   Lots of things have been "proper" in the past, and have been modified under further review.

As previously stated, you are calling BI based on how a runner reacts to the play.  That is fundamentally unfair - and against any spirit/intent of the rule.

As Richvee stated - runner's are conditioned to go when the ball pops loose...not to try to determine if it was caused by BI.

There are two approaches - I prefer the first to the second, but both are better than the current mandate:

1. Kill the play, return runners

2. Call BI and batter out, regardless of how the runners react

   a.  Makes it consistent

   b. Basically says batter interfered with catcher's right to catch the pitch AND the possible play on a runner returning to base

  c. Removes incentive to try to get away with it if penalty is always "batter out" rather than "just send runner back"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×