Jump to content
  • 0

Interference


Guest Scronk14
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2216 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest Scronk14

D1 college baseball question.  Runners on 1st and 3rd.  Runner on first attempts to steal 2nd on the pitch, catcher receives the ball and chooses to back pick and throws to 3rd crossing over behind the right handed batter.  Right handed batter steps out of the box and catcher and batter make contact during the throw to 3rd.  Runner on 3rd makes it safely back to 3rd and runner from 1st secures 2nd base on the steal.  What is the call if any and if there is a call, what is the penalty if any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
1 hour ago, NovaScotiaBlue said:

Nothing more to say here....Nailed it

I think you should not use contact to determine the BI. The movement out of the box is the determining factor. Contact could happen with a batter frozen in the box and it would not be BI. And contact would not be required to call BI when the batter stepped out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
25 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I think you should not use contact to determine the BI. The movement out of the box is the determining factor. Contact could happen with a batter frozen in the box and it would not be BI. And contact would not be required to call BI when the batter stepped out.

No, stkjock has it right: the key concept is neither contact nor batter being out of the box, but hindrance. If the batter steps out of the box and does not hinder the throw (steps the other way), then he's lucky and no batter INT.

However, stepping out + contact will almost always be batter INT. The OP on its face sounds like a high probability of batter INT to me.

The exception might be a play where F2 has to field a pitch in the dirt or some such, comes up way too late to play on R2 stealing, and then we have contact of the box. With no play possible, F2 can't have been hindered (but it would have to be WAY obvious that no play was possible on R2, such as the ball thrown after he reached base or some such).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
28 minutes ago, maven said:

No, stkjock has it right: the key concept is neither contact nor batter being out of the box, but hindrance. If the batter steps out of the box and does not hinder the throw (steps the other way), then he's lucky and no batter INT.

However, stepping out + contact will almost always be batter INT. The OP on its face sounds like a high probability of batter INT to me.

The exception might be a play where F2 has to field a pitch in the dirt or some such, comes up way too late to play on R2 stealing, and then we have contact of the box. With no play possible, F2 can't have been hindered (but it would have to be WAY obvious that no play was possible on R2, such as the ball thrown after he reached base or some such).

Of course hindrance must be judged. But contact is not required to judge hindrance when a batter steps out. If the catcher avoids contact but is still hindered as in stopping the throw or modifying the arm action we still have hindrance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, maven said:

No, stkjock has it right: the key concept is neither contact nor batter being out of the box, but hindrance. If the batter steps out of the box and does not hinder the throw (steps the other way), then he's lucky and no batter INT.

However, stepping out + contact will almost always be batter INT. The OP on its face sounds like a high probability of batter INT to me.

The exception might be a play where F2 has to field a pitch in the dirt or some such, comes up way too late to play on R2 stealing, and then we have contact of the box. With no play possible, F2 can't have been hindered (but it would have to be WAY obvious that no play was possible on R2, such as the ball thrown after he reached base or some such).

The point was that if the batter froze in the box he cannot be guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

But contact is not required to judge hindrance when a batter steps out.

No one in this thread suggested that contact is either necessary or sufficient for hindrance. You introduced that thought, only to deny it.

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

The point was that if the batter froze in the box he cannot be guilty.

No one in this thread made that point (until you mentioned it). You introduced that thought, only to affirm it.

We're not exhibiting our best forum behavior here, folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 3/3/2018 at 11:53 AM, maven said:

No one in this thread suggested that contact is either necessary or sufficient for hindrance. You introduced that thought, only to deny it.

No one in this thread made that point (until you mentioned it). You introduced that thought, only to affirm it.

We're not exhibiting our best forum behavior here, folks.

I don’t know what I denied. But @stkjock has the OP correct. I just thought we should clear up for the OP that the movement out of the box could result in BI also. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...