Jump to content
  • 0

Interference


Guest Mitch
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2083 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 Mitch

Runner on first is stealing second.  Batter swings on the pitch and crosses the plate.  Catcher makes the throw but doesn't touch the batter.  Is the runner out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 9
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Umpire judgement. If the umpire thinks the batter crossing in front of the plate hindered the catchers throw in any way, he may call batter interference. Contact, quality of the throw, is irrelevant. The umpire may judge the batter crossing in front delayed the catcher's throw. That would be enough.

Some rule points about batter INT in such a situation.

 

  The RUNNER is only out if the original throw retires the runner (INT is ignored) OR, if it was strike 3 on the batter, and interference is called, and the original throw doesn't retire the runner. Otherwise, the batter is out, runner returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

OBR Authoritative Opinion:  Evans:  The batter is obligated to avoid making ANY MOVEMENT which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher’s play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher’s play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher’s vision to second base may very possibly be interference. (JEA/6:46)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On July 14, 2018 at 8:16 PM, Guest Mitch said:

Runner on first is stealing second.  Batter swings on the pitch and crosses the plate.  Catcher makes the throw but doesn't touch the batter.  Is the runner out?

Is it possible that the catcher came up throwing in the opposite batters box to avoid the batter attempting to interfere? Catchers do that in leagues with umpires that have no training or ganas to call BI. It would be BI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 7/14/2018 at 9:40 PM, Richvee said:

if it was strike 3 on the batter, and interference is called, and the original throw doesn't retire the runner. Otherwise, the batter is out, runner returns.

@Richvee To confirm: In strike 3 situations where BI is called but the runner is not retired by the throw. As a penalty were sending the runner back? The batter is out but that's on the strike 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
12 minutes ago, DontSuck1977 said:

@Richvee To confirm: In strike 3 situations where BI is called but the runner is not retired by the throw. As a penalty were sending the runner back? The batter is out but that's on the strike 3

Call the runner out for the retired batter's interference.  (FED has an exception, but it should "never" be enforced.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 hours ago, DontSuck1977 said:

@Richvee To confirm: In strike 3 situations where BI is called but the runner is not retired by the throw. As a penalty were sending the runner back? The batter is out but that's on the strike 3

To clarify. In strike 3 situations where the base runner is safe, call him out for the (retired) batter's interference. If not strike 3 return the runner, batter is out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...