Batter's Interference

[zoops]

Didn't want to hijack the other thread but it brought up a question about a play I almost had happen.  R2, 1 out.  RH Batter strikes out and immediately starts to walk to his 3rd 1st base dugout (across home plate).  Catcher quickly tries to pick off R2.  Rule says "the batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to throw out a runner who is attempting to advance."  The batter did not interfere in my case but it was close.  What would you have here? 

[Jimurray]

33 minutes ago, zoops said:

Didn't want to hijack the other thread but it brought up a question about a play I almost had happen.  R2, 1 out.  RH Batter strikes out and immediately starts to walk to his 3rd base dugout (across home plate).  Catcher quickly tries to pick off R2.  Rule says "the batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to throw out a runner who is attempting to advance."  The batter did not interfere in my case but it was close.  What would you have here? 

What rule says that?  But you don’t have a batter, you have a retired batter. 

[zoops]

6-3-b.  Hadn't thought of the fact that he's not a batter anymore.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, zoops said:

6-3-b.  Hadn't thought of the fact that he's not a batter anymore.

Busy right now but you swerved to NCAA. Some semantic problems regarding your play in the NCAA rules. Worth investigating so we call it like OBR or not. 

[ousafe]

Since when did a RH batter have to walk across the plate to get to the 3rd base dugout?

[Kevin_K]

19 minutes ago, ousafe said:

Since when did a RH batter have to walk across the plate to get to the 3rd base dugout?

That has always been a part of Calvin Ball. Except when it isn't.

[Replacematt]

56 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Busy right now but you swerved to NCAA. Some semantic problems regarding your play in the NCAA rules. Worth investigating so we call it like OBR or not. 

It is in the Collegiate section...

[Jimurray]

13 minutes ago, Matt said:

It is in the Collegiate section...

Read all the NCAA rules and tell me if you should call a retired batter out, right away, if he interferes with a catcher trying to throw a stealing runner out. We do know by rule it is a double play but when you kill it is not clear, as in OBR until we saw it posted in another thread where MiLBUM made it clear. I, of course, already knew how to call it in OBR and that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. 

[zoops]

My bad, 1st base dugout.

[zoops]

7 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Read all the NCAA rules and tell me if you should call a retired batter out, right away, if he interferes with a catcher trying to throw a stealing runner out. We do know by rule it is a double play but when you kill it is not clear, as in OBR until we saw it posted in another thread where MiLBUM made it clear. I, of course, already knew how to call it in OBR and that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. 

No doubt that would be 2 outs.  My question was does this apply if the runner is not advancing - it's a pickoff attempt.  Or would it be more appropriate to just kill it and keep the runner at TOP (batter is out obviously)?

[Senor Azul]

Good question, Mr. zoops. The funny thing is that the NCAA made this change to clarify the rule. From the 2019-20 NCAA rule book

2019 and 2020 Editorial Changes

6-3-b Clarified language about play following batter's interference

2019-20 NCAA rule 6

Delayed Dead Ball—Runners Return or Advance

SECTION 3. The ball becomes dead and base runners return when:

b. The batter interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw out a runner who is attempting to advance.

PENALTIES for b.—(1) The batter is out (see 7-11-f [with exceptions]);

(2) If the batter strikes out, the runner is also out; and

(3) If the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out and the batter does not strike out, the batter is not out and the interference is disregarded. The ball remains live and other runners may advance. If there is an attempt by the catcher to throw and the attempt is aborted due to any illegal action by the offense, the ball becomes dead immediately, the batter is out and all runners return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

I think the answer to your question can be found in the last sentence of subparagraph 3.

[zoops]

Subparagraph 2 could just just as easily be interpreted to be the correct application, couldn't it?

[Jimurray]

On 4/25/2019 at 7:02 AM, zoops said:

No doubt that would be 2 outs.  My question was does this apply if the runner is not advancing - it's a pickoff attempt.  Or would it be more appropriate to just kill it and keep the runner at TOP (batter is out obviously)?

I think you would use 7-11-f for that:

"f.    The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s
fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other
movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;
PENALTY for f.—The batter is out and all runners return to their bases at the time
of the pitch."

Unless the batter was out on strike three. Then use  5-3:

"Team Offensive Interference
SECTION 3. No offensive team members, either in or out of the lineup, shall
physically or verbally hinder, confuse or impede any defensive player who is
attempting to make a play.
Note 1: If the batter or runner continues to advance after being put out, that act alone
shall not be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.
Note 2: A runner who has been obstructed remains subject to team offensive
interference penalties.
PENALTY—(1) The umpire shall call offensive interference and call out the runner
on whom the play was attempted, or would have been attempted.
2) If a runner or batter-runner, who has been put out or obstructed,
hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, such
runner shall be declared out because of a teammate’s interference."

We do have a semantic problem with calling a retired batter a batter-runner so I think he would have to be called an offensive team member.

[alex7]

Wanting clarification on this one.

Note 1: If the batter or runner continues to advance after being put out, that act alone shall not be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

2) If a runner or batter-runner, who has been put out or obstructed, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, such runner shall be declared out because of a teammate’s interference."

Assuming the retired batter would fit under "batter put out" in Note 1, are we agreeing that #2 above is absolved by Note 1, and we have a "that's nothing"?

[JSam21]

4 hours ago, alex7 said:

Wanting clarification on this one.

Note 1: If the batter or runner continues to advance after being put out, that act alone shall not be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

2) If a runner or batter-runner, who has been put out or obstructed, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, such runner shall be declared out because of a teammate’s interference."

Assuming the retired batter would fit under "batter put out" in Note 1, are we agreeing that #2 above is absolved by Note 1, and we have a "that's nothing"?

 

If they commit an act that would constitute interference, even if they had not been a retired runner, then you call the interference. Baring that, there is nothing unless you deem the act intentional. 

[jms1425]

On 2/9/2020 at 11:30 AM, alex7 said:

Wanting clarification on this one.

Note 1: If the batter or runner continues to advance after being put out, that act alone shall not be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

2) If a runner or batter-runner, who has been put out or obstructed, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, such runner shall be declared out because of a teammate’s interference."

Assuming the retired batter would fit under "batter put out" in Note 1, are we agreeing that #2 above is absolved by Note 1, and we have a "that's nothing"?

 

There's also 8-5-p:

"A runner is out when:

Art. p.

A batter or any other runner who just has been put out interferes with a play being made on said runner;"

So the batter is already out, and now the runner that the catcher was trying to pickoff is also out. Inning over.

[maven]

On 2/9/2020 at 11:30 AM, alex7 said:

Wanting clarification on this one.

Note 1: If the batter or runner continues to advance after being put out, that act alone shall not be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

2) If a runner or batter-runner, who has been put out or obstructed, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, such runner shall be declared out because of a teammate’s interference."

Assuming the retired batter would fit under "batter put out" in Note 1, are we agreeing that #2 above is absolved by Note 1, and we have a "that's nothing"?

This question of interpretation is not unique to NCAA, so I feel comfortable (as a NCAA non-expert) answering.

No.

Notice that "Note 1" specifies "that act alone." Imagine the same play but the RH batter's dugout is on the 3B side. He walks away from the plate as F2 throws wild over F4's head. F2 wants batter INT because the batter's action was confusing and hindered him.

That's not INT because the batter didn't hinder F2. He merely walked away, and that act alone was no hindrance (or we would usually rule so).

In the OP, the (retired) batter walked in front of F2 playing on R2. INT is far more likely here, and not because the batter was heading to the dugout, but because he got in the way (if he did).

The OP says that the umpire ruled no hindrance. Fine, then don't call INT: it's never "automatic." But the benefit of any doubt goes to the defense here.