Step off mound, throw to plate

[dddunn3d]

The balk question is if the batter doesn't swing at it. At that point you have decide if the runner really was trying to come home, then all is good, or he was only making a hard secondary, balk.

Michael,

There is absolutely no reason to judge whether or not the runner was "really" attempting to go home or not. The pitcher LEGALLY DISENGAGED. Now he's an infielder.

There is nothing in the OP that suggests the pitcher violated 8.05(h). For you to balk him for "simulating a pitching motion" he would have to actually make it look like he re-engaged the rubber and was delivering a pitch. That's not what happened here.

I would probably treat the OP as "interference without a play" - kill it and keep the runners where they were.

JM

Exactly.

Rule 8.01(e) Comment: The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base. If he makes a wild throw, such throw is the throw of an infielder and what follows is governed by the rules covering a ball thrown by a fielder.

However, there is no such animal as interference without a play. Interference happens on the attempt. F1's throw home was the attempt at the play, and the batter's hitting the ball was the interference.

[TNCoach]

Let's make the assumption it is under FED rules. With a runner at third, would the pitcher be able to step off, make the throw home, get a foul or a hit ball, and get an automatic out then? Seems ripe for abuse and I am sure I would never use it, lol... Seriously, I wouldn't, but I am curious as to what would happen... Is it the same? There is an out?

[Rich Ives]

Let's make the assumption it is under FED rules. With a runner at third, would the pitcher be able to step off, make the throw home, get a foul or a hit ball, and get an automatic out then? Seems ripe for abuse and I am sure I would never use it, lol... Seriously, I wouldn't, but I am curious as to what would happen... Is it the same? There is an out?

How would a pitcher abuse it?

If the pitcher steps off it's the batter's responsibility to recognize it and not swing.

If you think he stepped off then simulated a pitch that's a balk.

[Thunderheads]

The balk question is if the batter doesn't swing at it. At that point you have decide if the runner really was trying to come home, then all is good, or he was only making a hard secondary, balk.

Michael,

There is absolutely no reason to judge whether or not the runner was "really" attempting to go home or not. The pitcher LEGALLY DISENGAGED. Now he's an infielder.

There is nothing in the OP that suggests the pitcher violated 8.05(h). For you to balk him for "simulating a pitching motion" he would have to actually make it look like he re-engaged the rubber and was delivering a pitch. That's not what happened here.

I would probably treat the OP as "interference without a play" - kill it and keep the runners where they were.

JM

With every once of respect intended JM, I need to ask: How can you have INT without some sort of penalty? Can you? I thought there has to be something, ..yes? OR, ..I'm I confusing something else? Thanks!

[UmpJM]

Thunder,

J/R introduces the concept of "interference without a play" - that is, the offense did do something they shouldn't ought to have, however, the defense was not deprived of the opportunity to make a play.

As in the OP. Since the R3 was NOT advancing but had returned to 3B, there was no "play" in progress. Had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B.

Since there was no "play", there is no out to be had. Kill it and keep the runners where they are.

JM

[Thunderheads]

Thunder,

J/R introduces the concept of "interference without a play" - that is, the offense did do something they shouldn't ought to have, however, the defense was not deprived of the opportunity to make a play.

As in the OP. Since the R3 was NOT advancing but had returned to 3B, there was no "play" in progress. Had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B.

Since there was no "play", there is no out to be had. Kill it and keep the runners where they are.

JM

Thank you sir ...so, kill it using INT ...and keep 'em where they are ....interesting, but it does make sense..

[dddunn3d]

Thunder,

J/R introduces the concept of "interference without a play" - that is, the offense did do something they shouldn't ought to have, however, the defense was not deprived of the opportunity to make a play.

As in the OP. Since the R3 was NOT advancing but had returned to 3B, there was no "play" in progress. Had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B.

Since there was no "play", there is no out to be had. Kill it and keep the runners where they are.

JM

Thank you sir ...so, kill it using INT ...and keep 'em where they are ....interesting, but it does make sense..

I beg to differ; it does not make sense.

The rule states that interference happens on the attempt to make a play. If an umpire tries to second guess all of the "what ifs" and "could'a happened," he is inserting himself into the game where the rules don't warrant such intrusion.

This is a very simple concept to grasp: when the offense acts in such a fashion that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play," they have committed offensive interference.

RULE 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.

EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

The rule also states (in 6.06© COMMENT):

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter.

Another way of thinking about this is that the attempt survived the batter's interference. Therefore, the play was subsequently made when that runner was put out. If, however, the runner was not put out, even though the catcher was able to continue through with the attempt, interference by rule has occurred. No where does it give any leeway to the umpires to kill the ball and keep everyone where they started.

Now, I agree with the idea of "No attempt, no interference." For interference to be called, the defense must continue through with the attempt. But, what about that case, as in the OP, where the defense (namely, F2) is prevented from continuing through with the attempt because something like the batter illegally hitting the thrown ball constitutes the interfering action?

I assert that when interference is promulgated in such a manner as to preclude the defense from continuing through with the attempt, then the "No attempt, no interference" interpretation cannot apply.

During the back-and-forth in the thread I started 4/28/11 (Was This Interference?), I came to this conclusion: if the offense acts in a way that prevents the defense from even making an attempt, interference must be called.

We as umpires cannot insert ourselves into the playing of the game by trying to guess if the defense had a reasonable chance at putting out a runner.

[Thunderheads]

Thunder,

J/R introduces the concept of "interference without a play" - that is, the offense did do something they shouldn't ought to have, however, the defense was not deprived of the opportunity to make a play.

As in the OP. Since the R3 was NOT advancing but had returned to 3B, there was no "play" in progress. Had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B.

Since there was no "play", there is no out to be had. Kill it and keep the runners where they are.

JM

Thank you sir ...so, kill it using INT ...and keep 'em where they are ....interesting, but it does make sense..

I beg to differ; it does not make sense.

The rule states that interference happens on the attempt to make a play. If an umpire tries to second guess all of the "what ifs" and "could'a happened," he is inserting himself into the game where the rules don't warrant such intrusion.

This is a very simple concept to grasp: when the offense acts in such a fashion that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play," they have committed offensive interference.

RULE 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.

EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

The rule also states (in 6.06© COMMENT):

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter.

Another way of thinking about this is that the attempt survived the batter's interference. Therefore, the play was subsequently made when that runner was put out. If, however, the runner was not put out, even though the catcher was able to continue through with the attempt, interference by rule has occurred. No where does it give any leeway to the umpires to kill the ball and keep everyone where they started.

Now, I agree with the idea of "No attempt, no interference." For interference to be called, the defense must continue through with the attempt. But, what about that case, as in the OP, where the defense (namely, F2) is prevented from continuing through with the attempt because something like the batter illegally hitting the thrown ball constitutes the interfering action?

I assert that when interference is promulgated in such a manner as to preclude the defense from continuing through with the attempt, then the "No attempt, no interference" interpretation cannot apply.

During the back-and-forth in the thread I started 4/28/11 (Was This Interference?), I came to this conclusion: if the offense acts in a way that prevents the defense from even making an attempt, interference must be called.

We as umpires cannot insert ourselves into the playing of the game by trying to guess if the defense had a reasonable chance at putting out a runner.

So I take it you're busting out from behind F2 with "Time ...that's interference" ...right away?

[noumpere]

any fielder attempting to make a play,"

And coachjms point is that the defense wasnt attempting to make a play if the runner was retreating to third before the throw because a play is defined as something like a legitimate attempt to retire a runner. He makes an interesting point and ther concept is used elsewhere. It wont I dont think be resolved until it happens in the show and thats not likely to happen.

[Thunderheads]

any fielder attempting to make a play,"

And coachjms point is that the defense wasnt attempting to make a play if the runner was retreating to third before the throw because a play is defined as something like a legitimate attempt to retire a runner. He makes an interesting point and ther concept is used elsewhere. It wont I dont think be resolved until it happens in the show and thats not likely to happen.

noumpere beat me to it ....... this is 'basically' what I was going to say, on top of the question I posed in my last post.......

[sdix00]

Thunder,

J/R introduces the concept of "interference without a play" - that is, the offense did do something they shouldn't ought to have, however, the defense was not deprived of the opportunity to make a play.

As in the OP. Since the R3 was NOT advancing but had returned to 3B, there was no "play" in progress. Had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B.

Since there was no "play", there is no out to be had. Kill it and keep the runners where they are.

JM

Thank you sir ...so, kill it using INT ...and keep 'em where they are ....interesting, but it does make sense..

I beg to differ; it does not make sense.

The rule states that interference happens on the attempt to make a play. If an umpire tries to second guess all of the "what ifs" and "could'a happened," he is inserting himself into the game where the rules don't warrant such intrusion.

This is a very simple concept to grasp: when the offense acts in such a fashion that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play," they have committed offensive interference.

RULE 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.

EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

The rule also states (in 6.06© COMMENT):

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter.

Another way of thinking about this is that the attempt survived the batter's interference. Therefore, the play was subsequently made when that runner was put out. If, however, the runner was not put out, even though the catcher was able to continue through with the attempt, interference by rule has occurred. No where does it give any leeway to the umpires to kill the ball and keep everyone where they started.

Now, I agree with the idea of "No attempt, no interference." For interference to be called, the defense must continue through with the attempt. But, what about that case, as in the OP, where the defense (namely, F2) is prevented from continuing through with the attempt because something like the batter illegally hitting the thrown ball constitutes the interfering action?

I assert that when interference is promulgated in such a manner as to preclude the defense from continuing through with the attempt, then the "No attempt, no interference" interpretation cannot apply.

During the back-and-forth in the thread I started 4/28/11 (Was This Interference?), I came to this conclusion: if the offense acts in a way that prevents the defense from even making an attempt, interference must be called.

We as umpires cannot insert ourselves into the playing of the game by trying to guess if the defense had a reasonable chance at putting out a runner.

@dddunn3d (or anyone disagreeing with JM)

I am wondering what you would rule in this case. Your answer would help to illustrate your stance on this concept.

**********

R1, not stealing. After swing and miss the pitch is blocked by the catcher, and the batter's backswing strikes the catcher in the head, dazing him. The runner is able to run to 2B safely.

**********

[tiger49]

JM,

You can't have Interference without a play, when you have a play. J/R defines a throw from a fielder to another fielder in an attempt to get an out as one of the five potential plays.

Also looking at the other end of the stick what would stop an OM from telling his batter to hit the pitch to prevent the possible throw back to 3b, while letting a errant throw go through allowing R3 to score.

I could see calling Interference without a play, when the pitcher steps off and throws home (without calling time) for the purposes of requesting a new ball. All this being done while action is relaxed.

[UmpJM]

tiger,

In the OP there was no play. The (disengaged) pitcher's throw was to home. The R3 was at 3B.

That's not a play.

JM

[mstaylor]

Thunder,

J/R introduces the concept of "interference without a play" - that is, the offense did do something they shouldn't ought to have, however, the defense was not deprived of the opportunity to make a play.

As in the OP. Since the R3 was NOT advancing but had returned to 3B, there was no "play" in progress. Had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B.

Since there was no "play", there is no out to be had. Kill it and keep the runners where they are.

JM

Thank you sir ...so, kill it using INT ...and keep 'em where they are ....interesting, but it does make sense..

I beg to differ; it does not make sense.

The rule states that interference happens on the attempt to make a play. If an umpire tries to second guess all of the "what ifs" and "could'a happened," he is inserting himself into the game where the rules don't warrant such intrusion.

This is a very simple concept to grasp: when the offense acts in such a fashion that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play," they have committed offensive interference.

RULE 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.

EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

The rule also states (in 6.06© COMMENT):

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter.

Another way of thinking about this is that the attempt survived the batter's interference. Therefore, the play was subsequently made when that runner was put out. If, however, the runner was not put out, even though the catcher was able to continue through with the attempt, interference by rule has occurred. No where does it give any leeway to the umpires to kill the ball and keep everyone where they started.

Now, I agree with the idea of "No attempt, no interference." For interference to be called, the defense must continue through with the attempt. But, what about that case, as in the OP, where the defense (namely, F2) is prevented from continuing through with the attempt because something like the batter illegally hitting the thrown ball constitutes the interfering action?

I assert that when interference is promulgated in such a manner as to preclude the defense from continuing through with the attempt, then the "No attempt, no interference" interpretation cannot apply.

During the back-and-forth in the thread I started 4/28/11 (Was This Interference?), I came to this conclusion: if the offense acts in a way that prevents the defense from even making an attempt, interference must be called.

We as umpires cannot insert ourselves into the playing of the game by trying to guess if the defense had a reasonable chance at putting out a runner.

@dddunn3d (or anyone disagreeing with JM)

I am wondering what you would rule in this case. Your answer would help to illustrate your stance on this concept.

**********

R1, not stealing. After swing and miss the pitch is blocked by the catcher, and the batter's backswing strikes the catcher in the head, dazing him. The runner is able to run to 2B safely.

**********

In OBR that is called weak interference, kill the ball and return the runner. In Fed, it is interference, call the batter out and return the runner.

[mstaylor]

tiger,

In the OP there was no play. The (disengaged) pitcher's throw was to home. The R3 was at 3B.

That's not a play.

JM

John, in the OP the runner was returning when he sees the pitcher step off and throw home. I can't by any stretch of the imagination believe the runner was even close to third when the ball was swung at. There is a possible play at third. If as everyone says the runner returned that fast that was no play possible by the catcher then the pitcher threw to the wrong base and so it would be a balk. Since it was not a pitch, if you are going to call a balk then kill it imediately, and award the R3 home. The swing makes no difference because the ball is dead as sson as you decide he is throwing to a base not to make a play so is delaying the game.

So if the runner is far enough down the line that the throw home is legal then swinging at is interference. If he isn't then it is a balk.

[dddunn3d]

Thunder,

J/R introduces the concept of "interference without a play" - that is, the offense did do something they shouldn't ought to have, however, the defense was not deprived of the opportunity to make a play.

As in the OP. Since the R3 was NOT advancing but had returned to 3B, there was no "play" in progress. Had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B.

Since there was no "play", there is no out to be had. Kill it and keep the runners where they are.

JM

Thank you sir ...so, kill it using INT ...and keep 'em where they are ....interesting, but it does make sense..

I beg to differ; it does not make sense.

The rule states that interference happens on the attempt to make a play. If an umpire tries to second guess all of the "what ifs" and "could'a happened," he is inserting himself into the game where the rules don't warrant such intrusion.

This is a very simple concept to grasp: when the offense acts in such a fashion that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play," they have committed offensive interference.

RULE 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.

EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

The rule also states (in 6.06© COMMENT):

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter.

Another way of thinking about this is that the attempt survived the batter's interference. Therefore, the play was subsequently made when that runner was put out. If, however, the runner was not put out, even though the catcher was able to continue through with the attempt, interference by rule has occurred. No where does it give any leeway to the umpires to kill the ball and keep everyone where they started.

Now, I agree with the idea of "No attempt, no interference." For interference to be called, the defense must continue through with the attempt. But, what about that case, as in the OP, where the defense (namely, F2) is prevented from continuing through with the attempt because something like the batter illegally hitting the thrown ball constitutes the interfering action?

I assert that when interference is promulgated in such a manner as to preclude the defense from continuing through with the attempt, then the "No attempt, no interference" interpretation cannot apply.

During the back-and-forth in the thread I started 4/28/11 (Was This Interference?), I came to this conclusion: if the offense acts in a way that prevents the defense from even making an attempt, interference must be called.

We as umpires cannot insert ourselves into the playing of the game by trying to guess if the defense had a reasonable chance at putting out a runner.

So I take it you're busting out from behind F2 with "Time ...that's interference" ...right away?

Yes, I am, because the offense has interfered with the defense's attempt to make a play.

[dddunn3d]

Thunder,

J/R introduces the concept of "interference without a play" - that is, the offense did do something they shouldn't ought to have, however, the defense was not deprived of the opportunity to make a play.

As in the OP. Since the R3 was NOT advancing but had returned to 3B, there was no "play" in progress. Had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B.

Since there was no "play", there is no out to be had. Kill it and keep the runners where they are.

JM

Look at this from a different angle. You state that "there was no 'play' in progress." But ask yourself "Was there an attempt in progress?"

Of course there was; F1's actions are an attempt to make a play on R3. Did the batter's action interfere with the attempt? Yes-- therefore, offensive interference has occurred, and the rules are clear on the penalties involved.

Umpires cannot rule by trying to take into account what might have happened. You state that "had the batter not hit the ball with his bat, the F2 would have simply caught the ball (presumably) with the R3 standing on 3B." So what? That did not happen. What actually happened was that the batter struck F1's throw and prevented the defense from continuing through with their attempt.

How about this: instead of the batter striking the ball, he catches it. What is the difference? Either action interferes with the defense's attempt. As far as I'm concerned, R3 could be doing cartwheels and handstands, but that doesn't change the fact that the batter interfered.

Another twist: the batter swings and just tips the ball (like a foul-tip) into F2's glove. F2 subsequently throws to F5 trying to put out the returning R3. If R3 is actually tagged out, then by rule no interference has occurred (RULE 6.06© COMMENT). But, if R3 returns safely, then interference has occurred and the batter is called out.

All of the above is a consistent application of the rules concerning offensive interference, because the original action of F1 is that of a throw, not a pitch. I noticed that elsewhere I am asked by sdix00 this:

R1, not stealing. After swing and miss the pitch is blocked by the catcher, and the batter's backswing strikes the catcher in the head, dazing him. The runner is able to run to 2B safely.

#1-- This exact scenario is covered explicitly by 6.06© comment:

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

#2-- The OP has F1 throwing to F2, not pitching to the batter. So, let's consider the following:

The batter swings and misses the throw from F1 but his follow-through carries the bat all the way around and hits F2.

a-- F2 gloves the ball cleanly and throws to F5 who tags R3 for the out. By rule, interference has not actually occurred. Batter is not out.

b-- F2 gloves the ball cleanly and decides not to throw to F5. Since he did not continue through with the attempt, interference cannot be adjudged to have occurred.

c-- F2 is not able to glove the ball. Since this was not a pitch, but a throw by F1 in an attempt to make a play, the batter is out for interference.

Traditionally, a play has been defined as a legitimate attempt by the defense to put out a runner/batter-runner. The elements that inform whether or not a play is occurring have traditionally been the presence of an offensive player, a defensive player and the ball. But looking through RULE 2.00, no actual definition of either a play nor an attempt can be found. However, these definitions all include in some fashion "play:"

BATTER-RUNNER

DEAD BALL

DOUBLE PLAY

FORCE PLAY

FOUL TIP

INFIELD FLY

IN JEOPARDY

INTERFERENCE

LIVE BALL

ORDINARY EFFORT

“PLAYâ€

SQUEEZE PLAY

“TIMEâ€

TRIPLE PLAY

These definitions likewise include a reference to "attempt:"

CATCH

FIELDER’S CHOICE

INFIELD FLY

INTERFERENCE

OBSTRUCTION

RUN-DOWN

SQUEEZE PLAY

In listing these, my point is that these common terms are used in varying ways throughout the rules. Perhaps they themselves should be defined in 2.00.

[Umpire in Chief]

First awesome discussion guys, a lot of great info in here.

My initial reaction from the OP was INT on the batter as many stated earlier.

But I did like JMs weak INT point.

I would want to see the play and determine how to rule based on the situation.

[UmpJM]

Michael & DDDunn,

I'll just say,,,,

Had there been an out to obtain, I would be inclined to penalize the batter's illegal action with an out.

No argument on that.

As the OP was presented, there was no out to be had.

As DDDunn cogently observes, though the terms "play" and "attempted play" are used "liberally" in the text of the rules, they are never defined in the text of the rules. Even though the interpretation of the word/phrase is essential to interpreting the proper application of the rule in a given situation. (The same could be said of the phrase "in the act of fielding".)

There are two definitions of "play/attempted play". One is from the MLBUM:

A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has

possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a

runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or

actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. (The fact that the

runner is not out is not relevant.) A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an

attempted play.

That's "official". It's what the rule means. Evans offers this additional interpretation, which, though not "official", I find instructive:

For umpiring purposes, the criteria for defining a play are the imminent status of the ball and runner. When it appears that a thrown ball and advancing runner are going into the same base at approximately the same time, a play is imminent. On many occasions, you may have the runner advancing to a base but the ball being thrown somewhere else. Or, you may have a ball thrown to a base but no runner advancing to that base. A play does not exist in either of these two cases. ...

So, if there IS any kind of "play", I'll get an out - all "benefit of the doubt" goes to the defense.

But, if there's no out to be had "on the merits", kill it & put everybody where they were.

I believe that's the proper interpretation of the rule. If you've got anything better, I'd be interested in your cites.

Michael,

I don't understand your point about an 8.05(h) balk at all.

The pitcher was NOT "unnecessarily delaying the game".

He got bluffed into stepping off and throwing home to prevent the aggressive R3's possible advance.

That's not in any way what that rule is for or what it means.

JM

[dddunn3d]

Michael & DDDunn,

I'll just say,,,,

Had there been an out to obtain, I would be inclined to penalize the batter's illegal action with an out.

No argument on that.

As the OP was presented, there was no out to be had.

As DDDunn cogently observes, though the terms "play" and "attempted play" are used "liberally" in the text of the rules, they are never defined in the text of the rules. Even though the interpretation of the word/phrase is essential to interpreting the proper application of the rule in a given situation. (The same could be said of the phrase "in the act of fielding".)

There are two definitions of "play/attempted play". One is from the MLBUM:

A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has

possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a

runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or

actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. (The fact that the

runner is not out is not relevant.) A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an

attempted play.

That's "official". It's what the rule means. Evans offers this additional interpretation, which, though not "official", I find instructive:

For umpiring purposes, the criteria for defining a play are the imminent status of the ball and runner. When it appears that a thrown ball and advancing runner are going into the same base at approximately the same time, a play is imminent. On many occasions, you may have the runner advancing to a base but the ball being thrown somewhere else. Or, you may have a ball thrown to a base but no runner advancing to that base. A play does not exist in either of these two cases. ...

So, if there IS any kind of "play", I'll get an out - all "benefit of the doubt" goes to the defense.

But, if there's no out to be had "on the merits", kill it & put everybody where they were.

I believe that's the proper interpretation of the rule. If you've got anything better, I'd be interested in your cites.

Michael,

I don't understand your point about an 8.05(h) balk at all.

The pitcher was NOT "unnecessarily delaying the game".

He got bluffed into stepping off and throwing home to prevent the aggressive R3's possible advance.

That's not in any way what that rule is for or what it means.

JM

I agree that the situation should determine what to call. For example, R1 and a wild pitch that gets all the way to the backstop. F2 runs to retrieve the ball, but the on-deck batter has decided to be helpful and has picked the ball up.

Kill it; there's no way F2 is going to get an out in the normal circumstance*, allow R1's advance, and tell the on-deck batter to stop handling live balls.

I have been ruminating about those situations where the nature of the interfering action actually prevents the defense from even attempting any further action.

The OP is an excellent example; when the batter decided to attempt to hit F1's throw he put himself in jeopardy of an interference call. If the outcome of the batter's action completely prevents F2 from further action, I believe that it is well within the spirit of the rule to immediately rule interference, the disposition of the runner notwithstanding.

If, on the other hand, the batter swings at F1's throw and misses, and F2 has suffered no ill effect because of this, then the interference call should not be forthcoming.

* I must add a caveat here. If R1 decides that he may be able to continue his advance to 3B, then perhaps the situation would then warrant an interference call.

[mazzamouth]

After rereading the OP.. I see he said the batter fouled off the pitch, but it was not a pitch as the Pitcher legally disengaged the rubber and threw home to retire a runner... This is INT on the batter, and less than 2 outs runner is out.. 2 outs the batter is out. 6.06c

I also said a balk for throwing to a unoccupied base, but since I reread I saw the pitcher stepped off.. so no balk, I think it was mtaylor who corrected me..LOL

[noumpere]

First awesome discussion guys, a lot of great info in here.

My initial reaction from the OP was INT on the batter as many stated earlier.

But I did like JMs weak INT point.

I would want to see the play and determine how to rule based on the situation.

I would use the same analyiss as when the pitcher throws to second to get the runner from first, that is if the runner was advancing its legal if the runner was just fainting an advance its not legal. At the levels most of us work im taking a very liberal reading or advancing and not punishing the pitcher unless necessary.

[dddunn3d]

First awesome discussion guys, a lot of great info in here.

My initial reaction from the OP was INT on the batter as many stated earlier.

But I did like JMs weak INT point.

I would want to see the play and determine how to rule based on the situation.

I would use the same analyiss as when the pitcher throws to second to get the runner from first, that is if the runner was advancing its legal if the runner was just fainting an advance its not legal. At the levels most of us work im taking a very liberal reading or advancing and not punishing the pitcher unless necessary.

Do not befuddle yourself through misapplication of the pitching rules.

RULE 8.01(e)

If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher’s plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder.

RULE 8.01(e) COMMENT

The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base. If he makes a wild throw, such throw is the throw of an infielder and what follows is governed by the rules covering a ball thrown by a fielder.

[noumpere]

Do not befuddle yourself through misapplication of the pitching rules.

RULE 8.01(e)

If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher’s plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder.

RULE 8.01(e) COMMENT

The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base. If he makes a wild throw, such throw is the throw of an infielder and what follows is governed by the rules covering a ball thrown by a fielder.

Im not befuddling myself but you might be too dense to get my point that of course the rule you site doesnt apply but the pitcher even off the rubber still cant throw to an unoccupied base if its not to make a play. 8-02c or something like that. And the play doesnt seem to be covered by rule so you have to use analogies from other parts of the rules to help make a decision, thats all.

[dddunn3d]

Do not befuddle yourself through misapplication of the pitching rules.

RULE 8.01(e)

If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher’s plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder.

RULE 8.01(e) COMMENT

The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base. If he makes a wild throw, such throw is the throw of an infielder and what follows is governed by the rules covering a ball thrown by a fielder.

Im not befuddling myself but you might be too dense to get my point that of course the rule you site doesnt apply but the pitcher even off the rubber still cant throw to an unoccupied base if its not to make a play. 8-02c or something like that. And the play doesnt seem to be covered by rule so you have to use analogies from other parts of the rules to help make a decision, thats all.

Which part of "The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base" has you befuddled? I believe you're intermixing this with RULE 8.05(d), which applies when the pitcher is touching the rubber.

As to RULE 8.02( c):

1-- It covers intentional delay;

2-- The remedy is "Don't do that." There is no playing penalty (like a balk, a charged ball, etc.) unless after being warned the pitcher is ejected for such action. RULE 8.05(h) then comes into play, and a balk is also charged(RULE 8.05(h) COMMENT).

Like I said, don't befuddle yourself.