Bat Interferece Call

[T-Rav]

Watching the NCAA super regional, Arizona State vs. Texas, they called batters interference on a runner stealing 2nd and a batter going to first on ball four. They are going to talk to the coaches about the call soon, I'll video it and upload it asap. Interesting situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuQOpomBWXo

[T-Rav]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlTG5G6jdvM

PU just called a balk against Arizona State pitcher, coached looked like he was ready to let his frustration loose.

[UmpJM]

I don't know who the "commentator" is on the video, but his assertion about contact being required is erroneous.

JM

[mstaylor]

Nomar is one

[Jimurray]

Nomah may be (is) an idiot but but I don't see how they got this outcome. Unless you see an intentional pause and shoulder turn into the catcher. Then maybe the BR should be out and return the runner.

[Thunderheads]

I was watching this game and couldn't believe either call. Funny thing is, ...the pitch IMMEDIATELY after the balk call was the EXACT SAME MOVEMENT from the pitcher ....with no call..........

AND ........... batter interference on ball 4 ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[mazzamouth]

I was watching this game and couldn't believe either call. Funny thing is, ...the pitch IMMEDIATELY after the balk call was the EXACT SAME MOVEMENT from the pitcher ....with no call..........

AND ........... batter interference on ball 4 ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

why cant there be INT on ball 4?

[sdix00]

What play was there for the BR to interfere with? The catcher tried to retire a runner who had been awarded a base.

[Thunderheads]

I was watching this game and couldn't believe either call. Funny thing is, ...the pitch IMMEDIATELY after the balk call was the EXACT SAME MOVEMENT from the pitcher ....with no call..........

AND ........... batter interference on ball 4 ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

why cant there be INT on ball 4?

I knew I'd probably have to answer to this ...but .... R1 is awarded 2nd base on the walk ..... there's no play .... Or, ...as usual, am I missing something?

[mstaylor]

Many times the runner makes a round around second and the catcher needs to be allowed to throw down and that was taken away.

[Thunderheads]

Many times the runner makes a round around second and the catcher needs to be allowed to throw down and that was taken away.

ok, fair enough ...but he wasn't interfered with. Do you think there was INT there, MST?

[txump81]

I had nothing. The throw was mishandled by F4. BR didn't cross in front of the catcher until after the catcher had finished his follow through. I'm not rewarding the defense because F4 took his eye off the ball and was thinking about the tag. You could see the PU immediately call the INT, then he realized that it was ball 4 and seems like he reversed his call. Then when Augie comes out, they change it back. ASU coach should have said the magic "P" word.

[sdix00]

When I see something like this, that is a highly experienced umpire in a premium assignment make a call like this, I work hard to justify the call. I want to put it in my library so I can refer to it later if I have a similar sitch.

I just can't do that here. This one just feels wrong.

[umpschool]

We have received several emails regarding this situation, so we would like to provide our opinion on it publicly. We have not seen the video of the incident, and this is not a commentary on whether the actions of the batter/runner would/or would not have constituted inteference, only as to our interpretation of the rule. Our opinion is further explained in the email exchange below:

Chris,

My thoughts are listed below each question:

Mr. Wendelstedt:

I met you in February at the umpire clinic in West Virginia. I was watching the College World Series Super-Regional and the followingsituation came up. I was wondering what the proper ruling is:

With a 3-2 count with 1 out anda runner on 1st in the bottom of the 4th, the ASU batter checks his swing at apitch up out of the zone as the 1B runner attempted to steal 2nd on the pitch.Before a call is made on the pitch, the catcher throws to 2nd in attempt topick off the runner from 1st (assuming that he thought a strike may be calledon the swing; it was ruled a ball). During the throw from the catcher, thebatter crosses in front of the plate, causing the throw to be off the mark andgo into center field. The runner advances to 3B on the errant throw and thebatter to 1B on the walk. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" clear="all">

My questions are:

(1) Is the batter out for interference, even if itis ball four?

In the situation you provided, no, the batter should not becalled out for interference. On ball four, he is a runner, and there must beintent in order to interfere with a throw in this case.

(2) Does the runner go back to first? (Obviously, this happens if it is interference. But isn't therunner entitled to one base without jeopardy)?

No.

(3) What rule(s), specifically, would guide theruling?

6.08 (a) talks about when a batter becomes a runner. 7.08 (b)and 7.09(j) talk about what is required for a runner to be called out for interferenceon a thrown ball, and 7.09 (e) talks about a batter who is already out,interfering.

As a side, had the plate umpire checked with the base umpire onthe swing and been overruled, this would be a third strike and the batter wouldnot have become a runner. Therefore, the penalty would revert back tointerference. The runner on which the play was being made on would also be out.

I hope that this helps you in your ruling.

Sincerely,

Hunter Wendelstedt

MLB #21

I guess it comes down to whether the walk supersedesinterference, where the batter is simply taking the base to which he isentitled to.

I appreciate any guidance you can give. Thanks somuch, and great work this weekend in Pittsburgh.

Best,

cwb

**************************************************************************************

[sdix00]

We have received several emails regarding this situation, so we would like to provide our opinion on it publicly. We have not seen the video of the incident, and this is not a commentary on whether the actions of the batter/runner would/or would not have constituted inteference, only as to our interpretation of the rule. Our opinion is further explained in the email exchange below:

Chris,

My thoughts are listed below each question:

Mr. Wendelstedt:

I met you in February at the umpire clinic in West Virginia. I was watching the College World Series Super-Regional and the followingsituation came up. I was wondering what the proper ruling is:

With a 3-2 count with 1 out anda runner on 1st in the bottom of the 4th, the ASU batter checks his swing at apitch up out of the zone as the 1B runner attempted to steal 2nd on the pitch.Before a call is made on the pitch, the catcher throws to 2nd in attempt topick off the runner from 1st (assuming that he thought a strike may be calledon the swing; it was ruled a ball). During the throw from the catcher, thebatter crosses in front of the plate, causing the throw to be off the mark andgo into center field. The runner advances to 3B on the errant throw and thebatter to 1B on the walk. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" clear="all">

My questions are:

(1) Is the batter out for interference, even if itis ball four?

In the situation you provided, no, the batter should not becalled out for interference. On ball four, he is a runner, and there must beintent in order to interfere with a throw in this case.

(2) Does the runner go back to first? (Obviously, this happens if it is interference. But isn't therunner entitled to one base without jeopardy)?

No.

(3) What rule(s), specifically, would guide theruling?

6.08 (a) talks about when a batter becomes a runner. 7.08 (b)and 7.09(j) talk about what is required for a runner to be called out for interferenceon a thrown ball, and 7.09 (e) talks about a batter who is already out,interfering.

As a side, had the plate umpire checked with the base umpire onthe swing and been overruled, this would be a third strike and the batter wouldnot have become a runner. Therefore, the penalty would revert back tointerference. The runner on which the play was being made on would also be out.

I hope that this helps you in your ruling.

Sincerely,

Hunter Wendelstedt

MLB #21

I guess it comes down to whether the walk supersedesinterference, where the batter is simply taking the base to which he isentitled to.

I appreciate any guidance you can give. Thanks somuch, and great work this weekend in Pittsburgh.

Best,

cwb

**************************************************************************************

Excellent resource. For clarification, who is the user who posted this? Chris or HW or someone else?

Thanks!

[mazzamouth]

See more reason to go to Harry's.. Im glad I went.. Hunter is a good guy and you can email and ask questions.

[plateumpire29]

In looking at the video, the batter clearly had both feet inside the box at the time of the throw. I've got nothing.

[Thunderheads]

In looking at the video, the batter clearly had both feet inside the box at the time of the throw. I've got nothing.

true ...

but ...

while 99.99999999% of the time he's good there, ...he can STILL interfere w/ both feet in the box....

[johnnyg08]

In looking at the video, the batter clearly had both feet inside the box at the time of the throw. I've got nothing.

true ...

but ...

while 99.99999999% of the time he's good there, ...he can STILL interfere w/ both feet in the box....

There are many ways a batter can still interfere. Big myth that if the feet are in the box, there can't be interference.

[sdix00]

In looking at the video, the batter clearly had both feet inside the box at the time of the throw. I've got nothing.

Don't get distracted by the position of the feet. They don't matter.

Remember, on ball 4, he is now a runner. There can be no batter INT.

In the situation you provided, no, the batter should not be called out for interference. On ball four, he is a runner, and there must be intent in order to interfere with a throw in this case.

[plateumpire29]

In looking at the video, the batter clearly had both feet inside the box at the time of the throw. I've got nothing.

true ...

but ...

while 99.99999999% of the time he's good there, ...he can STILL interfere w/ both feet in the box....

True, but he didn't.

[Thunderheads]

In looking at the video, the batter clearly had both feet inside the box at the time of the throw. I've got nothing.

true ...

but ...

while 99.99999999% of the time he's good there, ...he can STILL interfere w/ both feet in the box....

True, but he didn't.

Agreed ...and my point wasn't really directed at you personally (sorry )

I just used your words as an example ........ .both feet inside the box doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean he's ok ....

[plateumpire29]

Understood. The batter can be in the box and still interfere, but in this example, the batter did nothing to warrant the call. As I've pointed out in another thread, with enough experience, if one smells a rat, generally there is one.In a D-3 game, I had a catcher deliberately make contact with a batter on a throw to second. First thing I looked at were his feet. The catcher made it too obvious because he leaned into the batter as he made the throw in trying to draw a call.. His head coach came out asking for interference and I told him the first thing I looked at were the batter's feet and they were both in the box and I had nothing. That stopped him in his tracks and the argument was over.

[Mr Umpire]

Understood. The batter can be in the box and still interfere, but in this example, the batter did nothing to warrant the call.IN a D-3 game, I had a catcher deliberately make contact with a batter on a throw to second. First thing I looked at were his feet. The catcher made it too obvious because he leaned into the batter as he made the throw in trying to sell it. His head coach came out asking for interference and I told him the first thing I looked at were the batter's feet and they were both in the box and I had nothing. That stopped him in his tracks and the argument was over.

The problem is with an explanation like that, a myth is being perpetuated. It may have stopped him but for the wrong reason. The better, more appropriate response would have been the batter did nothing to interfere and F2 tried to make the batter interfere. Whether it stopped him or not is beside the point. The response would have been better supported by the rules if a protest is filed and the coach would know better if one of his batter's, while still in the box, gets called out for INT. At least, he would know his argument of "both feet in the box" is not a valid one even if he tried to pull it out of his a$$.

Now, it is a headache waiting for another umpire.

[plateumpire29]

Understood. The batter can be in the box and still interfere, but in this example, the batter did nothing to warrant the call.IN a D-3 game, I had a catcher deliberately make contact with a batter on a throw to second. First thing I looked at were his feet. The catcher made it too obvious because he leaned into the batter as he made the throw in trying to sell it. His head coach came out asking for interference and I told him the first thing I looked at were the batter's feet and they were both in the box and I had nothing. That stopped him in his tracks and the argument was over.

The problem is with an explanation like that, a myth is being perpetuated. It may have stopped him but for the wrong reason. The better, more appropriate response would have been the batter did nothing to interfere and F2 tried to make the batter interfere. Whether it stopped him or not is beside the point. The response would have been better supported by the rules if a protest is filed and the coach would know better if one of his batter's, while still in the box, gets called out for INT. At least, he would know his argument of "both feet in the box" is not a valid one even if he tried to pull it out of his a$.

Now, it is a headache waiting for another umpire.

Now you're talking about judgment, as in who initiated the contact, which, of course, is non-protestable. In this case, "both feet in the box" is a very important ingredient. If I were to use your response, which is also valid, that issue is now debatable, according to the defensive coach. Chances are pretty good that the result is a prolonged discussion as to who the offender is