Interference or not?

[Mr Umpire]

R1, R2, no outs. Batter hits ball to RF for a hit. R2 scores easily. By the time F9 is getting the ball in, R1 is rounding 3B. F3 gets the throw and turns and throws to F2. F3's throw is off line and is about 12 to 15 feet towards the 1B dugout side of HP. During all of this, the on deck batter has come to pick the bat up. He has the bat in hand when the off line throw hits it and goes out of play. There was no intent by the on deck batter to hit the ball or even get in the way.

What rule would support an INT call if made?

[alex7]

Uh oh, looks like you've been over at the other official baseball forum. So I'm guessing you know how that ended up over there (no INT), and I'll let the guys at this forum try at it.

To be clear, the on deck hitter was barely ON HIS WAY to the plate, and was still 15 feet or so away from the plate. The bat he was holding was his own, NOT the bat of the hitter.

[BrianC14]

Uh oh, looks like you've been over at the other official baseball forum. So I'm guessing you know how that ended up over there (no INT), and I'll let the guys at this forum try at it.

To be clear, the on deck hitter was barely ON HIS WAY to the plate, and was still 15 feet or so away from the plate. The bat he was holding was his own, NOT the bat of the hitter.

I put part of your reply in bold because it's irrelevant.

The first part of your reply was very relevant, however. :shakehead:

[mstaylor]

I have nothing unless you believe the ondeck batter did something intentional or obviously avoidable.

[SATURDAY]

I also have to go with nothing. Unless there was an obvious intent from the on deck batter to get in the way, there is no interference.

[Don in Washington]

What level of play was this?

Since I can't read the mind of the on-deck batter I have to read his actions. The on-deck batter is allowed in the on-deck area. That's a given. He's there to warm-up, not chase bats. His presence is not required anywhere else until we need a new batter.

If the on-deck batter stays in the on-deck circle, the errant throw probably stays in the field of play. R1 might have the opportunity to advance to home if the ball gets away from F2. Or if F2 fields the ball the defense could have an opportunity to make a play on R1 at home because the pitcher covers the plate. We'll never find out since the on-deck batter got in the way.

So what happened to R1? Did he come home or stay at 3rd base? What was F1 doing? Did he cover the plate or was he backing up the throw to F2?

Since the ball left the field of play as the result of the actions of the on-deck batter, he influenced the continous play. The actions of the offense deprived the defense of the opportunity to attempt further play on the offense. But do these actions warrant a call of INT?

Remember that Offensive INT by definition is "an act by the team at bat which interfers with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play ". The LL instructor notes in the Rules Instruction Manual indicate that the interference does not have be be intentional.

I guess you HTBT. But I'm inclined to not allow R1 to score at the very least.

Don

[mstaylor]

Don:

Interference on a batted ball doesn't have to be intentional but it does in most cases of thrown balls. that is why I said as long as he doesn't do something intentional or obviously indifferent for it to be interference.

[NWA_UMP]

I got nothing...intent is the key here..IMHO

[mstaylor]

What level of play was this?

Since I can't read the mind of the on-deck batter I have to read his actions. The on-deck batter is allowed in the on-deck area. That's a given. He's there to warm-up, not chase bats. His presence is not required anywhere else until we need a new batter.

If the on-deck batter stays in the on-deck circle, the errant throw probably stays in the field of play. R1 might have the opportunity to advance to home if the ball gets away from F2. Or if F2 fields the ball the defense could have an opportunity to make a play on R1 at home because the pitcher covers the plate. We'll never find out since the on-deck batter got in the way.

So what happened to R1? Did he come home or stay at 3rd base? What was F1 doing? Did he cover the plate or was he backing up the throw to F2?

Since the ball left the field of play as the result of the actions of the on-deck batter, he influenced the continous play. The actions of the offense deprived the defense of the opportunity to attempt further play on the offense. But do these actions warrant a call of INT?

Remember that Offensive INT by definition is "an act by the team at bat which interfers with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play ". The LL instructor notes in the Rules Instruction Manual indicate that the interference does not have be be intentional.

I guess you HTBT. But I'm inclined to not allow R1 to score at the very least.

Don

The ondeck batter will many times go to clear a bat or tell the runner to slide or not, this is perfectly acceptable. As far as the RIM saying interference doesn't have to be intentional, that is only true with batted balls and a very few exceptions on thrown balls. On the thrown balls it is, as I have already stated, intentional or indifference enough to be considered intentional.

[Don in Washington]

The RIM is silent concerning the on deck batter. It only addresses the base coach, runner & umpire specifically and the offense in general. Agreed that it is common practice for the on deck to "coach" a runner coming home but he (the on deck batter) still can't physically inject himself into the play. I have not found any reference sustaining the position of no INT. If you have one please provide.

[Mr Umpire]

I go by rule 7.12 in OBR. From the OP, there is no play on a runner. So, the offense did not do anything intentional. And, he did not need to vacate a space needed by the defense. So, no INT b/c none of the INT rules apply.

[Don in Washington]

In the origional thread you have R1 rounding 3rd, & heading home. Right? Does the ball leave the field of play prior to R1 aquiring home? Is F2 or other fielder attempting to field the errant throw?

If R1 reads the errant throw and continues on to score, with out a play, you still have BR out on the base path. Must the defense forgo any further play on him because the ball is now out of play? I've seen many off-line throws result in a out elsewhere on the field because the defense didn't give up on the errant throw. The old "give up a run and gain an out".

What are you going to do the the BR at this point? The on-deck batter created a situation that brought to a halt all play and the offense shouldn't be allowed to gain any advantage due to his actions.

This for me fits into the HTBT and see it before it becomes a concrete call.

Don

[mstaylor]

It is a HTBT call, I've never disputed that. What I have disputed is if the on deck did anything wrong. It has to be intentional or with indifference.

[Don in Washington]

MS

This is where "indeference" comes into play. Your reference to 7.12 (I think you meant 7.11) indicates that the offense "SHALL VACATE" any space need by the defense. Shall equals must everywhere I know. With the bat in-hand, the ball thrown hits the bat, ball goes out of play. With the bat static on the ground, ball doesn't strike bat, ball stays in play. And continous action can still occur. Defense's option. Ball out of play, no option for the defense.

The on-deck batter has to pay attention to where he is placing himself. He shall not get in the way. In 5.08 the base coach interfers with a thrown ball, runner can be called out based on umpires judgment. Much the same way type "B" OBS allows for umpires judgement. Point being, leave open the distinct possibilty the the on-deck batter screwed up and should have/could have left the bat alone for the time being. Continous play was not over and he injected himself into the ongoing play. That's indeference. Just like the umpires "ya' gotta keep your eye on the ball".

For all who just generically just say no INT, they ott to review the thread and all of the scenarios that can occur had the ball not left the field of play.

I guess we can agree to disagree. But consider that watching the entire play would certinly make the situation much clearer. Sometimes you just have to umpire.

So if you rule no INT, what happened to R1 and the BR left out on the base path. If you ruled INT, what would you have done with R1 and the BR.

Don

[sasmallen]

The BRD offers this interpretation: (pg 299 (sec 305) of the 2009 version), Tom Lepperd (Director of Umpire Administration for MLB)- While Chasing a loose throw the catcher runs into the on-deck batter- not in his circle: "As long as the collision was unintentional, umpires would most likely invoke the concepts of OBR 3.15. ...if a throw should strike him, the ball would be alive and in play." [bRD emphasis]. Mike Fitzpatrick (Former Director of PBUC) concurred with Lepperd's ruling (in a phone call with Childress).

OBR 3.15- No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

Rule 3.15 Comment: The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action.

For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been.

I just don't see any reasonable way, absent intent, to call interference in that situation. Ball has been thrown out of play...place the runners accordingly and play ball.

One more thing, I found this page that references almost the same situation and for what it's worth, the "expert" also said if it's not intentional then it's nothing. Interference by on deck hitter 06-26-2009

[Mr Umpire]

OK. I didn't look up the actual number before posting and my memory wasn't as accurate. Which is why I don't reference rule numbers when explaining something to a coach.

However, I also posed the question to the Wendelstedt site and they also said it is no INT since the catcher did not need the space to get the ball and there was no possible play on any other runner. No play on R1 or BR b/c the ball was not playable at the time it hit the on-deck batter.

They seem to imply 7.11 but others apply 3.15. Either way, it shows there is no INT on the play.

You can form your own opinion and rule as you see fit but many have said no INT. But, to be fair, the umpires on the field ruled this INT. But, when they asked their local rules expert, he told them it was not INT.

[noumpere]

The RIM is silent concerning the on deck batter.

Isn't the RIM for LL? Doesn't LL NOT allow on-deck batters?

(I don't do that level, so I'm just trying to provide some reason why it wouldn't be covered there.)

[willv28]

Isn't the RIM for LL? Doesn't LL NOT allow on-deck batters?

(I don't do that level, so I'm just trying to provide some reason why it wouldn't be covered there.)

No, they do not allow an on-deck batter in LL. Safety rule. Only the first batter of the inning may be out of the dugout to be "on-deck".

[Don in Washington]

For LL no on-deck for 60' diamond, 90' yes.

Don

[Finnblue]

Today's game (first of Finnish Championship finals): No outs, R2, batter hits straight where R2 was standing, F6 running behind. R2 jumps back and forth, doesn't know where to go, NOT touching the ball. F6 manages to stop the ball but is clearly in trouble doing it. Finally he picks the ball up and fires to first base, bang bang play, BR is out.

How do you call?

a) Dead ball, R2 out for INT, BR free 1st base or

B2 safe, INT nullifed because of BR out or

c) something else?

We went for a) but I started second guessing myself after the game

MS

Edited August 19, 2009 by Finnblue

[BT_Blue]

sounds right to me.

[noumpere]

Today's game (first of Finnish Championship finals): No outs, R2, batter hits straight where R2 was standing, F6 running behind. R2 jumps back and forth, doesn't know where to go, NOT touching the ball. F6 manages to stop the ball but is clearly in trouble doing it. Finally he picks the ball up and fires to first base, bang bang play, BR is out.

How do you call?

a) Dead ball, R2 out for INT, BR free 1st base or

B2 safe, INT nullifed because of BR out or

c) something else?

We went for a) but I started second guessing myself after the game

MS

B is not an option -- you don't "nullify" this type of interference if the BR is out.

If R2 changed direction more than once, then I'd agree with interference.

If he only changed direction once, then you need to decide if he did it to stay in the way of the ball (interference) or just mis-read the ball and thought better of trying to advance (nothing).

[Finnblue]

If he only changed direction once, then you need to decide if he did it to stay in the way of the ball (interference) or just mis-read the ball and thought better of trying to advance (nothing).

Actually, hindering batted ball is INT even if accidental. If he moves in front of the ball and fielder behind him obviously has trouble seeing and handling the ball, it's INT - as happened there.

Well, we all read the rulebook at our homes after the game and agreed: we had it right.

OBR 2: "On any interference the ball is dead."

OBR 7.08 "Any runner is out when—

( He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball"

Here we are discussing about it:

http://picasaweb.google.fi/EspooExpos/Finaali1ExposIcebreakers1982009#5371751983595306530

Left to right: Tony Jones, Mauri Hautaniemi, me

All the pics from yesterday's game are here:

http://picasaweb.google.fi/EspooExpos/Finaali1ExposIcebreakers1982009#

Final score: Expos (Espoo) 8 - Icebreakers (Helsinki) 3

MS

Edited August 20, 2009 by Finnblue

[noumpere]

Actually, hindering batted ball is INT even if accidental. If he moves in front of the ball and fielder behind him obviously has trouble seeing and handling the ball, it's INT - as happened there.

I think that statement is overly broad. If, for example, F6 is playing in a "normal spot" and R2 runs normally and in the process of doing so passes between F6 and the ball and F6 then boots the ball, it's not interference.

[Finnblue]

I think that statement is overly broad. If, for example, F6 is playing in a "normal spot" and R2 runs normally and in the process of doing so passes between F6 and the ball and F6 then boots the ball, it's not interference.

You have it right, both are "normal". I have seen runners jumping over the ball for avoiding it. What I tried to express is that if fielder has big trouble handling the ball because of the runner, we have INT.

Sorry of my bad English, sometimes it's difficult to explain in "foreign" language.

MS