Illegal contact or Interference?

[stl_ump]

This happened a few years ago and I don't remember what was the final consensus of opinions. (another board not here)

BR swings with his entire back foot out of the batter's box. There is Catchers interference on the swing. (he makes contact with the ball)

So what do we have? The BR is out for illegal contact or he gets 1st for Catchers Int?

Thanks

[BrianC14]

This happened a few years ago and I don't remember what was the final consensus of opinions. (another board not here)

BR swings with his entire back foot out of the batter's box. There is Catchers interference on the swing. (he makes contact with the ball)

So what do we have? The BR is out for illegal contact or he gets 1st for Catchers Int?

Thanks

I"d get the out, but I have to wonder how his back foot could have been out of the box without you knowing it before the pitch.

I suppose it's possible that he stepped backward but I'm trying to imagine a batter doing that as a pitch is being delivered...

Now... that said, look at what happens first. How is it possible for the batter to make contact before the INT occurs? It really isn't - and so I can understand the argument of getting the penalties in the order which they occurred - so with this approach, you'd put the batter on first. But I think that would be wrong, and here's why:

Regardless of the interference, the batter hit the ball while he was not legally within the confines of the box. Thus, he's out, regardless of the fact that there was INT. Look at it this way: if INT doesn't occur, he's out even if he'd hit a home run, or fly ball, or whatever. So the INT doesn't really have a bearing on the outcome of the batted ball... in other words, "he's has to be called out whether INT occurred or not."

And I suppose you could make the argument that his backing up might have led to the catcher's INT, but in all honesty, I'm not going that far with an offensive coach in explaining this. "Keep it simple". "Coach, the batter is out because he made contact with the ball while outside the batter's box."

Edited February 4, 2010 by BrianC14

[Umpire in Chief]

Good situation..

I have to agree with Brian. Like he said first instinct goes to what happened first, but this would be an exception. Get the out.

[BrianC14]

You are most likely to see this situation when their is a hit and run on, and the defense guesses right and calls for a pitch out.

Naturally though, things weren't that simple for me:

It was a suicide squeeze with the game winning run on third. In the playoffs. Loser went home.

Your reply confuses me. How does a hit & run or a suicide squeeze come into play if the batter steps out of the back of the box (as presented in the OP)?

[JamesC]

I would agree. If the batter weren't out of the box, saying he was legally in the box, the contact with the catcher's glove may have never occured.

[mstaylor]

Being out of the back of the is likely to get a different call than any other direction. Being out of the back of the box is likely to be ruled as an attempt to intentionally interfere with the catcher and is going to draw the out call. Any other direction and most likely the CI is going to precede the OOB violation.

[th3]

you see it slow pitch

[stl_ump]

Being out of the back of the is likely to get a different call than any other direction. Being out of the back of the box is likely to be ruled as an attempt to intentionally interfere with the catcher and is going to draw the out call. Any other direction and most likely the CI is going to precede the OOB violation.

All these mights and maybes and likely... can anyone come up with a definitive answer?

B.T.W. In my origianl post, the batter stepped out of the back of the box due to "happy feet" He was a very nervous batter.

[carolinablue]

I agree with Brian here. He is out of the box regargless of any int. He would have been out had there been no int. The catcher is not interfering with his chance to legally hit a ball because he had no chance to do so. So how can we give him 1B on an illegally batted ball. There is no do over, so I'm getting the out.

[Mr Umpire]

I have a hard time agreeing to give the out.

Here is my reason. Let's say he missed the ball. Are you going to not give him 1B on that? He is still out of the box. Yet, is no one going to award him 1B on that? Let me follow this up with as long as PU doesn't judge the batter to be intentionally trying to get INT.

I don't see the difference between the 2. Maybe, he would have missed the ball if he didn't hit F2's glove. Maybe, by hitting it, F2 caused him to hit the ball. Thus, interfering with his chance to miss the ball. The PU can't determine that b/c F2 interefered.

I believe once CI occurs, nothing else can follow it if it is an out. Also, based on the rule, if batter doesn't reach base safely following CI, then he is awarded 1B automatically. So, hitting the ball while out of the box can't happen with that logic.

I am all for getting outs when presented but I don't believe an out can be obtained. There is no rule support b/c the rules don't say a legal chance to hit the ball. Also, the rules read as "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base)" which I read as he has no chance of getting out on anything unless he reaches 1B safely and then is put out. To me, it is in black and white. Batter can't be called out for anything unless he reaches 1B and all other runners advance 1 base unless he intentionally causes the INT.

[carolinablue]

I have a hard time agreeing to give the out.

Here is my reason. Let's say he missed the ball. Are you going to not give him 1B on that? He is still out of the box. Yet, is no one going to award him 1B on that? Let me follow this up with as long as PU doesn't judge the batter to be intentionally trying to get INT.

I don't see the difference between the 2. Maybe, he would have missed the ball if he didn't hit F2's glove. Maybe, by hitting it, F2 caused him to hit the ball. Thus, interfering with his chance to miss the ball. The PU can't determine that b/c F2 interefered.

I believe once CI occurs, nothing else can follow it if it is an out. Also, based on the rule, if batter doesn't reach base safely following CI, then he is awarded 1B automatically. So, hitting the ball while out of the box can't happen with that logic.

I am all for getting outs when presented but I don't believe an out can be obtained. There is no rule support b/c the rules don't say a legal chance to hit the ball. Also, the rules read as "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base)" which I read as he has no chance of getting out on anything unless he reaches 1B safely and then is put out. To me, it is in black and white. Batter can't be called out for anything unless he reaches 1B and all other runners advance 1 base unless he intentionally causes the INT.

I understand what you are saying here and there is sort of a gray area to this but let me give you another scenario. Say there is a R1 who is stealing and the pitcher and cather pitchout. The batter realizing the runner is dead meat steps out of the box and takes a swing and hits the catchers mitt but does not contact the ball. He was trying to hit the ball to protect his team mate and not intentionally interfering. Are you going to call the CI in this situation ?

[BrianC14]

I have a hard time agreeing to give the out.

Here is my reason. Let's say he missed the ball. Are you going to not give him 1B on that? He is still out of the box. Yet, is no one going to award him 1B on that? Let me follow this up with as long as PU doesn't judge the batter to be intentionally trying to get INT.

I don't see the difference between the 2. Maybe, he would have missed the ball if he didn't hit F2's glove. Maybe, by hitting it, F2 caused him to hit the ball. Thus, interfering with his chance to miss the ball. The PU can't determine that b/c F2 interefered.

I believe once CI occurs, nothing else can follow it if it is an out. Also, based on the rule, if batter doesn't reach base safely following CI, then he is awarded 1B automatically. So, hitting the ball while out of the box can't happen with that logic.

I am all for getting outs when presented but I don't believe an out can be obtained. There is no rule support b/c the rules don't say a legal chance to hit the ball. Also, the rules read as "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base)" which I read as he has no chance of getting out on anything unless he reaches 1B safely and then is put out. To me, it is in black and white. Batter can't be called out for anything unless he reaches 1B and all other runners advance 1 base unless he intentionally causes the INT.

Saying "let's say he missed the ball" changes the situation entirely.

There's no penalty for a batter who misses the ball with one foot out of the box. If he misses the ball, then you simply have the catcher's obstruction, and you send the batter to first base.

But that's not what the OP states.

Let's say we discuss the OP as it's written, and not change a situation entirely?

[PeteBooth]

I have a hard time agreeing to give the out.

Here is my reason. Let's say he missed the ball. Are you going to not give him 1B on that? He is still out of the box. Yet, is no one going to award him 1B on that?

I don't see the difference between the 2. Maybe, he would have missed the ball if he didn't hit F2's glove. Maybe, by hitting it, F2 caused him to hit the ball. Thus, interfering with his chance to miss the ball. The PU can't determine that b/c F2 interefered.

If you DO NOT see the difference between your "change" of the situation to the OP, then you need to RE-READ the rules.

Brian gave you the answer.

In the OP you do not enforce the CO or CI in OBR because in effect it never happened. B1 did something illegal.

I have a hard time agreeing to give the out.

If you stick to the rules you should not have a hard time getting the out.

Pete Booth

[Mr Umpire]

I don't see the difference between the 2. Maybe, he would have missed the ball if he didn't hit F2's glove. Maybe, by hitting it, F2 caused him to hit the ball. Thus, interfering with his chance to miss the ball. The PU can't determine that b/c F2 interefered.

I believe once CI occurs, nothing else can follow it if it is an out. Also, based on the rule, if batter doesn't reach base safely following CI, then he is awarded 1B automatically. So, hitting the ball while out of the box can't happen with that logic.

I am all for getting outs when presented but I don't believe an out can be obtained. There is no rule support b/c the rules don't say a legal chance to hit the ball. Also, the rules read as "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base)" which I read as he has no chance of getting out on anything unless he reaches 1B safely and then is put out. To me, it is in black and white. Batter can't be called out for anything unless he reaches 1B and all other runners advance 1 base unless he intentionally causes the INT.

If you stick to the rules you should not have a hard time getting the out.

Pete Booth

You cannot say "in effect CI didn't happen" b/c it did happen. And, if you see what I have highlighted the rules also say, then you can see what I am talking about. The rules clearly state "without liability to be put out". It says nothing of "if he does something illegal" b/c he was legal until he hit the ball. So, hitting F2's glove doesn't make anything on the batter's part as illegal until he hit the ball. Until then, F2 has done something illegal.

So, illegal actions are as follow. F2 illegally made contact with the batter's bat. Then, the batter illegally hit the ball. F2 interfered with the batter's chance to miss the ball. Since he wasn't legally able to miss the ball, then he didn't have an uninterupted chance to swing the bat.

To me, it really is a HTBT situation b/c there is so many different variables here to see what the ruling is. B/c, where did his back foot go? The OP didn't say it went back towards F2. It may have simply moved toward the opposite side dugout which is a lateral movement. He didn't move toward F2 but still managed to hit him. That would imply F2 was too close and would have interfered anyway. Too many variables to make the ruling. And, I am sticking with the OP in this regard. If he goes back toward F2, then I would deem it intentional and call BI. If he doesn't, then I have CI b/c he did nothing intentional and wasn't illegal until he hits the ball.

Edit: The OP didn't say it but a later post did say his foot went towards F2. So, in the case of going backwards, I will rule BI and not illegal contact with the ball. The illegal contact with the ball is after the fact of BI so it is irrelevant. Now, if there are no runners on, then I still have an illegal act by the batter to interfere with the catcher's chance to catch the ball thus making his play. So, I have BI if he goes back.

But, if he goes towards F1 or a dugout with the same foot, then I have CI. And, before any say that is not possible, I have seen players do that so many times. Their feet never get set until they actually swing the bat.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Mr Umpire

[Mr Umpire]

I have rethought my position about this subject. After really reading the rules and looking at them deeper than face value, I have come up with a different ruling.

I have nominated Brian's post. Simply b/c it did cover more of what to look for.

However, I would say many looked at it and agreed with everything including the part about "making sure the back foot was in before a pitch is delivered". I can't stand a "Do as I say, not as I do" post so stick with the OP. It never said the foot was out from the beginning. And, as stated, the OP doesn't say anything of "if the INT didn't occur" so stick with the OP as stated. If there were no INT, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Carolinablue,

After re-reading the rules, there really isn't any gray area in this matter. If the batter leaves the box to hit the ball, he is out unless he hits absolutely nothing. Here is my reasoning.

If he hits F2 while OOB, then he is out for BI, with or without any runners on base. With no runners on base, it is a do-over at the very most but I don't believe so b/c of third strike issues and the batter was not in the box at the time of any contact made with F2 or the ball. So, I think he is out for BI or OOB if contact with the ball is made.

Now, for the OP, this is why I am changing my ruling. The rule I cited has the phrase "put out" in it. This would imply the defense has to do something to get him out. That isn't the case when the ball is illegally hit. At that point, the batter has made the out himself. Since he is out of his own doing, then OOB call supersedes the CI call.

Honestly, even if to yourself, how many thought of things in those terms? I saw a lot of maybes and ifs and if nots and likelies as pointed out by the OP poster. Many, if not all posts, stumbled into, what I now believe is, the correct answer b/c I saw no rule references whatsoever in any posts, even those who said to re-read the rules.

So, stl_ump, this is my answer. The batter is out for being OOB and this supersedes CI based on how the OBR rules are written.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Mr Umpire

[carolinablue]

This is why it is good to discuss these types of issues like we do even though at times it may seem like overkill or beating a dead horse. Even if we all don't agree in the end at least we have looked at the situation closely and came to a conclusion we personally feel comfortable with. When we make the call in a game we will be able to explain the call in an intelligent manner and not loose any sleep that night.

[mstaylor]

This is why it is good to discuss these types of issues like we do even though at times it may seem like overkill or beating a dead horse. Even if we all don't agree in the end at least we have looked at the situation closely and came to a conclusion we personally feel comfortable with. When we make the call in a game we will be able to explain the call in an intelligent manner and not loose any sleep that night.

This really is the essence of a board like this. It makes you think about situations that you don't see much, know how to rule on it when it happens and then how to explain it when questioned.

Nothing drives me crazier than a Smitty that calls a balk and then says because it looked weird. How can you make a judgment without knowing the rule to start with.

[Mr Umpire]

I know this is old. But, I just got an interp from Wendelstedt a week ago and found the thread it related to.

The batter is only protected from catcher's interference if he is in the batter's box when it occurs. If he is out of the batter's box, there should be no penalty accessed. In addition, should he contact the ball while outside of the batter's box, he would be declared out. This can happen in a couple of ways, one more likely than the other.

1. A batter can step BACK out of the box, and contact the catcher's glove. A couple of outside clarifications. First, batters should not be allowed to initially set up outside the lines of the batter's box. Secondly, if this is an intentional act, it might require an ejection of the hitter as well.

2. A batter can step out the SIDE of the batters box (pitch out), or the front of the box (bunt), and contact the catcher's glove.

If contact is made in any of these situations, there is no CI.

It seems to me that this says "No matter what. If the batter is out of the box, CI cannot be called. If he makes no contact, then it is just a strike and dead ball. If he does, he is out and it is still a dead ball."

Am I misunderstanding this? Regardless if he hits the ball or not, batter does not go to 1B.

[Ros@]

Mr Umpire:

Quote:

The batter is only protected from catcher's interference if he is in the batter's box when it occurs. If he is out of the batter's box, there should be no penalty accessed. In addition, should he contact the ball while outside of the batter's box, he would be declared out. This can happen in a couple of ways, one more likely than the other

I believe this is the key wording here.

Most of the things I have read here has never happend to me before and this is why I like this forum. I can dscuss things "before" they happen to me and learn from your experiences hoping that IF this ever happens to me on a ballgame, I might recall your advises, together with my rule knowledge.

Is there anyone out there who is making notes and plans to make a book out of these items? Let me know cause I sure wanna buy one.

Regards,