What's the Call

[guinnemick]

Ok, so my situation is, runner on 3rd, batter in the box. The pitch is made, runner is coming home. Batter stays in the batters box with the bat on his shoulder. He didn't try to make a play on the ball, he just stood there and watched it hit the glove. Catcher comes up to tag the runner out, batter is in the way of the catcher by standing still in the box. What's the call. I said it was batter's interference and he should be out, runner goes back to 3rd. Please help. I would like as many opinions as possible on this.

[BrianC14]

Ok, so my situation is, runner on 3rd, batter in the box. The pitch is made, runner is coming home. Batter stays in the batters box with the bat on his shoulder. He didn't try to make a play on the ball, he just stood there and watched it hit the glove. Catcher comes up to tag the runner out, batter is in the way of the catcher by standing still in the box. What's the call. I said it was batter's interference and he should be out, runner goes back to 3rd. Please help. I would like as many opinions as possible on this.

Many opinions are available.

Only one rule is applicable.

If less than 2 are out, the runner is out.

If 2 are out, batter is out, no run scores.

[Umpire in Chief]

The batter can't just disappear. At this point if he's just standing there with his bat on his shoulder I've got nothing. I'd have to have active interference to make a call. Even if he swung and didn't do anything extraneous I'd still have nothing because the batter has the right to offer at the pitch.

BTW welcome to Umpire-Empire.

[BrianC14]

The batter can't just disappear. At this point if he's just standing there with his bat on his shoulder I've got nothing. I'd have to have active interference to make a call. Even if he swung and didn't do anything extraneous I'd still have nothing because the batter has the right to offer at the pitch.

BTW welcome to Umpire-Empire.

Standing in the way of the catcher with R3 coming in is enough for me. In a case like this, he's going to have to disappear, or at least try to look like he's moving away.

This INT isn't the same as when a catcher attempts a throw to 3B by going up the line into the batter. Standing still is standing in the way. Let's call it "passively being in the way". I've got an INT all day on this.

I like outs. :rollinglaugh:

[guinnemick]

The batter can't disapear, but he does have to make an attempt to get out of the way. I could understand if he was offering at the pitch, then not being able to avoid the interference, but in this case, he was a kid who wasn't familar with the game(12yr old, playing in a juniors game) and didn't know what was going on and he just stood there. Doesn't this also become a safety issue. If the catcher would have actually gone hard after the runner, instead of pulling up because of the batter being in the way, the batter might have gotten injured, or could have injured the catcher and the runner. The batter had a chance to avoid the interference by moving out of the box, he had time. BTW, thank you for the welcome statement...

[mstaylor]

I agree with UIC, he batter is allowed by rule the opportunity to swing at the pitch. Whether he does so or not is irrelevent. Now are you saying the batter, between the time the catcher catches the pitch and dives forward, the batter has to move. Now which way should he go? How is the batter to know which way the catcher is going to dive. The only thing he can do is stay still.

[BrianC14]

I agree with UIC, he batter is allowed by rule the opportunity to swing at the pitch. Whether he does so or not is irrelevent. Now are you saying the batter, between the time the catcher catches the pitch and dives forward, the batter has to move. Now which way should he go? How is the batter to know which way the catcher is going to dive. The only thing he can do is stay still.

I agree with the "irrelevant" part. So why bring it into the mix?

So let's distill this from the OP:

R3 steaming home, batter stands still. F2 can't make the play because the batter doesn't move. I don't give a rip which way he moves, but if he goes into statue mode and prevents F2 from getting to make a play, then I'm going to call INT on the batter.

Let's change things a bit: R1 going into 2B... do you require him to give way after he's been forced already, or does he get to "stand still" in the way of F4 or F6 preventing them from making a throw to F3? The play is different, yes, but we all know (or should know) that R1 in that situation is not allowed to ALTER the play of the defense - but to me the concept is the same - you don't get a freebie by standing still. At least TRY and get out of the way. Standing still isn't an option, and if you prevent F2 from making a play, then someone is going to be out, because he altered the play of F2.

[mstaylor]

Brian:

It is a matter of time. Unless there is a delay, R3 breaks late, then there just isn't time to move. In the plays I have seen the runner is getting there just after the pitch. There physically just isn't time for the batter to clear. Now if the R3 is late breaking then I'm with you completely.

[BrianC14]

Brian:

It is a matter of time. Unless there is a delay, R3 breaks late, then there just isn't time to move. In the plays I have seen the runner is getting there just after the pitch. There physically just isn't time for the batter to clear. Now if the R3 is late breaking then I'm with you completely.

I read it when I see it.

As I say, the batter will have at least make an attempt.

In the OP, he's a statue. I'll get an out on that.

[Umpire in Chief]

I was just looking through my brand new J/R manual and it didn't cover this situation.

I can see Brian's case, but still can not see getting the INT unless things develop very slow and he has ample opportunity to get out of the way.

But I also see how the batter just standing there can hamper the runner too.

[Mike Prince]

If the batter is a statue as stated, I probably have nothing as the batter has the right to the box on the pitch. If he doesn't offer and makes any move INTO the play I have BI. Probably a HTBT but if he doesn't move I see the runner having a harder time than the catcher on that one (not that it matters since he isn't moving).

[Mr Umpire]

Completely HTBT. We do not know F2's actions on the play. Maybe he was coming forward already as the pitch comes in. And, before it is said, he isn't catching the ball in front of the plate which would get a different call.

If he does that, there is very little (if any) time for the batter to move. This is a matter of timing of how the play developed. Each will envision this one differently based on what we have seen. I think the only thing we can offer is the rule and maybe, how to help judge if it is or not.

In this case, Brian touched on the rule in the very first post. The rest is how each of us envision our own experience of it.

[catoblue]

HTBT for sure. If we're talking a LL 12U game, where R3 can't leave until the ball reaches the batter, then I will either have INT of leaving early. OBR... HTBT .... in the words of former Associate Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it"

[mstaylor]

HTBT for sure. If we're talking a LL 12U game, where R3 can't leave until the ball reaches the batter, then I will either have INT of leaving early. OBR... HTBT .... in the words of former Associate Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it"

I agree 100% for 60ft. In that case the batter should have all the time he needs to clear. To be honest, I don't think Brian and I are that far apart, I just think he is seeing one play and I am seeing another.

The way I have seen this play develpoe is the runner is there a s[lit second behind the pitch. The batter can't swing or he would kill the runner. Brian is seeing a more delayed steal where the runner is further away from the plate when the pitch arrives. Then the batter can clear.

[UmpJM]

Standing in the way of the catcher with R3 coming in is enough for me. In a case like this, he's going to have to disappear, or at least try to look like he's moving away.

This INT isn't the same as when a catcher attempts a throw to 3B by going up the line into the batter. Standing still is standing in the way. Let's call it "passively being in the way". I've got an INT all day on this.

I like outs.

Brian,

That is completely incorrect, contrary to the plain text of the rule, as well as all credible published interpretation on the question.

By rule, the only way the batter can avoid liability for interference in this sitch is to remain in the batter's box and not make any unusual movement.

JM

[guinnemick]

Thank you all for your opinions on this situation. As you can see, we all have different interpretations of how this play should have been called. I still say the int should have been called, not only because the batter preveted the catcher from making the play, but the batter also put all 3 parties involved in danger. We, as umpires, need to put the safety of the players above all. Interpretations of the rule all vary, but our goal for safety should not. I appriciate everyone's insights and will come back to this site daily and anytime I have a questionable call. Thank you all again...

[BrianC14]

Thank you all for your opinions on this situation. As you can see, we all have different interpretations of how this play should have been called. I still say the int should have been called, not only because the batter preveted the catcher from making the play, but the batter also put all 3 parties involved in danger. We, as umpires, need to put the safety of the players above all. Interpretations of the rule all vary, but our goal for safety should not. I appriciate everyone's insights and will come back to this site daily and anytime I have a questionable call. Thank you all again...

You're very welcome, Guinnemick. (great screen name, if it is a combo of what I think it is.... )

Assuming you're working a high school game (or other league using FED rules), you can reference NFHS rule 7-3-5d for this, which states:

Section 3: Batting Infractions: A batter shall not:

Art. 5... interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

d. failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away.

Booger-pickers will likely say that "well this was a pitch, not a throw", but the intent of the rule is pretty clear, that a batter must give way if he has time.

As Mike and Warren both pointed out, if R3 arrived at the same time as the ball, there's little hope for the batter to have time to move, so then you'd have to rely on whatever movement he does make (does he move into the catcher, for example) before deciding if you've got an INT on the play.

[Umpire in Chief]

Brian,

That is completely incorrect, contrary to the plain text of the rule, as well as all credible published interpretation on the question.

By rule, the only way the batter can avoid liability for interference in this sitch is to remain in the batter's box and not make any unusual movement.

JM

I was just looking through my brand new J/R manual and it didn't cover this situation.

JM, can you give me a reference. Like you I believe this is not INT, but I can not find any source to confirm or deny. The closest I have is OBR 6.06(, but that isn't specifically referencing a play at the plate.

If for no other reason I'd like to know for my own future knowledge

[Umpire in Chief]

Thanks for the FED reference Brian I didn't look there.

7-3-5-c says " making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play at the runner"

Edit: So in my interpretation, his lack of movement is not necessarily a violation.

But I think any way you cut it, it is going to fall into the realm of a HTBT judgement call.

Here's how I'd look at it:

Did the batters action or lack of action interfere with the catchers ability to attempt a play on the advancing runner without denying the batter the opportunity to offer at or not offer at the pitch.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Umpire in Chief
diid not complete my thought....

[Mr Umpire]

Thank you all for your opinions on this situation. As you can see, we all have different interpretations of how this play should have been called. I still say the int should have been called, not only because the batter preveted the catcher from making the play, but the batter also put all 3 parties involved in danger. We, as umpires, need to put the safety of the players above all. Interpretations of the rule all vary, but our goal for safety should not. I appriciate everyone's insights and will come back to this site daily and anytime I have a questionable call. Thank you all again...

One thing I will add is our calls are not based on safety unless a rule is specific about it. Such as this INT rule. It isn't about safety. It is about if the offense did something wrong which could have been avoided.

Don't let safety (or should I say, how the umpire wants to keep players safe) cloud your judgment. And, the safety part is on the rule makers, whether it be the local park or the league. The intent of the rule may be safety but our application of it is not in most (if not all) cases. One exception may be not allowing a "quick" pitch. That is a safety issue we try to prevent. We apply it as we see fit not b/c the actions of the player compromised safety but b/c the actions violated a rule intended to protect the other players.

Baseball is a contact sport. Whenever opponents come in close range of each other during a physical activity, accidents happen and contact occurs. No other sport I know allows for a 90 mph object to be thrown in the direction of another player.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Mr Umpire

[UmpJM]

JM, can you give me a reference. Like you I believe this is not INT, but I can not find any source to confirm or deny. The closest I have is OBR 6.06(, but that isn't specifically referencing a play at the plate.

If for no other reason I'd like to know for my own future knowledge

Warren,

Sure.

For FED, the most compelling reference is case play 7.3.5E. Especially the language from the "Ruling" part that says:

...B2 is entitled to his position in the batter's box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move...is not batter interference.

From the JEA discussion of 6.06©, we have:

...A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled. ...

From J/R (Chapter 13 - Offensive Interference. Section I: Batter Interference in my edition):

Interference by a batter occurs in relationship to the catcher..., or the catcher's throw, ...

A, Catcher's Action: batter interference can occur during a catcher's

...

(3) tag try at home during a suicide squeeze or steal.

B. Batter's Action: it is batter interference if the batter hinders the catcher [6.06©]

(1) intentionally,

(2) by stumbling or stepping outside the batter's box,

(3) by abnormal or extraordinary movement inside the batter's box, or

(4) with his bat....

There is also the plain text of the rule (my emphasis):

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.

which makes it clear that the batter must move to be liable for interference in this sitch.

The FED rule that Brian referenced applies to the case where the pitch is a wild pitch or passed ball that gets away from the catcher, thereby allowing the batter time to remove himself from the vicinity of the plate should there be a subsequent throw by the defense attempting to retire a runner trying to score. This exception, where the pitch gets away from the catcher is covered by J/R in the section titled "Interference by an Offensive Teammate". I find it disingenuous taht he cites 7-3-5d while failing to mention 7-3-5a-c, which all make it clear that in the case where the catcher cleanly gloves the pitch and the batter does NOT have time, the batter is only liable if he MOVES in a way that hinders the catcher.

All this discussion about HTBT, depends what the catcher does, safety, etc. is utter nonsense.

If the catcher cleanly gloves the pitch with a runner attempting to steal home AND the batter "stands there like a statue" (as described in the OP) the batter cannot, by rule, be guilty of batter interference.

JM

Edited May 12, 2010 by UmpJM

[mstaylor]

In OBR I go with 6.06c, if it gets away then it is interference by a teammate not batter's interference.

[BrianC14]

Thanks for the FED reference Brian I didn't look there.

7-3-5-c says " making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play at the runner"

7-3-5c says what the batter cannot do. But 7-3-5c is irrelevant to the original post, because the batter move. (Honestly, guys - is it really necessary to point out IRRELEVANT information)? :|

7-3-5d says what the batter must attempt to do. And there is the relevant portion for the OP (in FEDland).

Edit: So in my interpretation, his lack of movement is not necessarily a violation.

Only if you want to ignore 7-3-5d. If he has time, he must clear the area, or at least attempt to do so.

But I think any way you cut it, it is going to fall into the realm of a HTBT judgement call.

Here's how I'd look at it:

Did the batters action or lack of action interfere with the catchers ability to attempt a play on the advancing runner without denying the batter the opportunity to offer at or not offer at the pitch.

No argument here - but the bit about the batter having an opportunity to offer at the pitch is irrelevant with respect to the OP. There's a whole different kettle of fish (and ruling) if F2 prevents the batter from offering at the pitch.

I'm referencing the OP throughout this thread - some other posts appear not to be. There can be plenty of intent read into a batter who stands still in the box, with the idea being that "if I don't move, he might have a better chance at scoring" in the hope that his runner can reach the plate before F2 can apply the tag.

Edited May 13, 2010 by BrianC14

[BrianC14]

In OBR I go with 6.06c, if it gets away then it is interference by a teammate not batter's interference.

But why quote 6.06c when it doesn't apply to the OP? You may as well quote 6.06(.... that's equally irrelevant.

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.

[mstaylor]

I reference 6.06c because that the rule that covers what a batter must do or not do when the catcher catches the ball. If it gets away from him then go with your rule reference.