What's the Call

[Mr Umpire]

I had a hard time calling an out on this particular play but could see how it could have been called depending on how the play went.

But, based on JM's post, I don't see this as INT. BI doesn't apply from what all of the interps say on this type of play. So, I am now strongly in the camp of "No BI on this play". For the OP, no out, run scores. Now, I can make that call with complete confidence.

Thanks, JM.

[mstaylor]

Let me give you a play that happened to me several years ago. Two top teams, night game, stands are packed and at least 15 umpires,real umpires, behind me. Runner on third steals on the pitch, pitcher went to the wind-up for some reason. The batter didn't swing, the runner slid to the infield side of the plate, the catcher dives behind the batter and gets the runner but he had already touched the plate. So the sequence was pitch caught, runner touches, catcher applies tag. The DM wanted BI. I told him no, the batter has no ability to move out of that play. He gets the opportunity to swing whether he does or not. The catcher had a shot at tagging the runner, he chose the wrong line, he went behind the batter instead of straight through the plate. Huge argument, almost lost the manager, he wanted me to check with my partner to see what he had. I told him absolutely not. My brethren behind the plate were split on what they would have called. After my explanation they all agreed I had it right.

[BrianC14]

Some feedback I've received from various individuals. The question was posed exactly as the OP, and I provided each of these three gents with what my answer was.

First, this reply from an NCAA Div I umpire with several regional CWS tournaments to his credit. He is also an NFHS Umpire with 32+ years experience. He has worked at levels ranging from high school to World Cup baseball tournaments. This particular gentlemen also runs a regional clinic and also teaches at several NCAA-sanctioned clinics:

Batter interference. When the batter interferes with the catcher fielding or making a tag NO RUN CAN EVER SCORE.

With less than two outs the runner is out. With two outs the batter is out.

This is a different case than batter interferiing with catcher's throw to second.

From an NFHS rules interpreter: (bold italics are mine, for emphasis):

This is very much a judgment call. It would be difficult to call batter interference unless the batter intentionally does something to get in the way. He is entitled to remain in the box until the pitch ends, whether he decides to swing or not. The timing of these plays is usually such that the batter cannot be expected to get out of the way.

What I find curious here is his use of the phrase "until the pitch ends". In the OP, the batter has not offered at the pitch, and the catcher has already caught it. Given this, the pitch has ended. The batter now has no reason for staying in the box, given that a play on R3 is developing. I agree with the assessment that this is "very much a judgment call". As I said early on, "I read it as I see it".

And finally, from the NCAA's rules interpreter:

Once the pitch is past the batter, it is the batter's responsibility to vacate the area where the play is being made. If he does not, it is interference and your ruling is correct.

There's that line again (this time from a different source) about the pitch being past the batter.

I've also written to Rick Roder but haven't yet heard from him.

[BrianC14]

Let me give you a play that happened to me several years ago. Two top teams, night game, stands are packed and at least 15 umpires,real umpires, behind me. Runner on third steals on the pitch, pitcher went to the wind-up for some reason. The batter didn't swing, the runner slid to the infield side of the plate, the catcher dives behind the batter and gets the runner but he had already touched the plate. So the sequence was pitch caught, runner touches, catcher applies tag. The DM wanted BI. I told him no, the batter has no ability to move out of that play. He gets the opportunity to swing whether he does or not. The catcher had a shot at tagging the runner, he chose the wrong line, he went behind the batter instead of straight through the plate. Huge argument, almost lost the manager, he wanted me to check with my partner to see what he had. I told him absolutely not. My brethren behind the plate were split on what they would have called. After my explanation they all agreed I had it right.

With timing that tight, I wouldn't disagree with your non-call. If it's really that 'bang-bang', the batter doesn't have a chance to move - - judgment call all the way there.

[BrianC14]

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.

Mike - are we reading different rules here?

6.06© is simply not applicable to the OP. The reason is that this rule specifically covers a situation where the batter has left the box or has moved in such a way that prevents F2 from making a play at home.

What does the ball getting away have to do with either 6.06© or my reference to 7-3-5d ? (Which is an NFHS rule, by the way). Neither of these rules mentions a ball that "gets away". This is where interpretations of rules can go quickly off the rails - by adding in things / events that aren't stated in the particular rule. The ball "getting away" is wholly an invention here. It didn't happen in the OP, and it isn't discussed in either of the rule cites.

Edited May 13, 2010 by BrianC14

[mstaylor]

Brian:

I said earlier in the thread that we weren't that far away on what we are saying.

The batter now has no reason for staying in the box, given that a play on R3 is developing.

If the play is developing to me means he is still a couple of steps away from the plate. If so then I certainly agree with you. However, in my experience the play should be much closer than that. If the runner is there at the same time as the pitch or split second timing behind it then it's nothing.

I think in the real world we would call the play the same way. If not I would have to beat you senseless in the parking lot with a wet noodle. :no:

Edited May 13, 2010 by mstaylor

[BrianC14]

Brian:

I said earlier in the thread that we weren't that far away on what we are saying.

If the play is developingto me means he is still a couple of steps away from the plate. If so then I certainly agree with you. However, in my experience the play should be much closer than that. If the runner is there at the same time as the pitch or split second timing behind it then it's nothing.

I think in the real world we would call the play the same way. If not I would have to beat you senseless in the parking lot with a wet noodle.

Peace. Keep your noodles dry. :blah

[Umpire in Chief]

This is a great thread guys a lot of thought provoking information...

[HugoTafurst]

(SNIP)

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.

(SNIP)

.

Although I agree we should be concerned with safety, I disagree with your concern for safety having anything to do with the decision.

The decision is based on the rule.

Even if done at younger levels, your decisions should be decided by written rules (which may be local) -or official interps (PBUM, etc)-