Batter" Interference Pick off attempt at third

charles_31000 · January 17, 2011

There are two outs and bases are loaded. Batter is in the box and does not move. Catcher recieves the pitch (ball) stands up and throws the ball to the third baseman but his hand hits the visor of the batter's helmet. The throw goes wildly over the head of the third baseman.

The batter was in the box and did not intentionally hinder the throw.

R3 is called out for batter's interference is this the correct call?

grayhawk · January 17, 2011

First, if there was interference, then the batter is out, not R3 - see 6.06c. Second, I will have a hard time calling interference since the batter stayed in the box. He's not "protected" per se, just because he is in the box, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt if he doesn't make a move that could be considered hindering F2. He's in more jeopardy if he makes a move to get out of the way, and guesses wrong and gets in the way instead.

UmpTTS43 · January 17, 2011

There are two outs and bases are loaded. Batter is in the box and does not move. Catcher recieves the pitch (ball) stands up and throws the ball to the third baseman but his hand hits the visor of the batter's helmet. The throw goes wildly over the head of the third baseman.

The batter was in the box and did not intentionally hinder the throw.

R3 is called out for batter's interference is this the correct call?

This is not the correct call. In order for there to be batter interference, you must judge that the batter did something in order to cause the interference. Merely standing there does not meet this criteria.

If the batter did do something to hinder the throw and cause interference, the batter should have been called out, since there were 2 outs.

There are two instances where you call R3 out as a result of batter's interference. The first is when there are less than 2 outs, R3 stealing, and the batter interferes. The second is when the batter has just been put out on strikes and a play is made on R3 with the batter interfering.

spiritump · January 17, 2011

There are two outs and bases are loaded. Batter is in the box and does not move. Catcher recieves the pitch (ball) stands up and throws the ball to the third baseman but his hand hits the visor of the batter's helmet. The throw goes wildly over the head of the third baseman.

The batter was in the box and did not intentionally hinder the throw.

R3 is called out for batter's interference is this the correct call?

with the info in givin--I has nothing ball is live and play on

JaxRolo · January 17, 2011

I agree with the rest. Wrong Call. Play on! Of course I have NEVER made a wrong call!

detailshp · January 18, 2011

In my opinion, a batter cannot "magically dissapear" from the batters box at the conclusion of the pitch. If he didnt move, then I would say you got nothing, and play continues ( result of the throw ).

Umpire in Chief · January 18, 2011

I agree I'm going to need some form of active interference, but as typical it is a judgment call you have to rule then on what you saw.

1dumbquestion · January 18, 2011

looks like everyone is in agreement. so what about from a mechanics stand point. I don't have a ton of experience on this type of play. do we signal safe and say "thats nothing" or wait for a coach to question the no-call? Thanks guys, 1

TX-UIC · January 18, 2011

There is nothing wrong with getting right in there and signaling safe and/or saying loudly and pointing "that's nothing... that's nothing". It shows that you saw it happen and you ruled on it right away... just as you would if it were interference... doesn't mean someone is not coming out to talk with you but it certainly looks better that you were on top of it and you were not influenced by anyone after the fact..

mstaylor · January 19, 2011

I don't usually do anything, my experience is the catcher will imediately turn to ask why that isn't interference.

umpirecordova · January 20, 2011

I go with a safe mechanic and a loud "THAT'S NOTHING!!" Just that way you can prevent an argument or a coach coming up to you and asking (which they do anyway) but it just shows that you are paying attention and you are aware of whats going on.

As a coach, if i see that situation and I dont hear an umpire say something or show that he knows what just happens i may come out and question.

JaxRolo · January 20, 2011

I wouldn't say anything. To me that is an obvious sign that its nothing play on.

yawetag · January 20, 2011

I wouldn't say anything. To me that is an obvious sign that its nothing play on.

To you, yes. You're a good umpire. However, to everyone else that's watching, they think "He didn't even see that! IT'S INTERFERENCE, BLUE!" Giving the safe sign with a "That's nothing!" shows you saw it happen, but you didn't judge it to be interference.

Umpire in Chief · January 20, 2011

If there's a potential interferrence/obstruction call where I judge there to be none, often I will give the "that's nothing" call.

I like it in that it acknowledges you saw what they saw and can eliminate a potential situation. I see no problem with it.

January 20, 2011

We have to remember, as umpires, we are smart...coaches are dumb. In the play you describe, if you do nothing, before R3 even crosses the plate, the defensive coach is going to come flying out of the dugout wanting to know why you didn't see that. Now you have to try to explain to him that you did in fact see it, but just chose to do nothing. And, because he is a dumb coach, he is not going to believe you, and only get more frustrated with you when you continue to "lie" to him about seeing the play.

Why not just save the trouble and tell everyone in the park that, hey, something just happened, I saw it, and I deem there is no rules violation here. Now, if you have a coach coming at you, the discussion turns straight to rules - why is that not interference?

The better you know the rules, the more this is tipped in your favour. String together a nice explanation, and chances are you can have him say "OK." and turn around and go back to the bench.

Signaling "that's nothing" is a great example of preventative umpiring and is essential for everyone's on-field tool box.

LMSANS · January 20, 2011

We have to remember, as umpires, we are smart...coaches are dumb. In the play you describe, if you do nothing, before R3 even crosses the plate, the defensive coach is going to come flying out of the dugout wanting to know why you didn't see that. Now you have to try to explain to him that you did in fact see it, but just chose to do nothing. And, because he is a dumb coach, he is not going to believe you, and only get more frustrated with you when you continue to "lie" to him about seeing the play.

Why not just save the trouble and tell everyone in the park that, hey, something just happened, I saw it, and I deem there is no rules violation here. Now, if you have a coach coming at you, the discussion turns straight to rules - why is that not interference?

The better you know the rules, the more this is tipped in your favour. String together a nice explanation, and chances are you can have him say "OK." and turn around and go back to the bench.

Signaling "that's nothing" is a great example of preventative umpiring and is essential for everyone's on-field tool box.

I have a problem with your initial premise, just because we are umpires does not mean we are smart. And just because someone is a coach, it doesn't make them dumb. Starting off with that kind of attitude is a step in the wrong direction.

HokieUmp · January 20, 2011

We have to remember, as umpires, we are smart...coaches are dumb.

Oh, dear Lord, now you've done it.

I said something not even that blatant, and got my head bitten off for it. Godspeed, ump_24!

(By the way, +1 on the signaling thing, and the rationale behind it.)

conbo61 · January 30, 2011

We have to remember, as umpires, we are smart...coaches are dumb. In the play you describe, if you do nothing, before R3 even crosses the plate, the defensive coach is going to come flying out of the dugout wanting to know why you didn't see that. Now you have to try to explain to him that you did in fact see it, but just chose to do nothing. And, because he is a dumb coach, he is not going to believe you, and only get more frustrated with you when you continue to "lie" to him about seeing the play.

Why not just save the trouble and tell everyone in the park that, hey, something just happened, I saw it, and I deem there is no rules violation here. Now, if you have a coach coming at you, the discussion turns straight to rules - why is that not interference?

The better you know the rules, the more this is tipped in your favour. String together a nice explanation, and chances are you can have him say "OK." and turn around and go back to the bench.

Signaling "that's nothing" is a great example of preventative umpiring and is essential for everyone's on-field tool box.

I agree with everything AFTER the first sentence. By making a signal and verbal call, you are telling everyone that you saw it and ruled. Remaining silent can only cause more aggravation.

Mr Umpire · January 31, 2011

I would simply add this. Timing is everything. Get the "safe" signal up immediately. If there is any hesitation with a play at 3B and the BU calls him out, don't show the "safe" signal. Now, it will look bad b/c it appears the PU is overriding the BU. Be prepared to signal it and do it very quick. Don't wait for anything. If you wait, might as well not signal anything. Then, you only have to deal with a DC being confused and not both being confused and upset.

Again, this only matters if there is a play at 3B. In the OP, it doesn't b/c there was no play.

I don't know if the "That's nothing" signal is being taught to look different than the "Safe" signal. But, I have a suggestion to help save some confusion. When giving the "Safe" signal, I have my hands open. Then, when giving the "That's nothing", I have my hands closed. For many, they won't notice the difference but some will. It may only help 1 out of 5 but that is 1 you don't have to explain your call to.

All is a suggestion except the timing part. Get the signal up quickly so they know it is not related to the call at 3B.

Mr Umpire · January 31, 2011

I agree with everything AFTER the first sentence.

I don't know. It makes a lot of sense to me.:fuel:

detailshp · February 4, 2011

I compare this play to a ball that is hit on the baseline, and ends up being fair. We don't shout " FAIR BALL" and make huge pointing gestures and ridiculous antics. A simple point in the fair direction is enough to show people that you have ruled on the play. A simple point at the "event" and a safe signal would be enough for me. I would not need to verbalize my ruling. I'd point at the batter/catcher and signal safe, a few beats after the "play" occurred.

February 4, 2011

I compare this play to a ball that is hit on the baseline, and ends up being fair. We don't shout " FAIR BALL" and make huge pointing gestures and ridiculous antics. A simple point in the fair direction is enough to show people that you have ruled on the play. A simple point at the "event" and a safe signal would be enough for me. I would not need to verbalize my ruling. I'd point at the batter/catcher and signal safe, a few beats after the "play" occurred.

No disrespect, but that type of approach to mechanics is not accepted at pro schools and will most certainly get you marked down on evaluations at some point in your career.

Yes, you can flip on an MLB game and see, say, a Tim McClelland or Joe West approach it proper, but very lackadaisically mechanically. They've earned the ability to not have to sell calls as much because of the substantial amount of time they've put in, as well as the respect that they have from players and managers as a result of how long they've been around. Compare their mechanics to, say, the mechanics of Dan Bellino or another young and / or fill-in umpire.

Refer to these calls by Bellino:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=8725303

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=11487845

Note, both times, he repeatedly and emphatically signals his call...that along with his body language just screams "confidence" in what he's ruling. IMO this is what makes him the best young umpire in MLB.

At the amateur level, we're not fortunate enough to see teams on enough of a regular to establish any kind of substantial reputation with them; when there's a close play that is not sold by the umpire, their tendency is to believe we're not confident in it. On the other hand, if they see a guy selling the sh*t out of something, they're less likely to come barreling out of the dugout in a rage. Again, look at Riggleman. Yes, he gets dumped in the OBS clip, but both times, he comes out to Danny very calmly, just seeking an explanation.

I know there's been some movement away from selling calls recently...that nonchalant mechanics will make it seem like the play wasn't as close as it actually was. IMO, selling the call is still the way to go.

yawetag · February 4, 2011

I compare this play to a ball that is hit on the baseline, and ends up being fair. We don't shout " FAIR BALL" and make huge pointing gestures and ridiculous antics. A simple point in the fair direction is enough to show people that you have ruled on the play. A simple point at the "event" and a safe signal would be enough for me. I would not need to verbalize my ruling. I'd point at the batter/catcher and signal safe, a few beats after the "play" occurred.

We don't shout "Fair Ball" because it sounds too much like "Foul Ball."

mstaylor · February 4, 2011

I compare this play to a ball that is hit on the baseline, and ends up being fair. We don't shout " FAIR BALL" and make huge pointing gestures and ridiculous antics. A simple point in the fair direction is enough to show people that you have ruled on the play. A simple point at the "event" and a safe signal would be enough for me. I would not need to verbalize my ruling. I'd point at the batter/catcher and signal safe, a few beats after the "play" occurred.

No disrespect, but that type of approach to mechanics is not accepted at pro schools and will most certainly get you marked down on evaluations at some point in your career.

Yes, you can flip on an MLB game and see, say, a Tim McClelland or Joe West approach it proper, but very lackadaisically mechanically. They've earned the ability to not have to sell calls as much because of the substantial amount of time they've put in, as well as the respect that they have from players and managers as a result of how long they've been around. Compare their mechanics to, say, the mechanics of Dan Bellino or another young and / or fill-in umpire.

Refer to these calls by Bellino:
http://mlb.mlb.com/v...tent_id=8725303
http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=11487845

Note, both times, he repeatedly and emphatically signals his call...that along with his body language just screams "confidence" in what he's ruling. IMO this is what makes him the best young umpire in MLB.

At the amateur level, we're not fortunate enough to see teams on enough of a regular to establish any kind of substantial reputation with them; when there's a close play that is not sold by the umpire, their tendency is to believe we're not confident in it. On the other hand, if they see a guy selling the sh*t out of something, they're less likely to come barreling out of the dugout in a rage. Again, look at Riggleman. Yes, he gets dumped in the OBS clip, but both times, he comes out to Danny very calmly, just seeking an explanation.

I know there's been some movement away from selling calls recently...that nonchalant mechanics will make it seem like the play wasn't as close as it actually was. IMO, selling the call is still the way to go.

In both calls he is changing the expected outcome of the play. In the RI call, you have runners going everywhere and he is trying to kill it, you have to be big and loud. The obstruction call is the same, the runner just got thrown out but he has to kill the ball and award the base. Both calls were excellent calls, handled well.

In the OP, you have a catcher hitting the batter but it is nothing, everyone sees safe and he is going to stay safe. In my experience, if it is to be questioned the catcher does so immediately. Rarely do I get a manager out on this call, maybe a question between innings.

February 4, 2011

I compare this play to a ball that is hit on the baseline, and ends up being fair. We don't shout " FAIR BALL" and make huge pointing gestures and ridiculous antics. A simple point in the fair direction is enough to show people that you have ruled on the play. A simple point at the "event" and a safe signal would be enough for me. I would not need to verbalize my ruling. I'd point at the batter/catcher and signal safe, a few beats after the "play" occurred.

We don't shout "Fair Ball" because it sounds too much like "Foul Ball."

I actually once had a coach come out on a screamer just fair down the line demanding to know why I didn't call it a fair ball.

Me = :question1:

Coach = You didn't say anything, you just pointed. How are my fielders supposed to know what the call is?

And to think, I was criticized earlier on this thread for calling coaches dumb! :FIRE:

Sign In

Batter" Interference Pick off attempt at third

Recommended Posts

charles_31000

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

detailshp

grayhawk

UmpTTS43

spiritump

JaxRolo

detailshp

Umpire in Chief

1dumbquestion

TX-UIC

mstaylor

umpirecordova

JaxRolo

yawetag

Umpire in Chief

Guest

LMSANS

HokieUmp

conbo61

Mr Umpire

Mr Umpire

detailshp

Guest

yawetag

mstaylor

Guest

detailshp

Browse

Activity