batter interference on steal of home

[Guest jim sylvia]

with 2 outs runner takes off for home on a straight steal. pitcher steps off rubber and throws at the feet of the batter and hits him while still in the batters box..

home plate umpire did not see pitcher step off rubber and calls hit by pitch, runner to return to 3rd.

first base umpire calls that the pitcher stepped off rubber and threw home to get the runner. he then calls the batter out for interference ending the inning, claiming that batter did not try hard enough to avoid the throw home. (batter, did in fact try to avoid throw)

assuming that the pitcher did in fact step off, is the base umpires call correct? is there a judgement call as to whether the batter intentionally tried to interfere with the throw home? does the batter have the obligation to try to avoid the throw home if he remains in the batters box?

[BRUMP]

Remember interference is always a judgement call. It sounds like a HTBT situation.

[Guest Bruce]

The batter must intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. Intent is umpires judgement. Now if the batter had hit the thrown ball, THEN you would have interference. In the OP, if the umpire judges that the batter did not intentionally interfere, play on. If he ruled interference, with two out, the batter is out, inning over.

[Jocko]

HTBT, but given the description, sounds like BU was knowledgable, so I say he probably nailed it.

[carolinablue]

I agree with what the others have writtten but isn't that the PU's call. I can see him (The BU ) informing the PU that the pitcher had disengaged but as far as the batters interference is concerned doesn't that call belong to the PU. He was going to send him to 1B so he must have felt he could not avoid. Sounds like his partner kind of threw him under the bus IMHO.

[BRUMP]

I agree with what the others have writtten but isn't that the PU's call. I can see him (The BU ) informing the PU that the pitcher had disengaged but as far as the batters interference is concerned doesn't that call belong to the PU. He was going to send him to 1B so he must have felt he could not avoid. Sounds like his partner kind of threw him under the bus IMHO.

I agree. I think it should be PU all the way on the possible INT.

[NFUA_44]

Thrown ball, not a pitch. Gotta have intent here to get the INT call, in other words the batter has to "do something" to actually interfere. From the description provided he is doing nothing more than trying to get out of the way of what he thinks might be a pitch.

PU didn't see the step off, only thing BU should be doing at this point is telling his partner what he had, and then allowing his partner to change the call based on the new information. Since it's happening right in front of him, he has the best chance to determine what the batter was doing, i.e. avoiding or interfering. Alot of HTBT in this call, but from what was provided I can't see doing anything with the batter except to leave him in the box and play on.

On Edit: Fixed the brain fart!

Edited August 16, 2012 by NFUA_44

[Jocko]

Thrown ball, not a pitch. Gotta have intent here to get the INT call, in other words the batter has to "do something" to actually interfere. From the description provided he is doing nothing more than trying to get out of the way of what he thinks might be a pitch.

PU didn't see the step off, only thing BU should be doing at this point is telling his partner what he had, and then allowing his partner to change the call based on the new information. Since it's happening right in front of him, he has the best chance to determine what the batter was doing, i.e. avoiding or interfering. Alot of HTBT in this call, but from what was provided I can't see doing anything with the batter except to leave him in the box with a ball added to the count.

how would you add a ball to the count? There was no pitch.

[NFUA_44]

Thrown ball, not a pitch. Gotta have intent here to get the INT call, in other words the batter has to "do something" to actually interfere. From the description provided he is doing nothing more than trying to get out of the way of what he thinks might be a pitch.

PU didn't see the step off, only thing BU should be doing at this point is telling his partner what he had, and then allowing his partner to change the call based on the new information. Since it's happening right in front of him, he has the best chance to determine what the batter was doing, i.e. avoiding or interfering. Alot of HTBT in this call, but from what was provided I can't see doing anything with the batter except to leave him in the box with a ball added to the count.

how would you add a ball to the count? There was no pitch.

Because it's 11:30 and I'm tired.............. :smachhead:

[JaxRolo]

Thrown ball, not a pitch. Gotta have intent here to get the INT call, in other words the batter has to "do something" to actually interfere. From the description provided he is doing nothing more than trying to get out of the way of what he thinks might be a pitch.

PU didn't see the step off, only thing BU should be doing at this point is telling his partner what he had, and then allowing his partner to change the call based on the new information. Since it's happening right in front of him, he has the best chance to determine what the batter was doing, i.e. avoiding or interfering. Alot of HTBT in this call, but from what was provided I can't see doing anything with the batter except to leave him in the box with a ball added to the count.

how would you add a ball to the count? There was no pitch.

Because he is an Umpire he can rule whatever he wants!

[noumpere]

So at the end of this then PU has called "time" incorrectly with a play in progress (I agree with the above posts). Now what does he do? What if he thinks that the runner would of been out even though the ball hit the batter (maybe it fell right in the box and the catcher pounced on it for example)?

[Army Ump]

Base umpire is totally wrong, on a number of levels. First, he has no business calling the batter out whether he interfered or not....this was the PU call. BU should've conferred with his partner, informing him that pitcher disengaged, therefore play should've continued....BU and PU can discuss whether batter intentionally allowed himself to get hit ( I suspect that to be unlikely ). The play should've been allowed to evolve, with runner safe on the steal, batter remains at bat. However, if the PU killed the play before runner touched home, I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "correctable error" or not.

As far as adding a ball to the count, that is totally wrong, since pitcher stepped off, making him just another fielder.

Also, technically, if there are two out and the batter interfered on a play at the plate, the runner would be out, whereby the batter would lead off the next inning.... less than two out, batter is out and runner returns to third.

[Jocko]

Again, given the perspective of a spectator, I believe the ruling on the field was probably correct, and the interp we are getting isn't exactly as it happened/as ruled. Come on, guys. Back our unknown brother up. I will always lean toward the side of the umpire.

[Rich Ives]

Again, given the perspective of a spectator, I believe the ruling on the field was probably correct, and the interp we are getting isn't exactly as it happened/as ruled. Come on, guys. Back our unknown brother up. I will always lean toward the side of the umpire.

There are two umpires involved PU and BU.

BU correcting the step-off is OK.

It isn't clear whether or not PU agreed with the BU's INT call, given it was now a throw and not a HBP.

So - How are you picking which one to back?

And - as an aside - given the timing of such a play it's pretty hard for a batter to interfere on that play unless he deliberately blocks the catcher or something really obnoxiously obvious. Just standing there usually doesn't block anything or anyone.

[Jocko]

Rainman, they got together. I'm backing the crew. THEY probably ruled it right. HTBT definitely. IF BI was the call. IF Bu called the BI. If, if, if. I'm siding with the crew that since they got together, they probably got it right.

[BRUMP]

Rainman, they got together. I'm backing the crew. I'm siding with the crew that since they got together, they probably got it right.

I agree. Whenever a crew gets together and discusses the play and then makes a ruling, I think they have to be given the benefit of the doubt because now its not just a single person making a call, its the complete governing body of the field making a ruling. So I would apply this same theory here IF they got together.

[Rich Ives]

Rainman, they got together. I'm backing the crew. THEY probably ruled it right. HTBT definitely. IF BI was the call. IF Bu called the BI. If, if, if. I'm siding with the crew that since they got together, they probably got it right.

Where does it say they got together? It doesn't. You're just assuming.

Oh wait - the description just has to be wrong because it was not written by an umpire. Never mind. :notworthy:

[Jocko]

Rainman, they got together. I'm backing the crew. THEY probably ruled it right. HTBT definitely. IF BI was the call. IF Bu called the BI. If, if, if. I'm siding with the crew that since they got together, they probably got it right.

Where does it say they got together? It doesn't. You're just assuming.

Oh wait - the description just has to be wrong because it was not written by an umpire. Never mind.

ok. The BU was completely wrong. Runner scores on a balk and HBP so B2 gets 1st. I highly doubt the BU just started arbitrarily making calls without discussing it first. And no, not JUST because it isn't an umpire, which I don't know if he is or not, but because it's fan information. I do put a lot more weight on an umps perspective, though.

[Rich Ives]

I highly doubt the BU just started arbitrarily making calls without discussing it first. .

Unfortunately it happens fairly often. Been there. Also read about it happening many many times on the various fora I follow.

YoungNJBlue picked up on it too - that''s why he had the big giant bolded IF in his reply.

[Jocko]

I highly doubt the BU just started arbitrarily making calls without discussing it first. .

Unfortunately it happens fairly often. Been there. Also read about it happening many many times on the various fora I follow.

YoungNJBlue picked up on it too - that''s why he had the big giant bolded IF in his reply.

I will agree with that. Hopefully they did. It's unimaginable to me that there would be no discussion, but we don't know what level, rule set, or anything. My benefit of doubt will always go to the umpires, but sometimes.........

[Guest Don]

with 2 outs runner takes off for home on a straight steal. pitcher steps off rubber and throws at the feet of the batter and hits him while still in the batters box..

home plate umpire did not see pitcher step off rubber and calls hit by pitch, runner to return to 3rd.

first base umpire calls that the pitcher stepped off rubber and threw home to get the runner. he then calls the batter out for interference ending the inning, claiming that batter did not try hard enough to avoid the throw home. (batter, did in fact try to avoid throw)

assuming that the pitcher did in fact step off, is the base umpires call correct? is there a judgement call as to whether the batter intentionally tried to interfere with the throw home? does the batter have the obligation to try to avoid the throw home if he remains in the batters box?

Sound like BU has some good info for the PU, that the pitcher stepped off, so no award for HBP. Everything after that is PU call, and BU should not be making any calls. He can provide his opinion about what the batter should have done, but he should not be calling anybody out.

[jpperez14]

Base umpire is totally wrong, on a number of levels. First, he has no business calling the batter out whether he interfered or not....this was the PU call. BU should've conferred with his partner, informing him that pitcher disengaged, therefore play should've continued....BU and PU can discuss whether batter intentionally allowed himself to get hit ( I suspect that to be unlikely ). The play should've been allowed to evolve, with runner safe on the steal, batter remains at bat. However, if the PU killed the play before runner touched home, I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "correctable error" or not.

As far as adding a ball to the count, that is totally wrong, since pitcher stepped off, making him just another fielder.

Also, technically, if there are two out and the batter interfered on a play at the plate, the runner would be out, whereby the batter would lead off the next inning.... less than two out, batter is out and runner returns to third.

I don't think this is correct? Wouldn't it be:

less than 2 outs, Lead Runner is out for offensive interference

with 2 outs, batter is out for the offensive interference.

i could be wrong, I just thought thats how it was. I feel like I read that somewhere in the MLB rule book. Can anyone else help me out with understanding this? maybe i am thinking of a different situation?

[basejester]

I don't think this is correct? Wouldn't it be:

less than 2 outs, Lead Runner is out for offensive interference

with 2 outs, batter is out for the offensive interference.

i could be wrong, I just thought thats how it was. I feel like I read that somewhere in the MLB rule book. Can anyone else help me out with understanding this? maybe i am thinking of a different situation?

I think you're right, at least with respect to OBR.

7.08 Any runner is out when—

. . .

(g) He attempts to score on a play in which the batter interferes with the play at home

base before two are out. With two out, the interference puts the batter out and no

score counts;

[Guest ALStripes17]

Base umpire is totally wrong, on a number of levels. First, he has no business calling the batter out whether he interfered or not....this was the PU call. BU should've conferred with his partner, informing him that pitcher disengaged, therefore play should've continued....BU and PU can discuss whether batter intentionally allowed himself to get hit ( I suspect that to be unlikely ). The play should've been allowed to evolve, with runner safe on the steal, batter remains at bat. However, if the PU killed the play before runner touched home, I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "correctable error" or not.

As far as adding a ball to the count, that is totally wrong, since pitcher stepped off, making him just another fielder.

Also, technically, if there are two out and the batter interfered on a play at the plate, the runner would be out, whereby the batter would lead off the next inning.... less than two out, batter is out and runner returns to third.

 

I find it amazing that no one corrected the statement bolded above.  DoverArbiter has it backwards.  

[Jimurray]

Again, given the perspective of a spectator, I believe the ruling on the field was probably correct, and the interp we are getting isn't exactly as it happened/as ruled. Come on, guys. Back our unknown brother up. I will always lean toward the side of the umpire.

Ancient thread that has been somehow revived but, you should try to back up your fellow umpires, you don't have back up guys who bought a blue shirt at Academy.