A Play From Another Game

[carolinablue]

So I worked 3 14U games today and after I finished the final game I went to get my pay. While I was there, the TD and a couple of umpires were discussing how an umpire had cost a team a game because he kicked a call. Here's the play, R3 attempting to steal home, F1 legally disengages and makes a throw home, umpire calls R3 safe but, apparently the batter never left the box and the DC wanted batter's interference but it wasn't called.

Anyway, they asked me what I thought about the play and I said I needed more info to know what I would call. They looked at me funny and pretty much stated that if the batter didn't try to get out of the way it was INT. My point of view is that just because he didn't attempt to move doesn't mean it's INT, he still has to actually interfere with the play. While it would be hard for him to stay in the box and not interfere it is possible so I choose not to criticize the call without all the info.

Am I correct about this? I thought I would post the situation on here, it may be a decent discussion.

[BRUMP]

If it was a righty batter and he was in the box I can't see a way he doesn't interfere with the runner however if he doesn't interfere with the catcher receiving the ball or the tag then no interference. Intent doesn't matter.

[UMP45]

Intent matters.

[BRUMP]

Intent matters.

Your right I misread the post.

[JaxRolo]

Intent matters.

yes it does

[Richvee]

It would also matter if he swung at the throw home. Even a swing and miss I would think is INT, hindering the F2's attempt at a play on F3. If he's just standing there, it seems to me he's hindering his baserunner more than F2 trying to put a tag down. Did F2 step up to catch the throw and the batter was hindering his ability to catch the throw home? Lots to consider. Absolutely HTBT.

[mstaylor]

You do need more information. Was the catcher unable to get around the batter to make a tag? Did the batter attempt to swing at the pitch? Did he have the time to get out of the way? What likely happened was the R3 took off for home, everybody is yelling to step off but the runner is most of the way home before the pitcher steps off. Until he steps off the batter is still expecting a pitch so has to stay there. Once he steps off the batter has to be able to process the fact that he has disengaged and is not making a legal pitch, then attempt to clear. There simply may not be enough time for that whole process.

This is a long process to say the batter may be innocent.

[Jocko]

As far as the discussion you were in, you di right. Never throw a brother-in-blue under the bus even if it was a different field.

As far as the discussion here, intent does play a role. Almost impossible to expound on without having seen it.

[stl_ump]

Why would intent matter. It's not like it's a lose ball or anything. If he's in the way, he's in the way.

Or is it similar to when a catcher throws to 3rd on an attempted steal? Batter stays in the box and he is OK, get out of the box and you could be in trouble.

[Dannytheman]

I have told many a TD that anything close is a HTBT call. I try to never second guess a call. IF I see it, I might talk with the umpire after and ask them what they saw.

I have found, as many here can attest, that in this "What would you do?" question and answer sceneros you do not get all the information, and sometimes only get the information from the team it impacted, and we know that would be slanted.

[Rich Ives]

Why would intent matter. It's not like it's a lose ball or anything. If he's in the way, he's in the way.

Or is it similar to when a catcher throws to 3rd on an attempted steal? Batter stays in the box and he is OK, get out of the box and you could be in trouble.

It's in the "can't evaporarte" category - similar to your SB throw to 3B.

The batter is not automatically "OK" in the box in either case. He cannot do something abnormal that results in interference.

[stl_ump]

Why would intent matter. It's not like it's a lose ball or anything. If he's in the way, he's in the way.

Or is it similar to when a catcher throws to 3rd on an attempted steal? Batter stays in the box and he is OK, get out of the box and you could be in trouble.

It's in the "can't evaporarte" category - similar to your SB throw to 3B.

The batter is not automatically "OK" in the box in either case. He cannot do something abnormal that results in interference.

So if he's not DOING something, other than just standing there, no INT should be called?

[noumpere]

Why would intent matter. It's not like it's a lose ball or anything. If he's in the way, he's in the way.

Or is it similar to when a catcher throws to 3rd on an attempted steal? Batter stays in the box and he is OK, get out of the box and you could be in trouble.

It's in the "can't evaporarte" category - similar to your SB throw to 3B.

The batter is not automatically "OK" in the box in either case. He cannot do something abnormal that results in interference.

So if he's not DOING something, other than just standing there, no INT should be called?

Probably on the play thats described this is correct. But if he had a reasonable chance to move and didnt then there would likely be interference. For example if R3 breaks, F1 steps off, R3 stop, F1 runs at him, R3 heads for the plate and now theres a throw. Plenty of time for the batter to move.

[grayhawk]

I find that, especially below varsity, many batters don't understand when the should/shouldn't vacate the box. They hear their coaches tell them to stay in the box on throws from F2, and think that applies to plays at the plate too.