Batter Interference???

[Fittske24]

BRis not going to 1st base, he did no tbecome a runner in this play..

R3 out , R1 back to 1st, Batter back to bat with a 1-0 count.

R1 had rounded 2nd when the interference occured, so R1 stays at 2nd base.

[Rich Ives]

Without seeing I would lean to nothing. If you were looking at pro rules 6.06c doesn't apply because the ball got away from the catcher. At that point the batter needs to clear where ever the felder needs to make a play but the interference needs to intentional. Remember that indifference can be deemed intentional. It doesn't sound like any of that happened. The batter tried to bunt the ball and unintentionally ended up in the way. I would go with nothing.

How would you rule if F2 was trying to make a play on R1 going to second? Using your answer, you would rule nothing. That would be incorrect. The batter is responsible for his actions. Although he unintentionally crossed the plate, he can still be guilty of INT.

If the catcher caught the pitch cleanly - yes.

Once the pitch is past the catcher it's a different ballgame.

the catcher catching the pitch has nothing to do with it... the rule says " if the batter intentionally or unintentionally intefers, hinders, or confuse a defensive player.."

Roder clearly has the "batter" treated as an "offensive teammate" on plays where the ball gets by the catcher. He may be right or wrong, but that's where some of us are coming from.

[jkumpire]

Here is a play that happened in my college game today:

NCAA rules: 1 out, with R1 and R3. 0-0 count on the RH batter. R1 is stealing on the pitch, RH batter squares and attempts a "drag" or "running" bunt. Pitch is a breaking ball in the dirt, catcher blocks the ball and the ball rolls a few feet up first base line (not rolling out of the dirt circle). R3 reads ball in the dirt and breaks for home. The catcher goes to retrieve the baseball to attempt to retire R3 at the plate. On his way back to the plate to attempt to retire R3, the catcher makes contact with the batter who is now standing near the LH batters box in fair territory. At the time of the contact, R1 is standing on second base.

What is your call and place the runners.

I always hate to comment on these because there are times where you can not have inf based on the circumstances of the play with your own eyes.

However, from the description it has to be interference. 24 tells us there is contact made between F2 and Batter as F2 is trying to make a play at the plate. If the BR has tried to bunt the ball legally and vacated his box he has the job to stay out of the way of the play, period, unless something really, really weird happens to the ball (like it hits f2's shin guard and hits the BR as he goes up the line). F2 has the right to make a play on R3, no matter what happens, unless he has done something really, really stupid.

So: If R3 is not put out, R3 is out, R1 returns, Batter has strike or ball added to count. If R3 is put out, R1 is at 2B, batter has strike or ball added to his count.

If it's 2 out on the same play, BR is out, no run scores.

[jkumpire]

Mazz,

Are you sure R1 returns if R3 is out?

[Fittske24]

So: If R3 is not put out, R3 is out, R1 returns, Batter has strike or ball added to count. If R3 is put out, R1 is at 2B, batter has strike or ball added to his count.

If it's 2 out on the same play, BR is out, no run scores.

For this type of interference, runners are placed based on their base at the time the interference occured. R1 stays at second base.

[mazzamouth]

Mazz,

Are you sure R1 returns if R3 is out?

I didnt read where R1 was stealing, so if he had acquired 2nd at the time of INT, then yes he would be allowed to stay at 2nd.. Rule7.09c and 7.08g

[Rich Ives]

Of course, had this been an actual game, my argument would be dependent on whether it was my catcher or my batter. :angel4:

[UmpTTS43]

Of course, had this been an actual game, my argument would be dependent on whether it was my catcher or my batter.

EXACTLY!!!

[cookie]

Here is a play that happened in my college game today:

NCAA rules: 1 out, with R1 and R3. 0-0 count on the RH batter. R1 is stealing on the pitch, RH batter squares and attempts a "drag" or "running" bunt. Pitch is a breaking ball in the dirt, catcher blocks the ball and the ball rolls a few feet up first base line (not rolling out of the dirt circle). R3 reads ball in the dirt and breaks for home. The catcher goes to retrieve the baseball to attempt to retire R3 at the plate. On his way back to the plate to attempt to retire R3, the catcher makes contact with the batter who is now standing near the LH batters box in fair territory. At the time of the contact, R1 is standing on second base.

What is your call and place the runners.

FWIW, I think the same results occur in FED as in NCAA: FED Rule 7-3-5

SECTION 3 BATTING INFRACTIONS - A BATTER SHALL NOT:

ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

a. leaning over home plate,

b. stepping out of the batter’s box,

c. making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner, or

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.

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the

ball remains live and interfer ence is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base

is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch.

So R3 is out, batter is back up at the plate with a strike added to his count, and R1 remains at 2nd because he was there at TOI.

[UMP45]

:hopmad: Ok guys here is my interpretation of the play so go ahead and blast away. I say in this play you have to judge intent. I get this from the drag bunt attempt. The batter is in the LH batters box because of the attempted bunt. This play happens quick . The batter can't disappear. To me the spirit of the rule 7-3-5 has to do with plays at the plate or balls to the backstop thrown to the plate where the batter has time to vacate the area.Remember the defense screwed up also. I find it hard to "goldplate" a screwup unless I have no choice. I am still mulling this over and have some friends I am going to discuss this with.

[mstaylor]

I'm sticking with nothing. Unless the batter does something intentional I have nothing. If there is an appreciable amount of time between the attempt and the contact it is possible to judge indifference by the batter but it has to be obvious. If those two things don't happen then I am letting the play go.

[Fittske24]

I'm sticking with nothing. Unless the batter does something intentional I have nothing. If there is an appreciable amount of time between the attempt and the contact it is possible to judge indifference by the batter but it has to be obvious. If those two things don't happen then I am letting the play go.

The batter did do something intentional.... he left his batters box intentionally after an aborted bunt attempt.....but intent has nothing to do with this play. The rule specifically says (in OBR): The batter/runner is out when "He (batter) 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"

[mstaylor]

I am well aware what 6.06c says and I contend that it doesn't apply once the pitch gets away from the catcher. We will probably never agree and that's fine. Enforce it how you believe it to be, we just have to hope we aren't the other's protest committee. :cheers: