Interference?

[tldavis19]

This came up in my meeting last night. Not my game, but once ya'll discuss it I'll tell you how they ruled.

R1 on first with one out and batter at the plate has one strike. Runner goes on the pitch (high and outside). The batter swings at the pitch so hard that he spins around and ends up standing in front of the catcher who goes to throw but doesn't release the ball. Why he doesn't release the ball is unclear, it could've been because the batter was in front of him or he thought he couldn't beat the runner. How would you rule on this? If you need any more info on the play just ask.

FED Rules BTW.

[johnnyg08]

This came up in my meeting last night. Not my game, but once ya'll discuss it I'll tell you how they ruled.

R1 on first with one out and batter at the plate has one strike. Runner goes on the pitch (high and outside). The batter swings at the pitch so hard that he spins around and ends up standing in front of the catcher who goes to throw but doesn't release the ball. Why he doesn't release the ball is unclear, it could've been because the batter was in front of him or he thought he couldn't beat the runner. How would you rule on this? If you need any more info on the play just ask.

FED Rules BTW.

 

 

Sounds like F2 aborted his attempt to retire R1 due to the batter's interference.

 

I have interference w/o seeing the play.  Batter out, return the runner.

 

It's not quite as black and white as I'm putting it, but w/o seeing the play w/ my own eyes, I can only go off of your description.  

 

Thanks.

[tldavis19]

The way it was described in the meeting was that the catcher would've nailed the batter in the head had he thrown it.

[Rich Ives]

This came up in my meeting last night. Not my game, but once ya'll discuss it I'll tell you how they ruled.

R1 on first with one out and batter at the plate has one strike. Runner goes on the pitch (high and outside). The batter swings at the pitch so hard that he spins around and ends up standing in front of the catcher who goes to throw but doesn't release the ball. Why he doesn't release the ball is unclear, it could've been because the batter was in front of him or he thought he couldn't beat the runner. How would you rule on this? If you need any more info on the play just ask.

FED Rules BTW.

 

 

I'd have to see that one. Sometimes the stumble is "instant" and would be interference. Sometimes it take a couple of hops and stumbles, giving the catcher plenty of time to throw. And with experience you will have a pretty good idea of when a catcher elected to not throw anyhow.

[Rich Ives]

The way it was described in the meeting was that the catcher would've nailed the batter in the head had he thrown it.

 

 

It's the timing that matters.

[tldavis19]

I went home last night and grabbed a bat and tried to swing it hard enough to see how hard I would have to swing to end up in front of the plate. I could not, not matter how hard I tried, swing in such a way that I "accidentally" ended up in front of home plate.

[tldavis19]

I'm trying to give as much info as I can. This is how it was presented at the meeting. We argued over this for 45 minutes. The PU ruled no interference because in his judgement F2 couldn't have gotten R1 at second. The BU thought it was because F2 had no throwing lane to even attempt the putout without hitting the batter. PU admitted had F2 released the ball he would've had interference. Let me ask this. Does the fact F2 didn't throw stop you from calling interference or do you call it anyway?

The problem I had is I'm not going to encourage a play where one kid has to hurt another just to get a call. That's a slippery slope....

[Rich Ives]

I went home last night and grabbed a bat and tried to swing it hard enough to see how hard I would have to swing to end up in front of the plate. I could not, not matter how hard I tried, swing in such a way that I "accidentally" ended up in front of home plate.

 

I've seen it happen a bunch.

 

Try it while lunging at an outside pitch. Make sure your weight goes over the front foot.

 

Also, because you know you;re experimenting your reactions may be different. You will need to try it without knowing you are experimenting.

[noumpere]

This came up in my meeting last night. Not my game, but once ya'll discuss it I'll tell you how they ruled.

R1 on first with one out and batter at the plate has one strike. Runner goes on the pitch (high and outside). The batter swings at the pitch so hard that he spins around and ends up standing in front of the catcher who goes to throw but doesn't release the ball. Why he doesn't release the ball is unclear, it could've been because the batter was in front of him or he thought he couldn't beat the runner. How would you rule on this? If you need any more info on the play just ask.

FED Rules BTW.

Whats that saying -- sometimes you need to umpire.  The benefit of the doubt goes to the catcher here so its more likely to be interference than not to be interference but maybe there are other circumstances.

 

For example the play says the pitch was high and outside,  In that case the catchers normal or usual motion would take him away from the batter so if he then stepped behind the batter it might not be interference.

 

Let me add because it was asked later that you dont need a throw to have interference but you do need an attempt to throw.

[grayhawk]

I'm trying to give as much info as I can. This is how it was presented at the meeting. We argued over this for 45 minutes. The PU ruled no interference because in his judgement F2 couldn't have gotten R1 at second. The BU thought it was because F2 had no throwing lane to even attempt the putout without hitting the batter. PU admitted had F2 released the ball he would've had interference. Let me ask this. Does the fact F2 didn't throw stop you from calling interference or do you call it anyway?

The problem I had is I'm not going to encourage a play where one kid has to hurt another just to get a call. That's a slippery slope....

 

The bolded is pretty much all I need to know.  If I think F2 is attempting to throw but the batter has denied him a lane to do so, it's BI.  PU's judgement about F2 not being able to retire R1 is irrelevant.

[tldavis19]

I'm trying to give as much info as I can. This is how it was presented at the meeting. We argued over this for 45 minutes. The PU ruled no interference because in his judgement F2 couldn't have gotten R1 at second. The BU thought it was because F2 had no throwing lane to even attempt the putout without hitting the batter. PU admitted had F2 released the ball he would've had interference. Let me ask this. Does the fact F2 didn't throw stop you from calling interference or do you call it anyway?

The problem I had is I'm not going to encourage a play where one kid has to hurt another just to get a call. That's a slippery slope....

The bolded is pretty much all I need to know. If I think F2 is attempting to throw but the batter has denied him a lane to do so, it's BI. PU's judgement about F2 not being able to retire R1 is irrelevant.

This was the consensus in the room last night

[Thunderheads]

you're welcome!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzF-S63c6xE

[clawdad]

you're welcome!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzF-S63c6xE

Nice video,  good example.

 

 Nice commentary from the stands, too.  "He's in the box!"

[Thunderheads]

you're welcome!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzF-S63c6xE

Nice video,  good example.

 

 Nice commentary from the stands, too.  "He's in the box!"

I know! pathetic isn't it ????

[noumpere]

One play I thought of relating to this happened to me many years ago.  For some reason the batter ended up at about the edge of the grass / dirt directly in front of the plate.  But, he then crouched down.  F2 didn't throw.  I didn't have interference because the batter was never really in the way even though he was not where he was "supposed to be."

[grayhawk]

It's these types of plays that bring out the stupid in the fans.

 

"He was in the box"

"He didn't touch anyone" (I think this was OC)

"You gotta get your rule..." (I assume the next word was either "straight" or "right")

 

Announcer: "Ruling is batter interference. RUNNER is out."

 

Also - excellent mechanics by PU.  "That's interference!"  while pointing.  Let's play end and then (not sure if he called time first?), points runner back to first. 

[tldavis19]

What mechanic would you use? Call "that's interference" right then or signal delayed dead ball then call interference after the play? To let the play happen if a throw is attempted

[noumpere]

Call it when it happens -- point - "that's interference".  Then wait.  Even if FED still had the ddb signal you wouldn't really have time to use it in this situation.

[JRobinson]

Can't see the video on iPhone but I agree with johnnyg.

All the catcher has to do is feint the throw, not actually throw it as noumpere stated. BR out, R1 returns.

However, if catcher makes the throw and retires R1, obviously the interference is nullified.

And yes, the mechanic described by noumpere and greyhawk is correct.

[grayhawk]

I will say that PU didn't complete the mechanic.  It should have been:

 

"That's interference!"  while pointing.

Let the play finish.

As soon as R1 is not retired on the initial attempt, call  "Time!  That's batter interference.  You're out (hammer, looking at batter).  You (pointing to runner), back to first (pointing to first)."

 

An unapproved, but advanced mechanic at this point is to place each index finger in the corresponding ear and repeat "la la la la la la la" to drown out the stupid fan complaints.

[JRobinson]

I will say that PU didn't complete the mechanic.  It should have been:

 

"That's interference!"  while pointing.

Let the play finish.

As soon as R1 is not retired on the initial attempt, call  "Time!  That's batter interference.  You're out (hammer, looking at batter).  You (pointing to runner), back to first (pointing to first)."

 

An unapproved, but advanced mechanic at this point is to place each index finger in the corresponding ear and repeat "la la la la la la la" to drown out the stupid fan complaints.

Correct

[JaxRolo]

Can't see the video on iPhone but I agree with johnnyg.

All the catcher has to do is feint the throw, not actually throw it as noumpere stated. BR out, R1 returns.

However, if catcher makes the throw and retires R1, obviously the interference is nullified.

And yes, the mechanic described by noumpere and greyhawk is correct.

In fed interference is always a dead ball. So it's an instant out.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[th3]

 this is a delayed dead ball..

[Pete Peterson Sr]

Can't see the video on iPhone but I agree with johnnyg.

All the catcher has to do is feint the throw, not actually throw it as noumpere stated. BR out, R1 returns.

However, if catcher makes the throw and retires R1, obviously the interference is nullified.

And yes, the mechanic described by noumpere and greyhawk is correct.

In fed interference is always a dead ball. So it's an instant out.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 It is a delayed dead ball. If the runner is retired (on the initial throw),  the interference is ignored. If not retired, the penalty is applied.

[JaxRolo]

Thank you. I knew that but made myself believe otherwise.