Batter interference or not

[jjskitours]

No out and R2 at second and stealing on the pitch. B1 takes the pitch. B1 does not move, except he bends over and ducks as F2 attempts the throw to third to retire R2. B1 and F2 make contact, get tangled up and F2's throw goes into left field and R2 scores. I realize this is probably a "had to be there", but my question comes from the wording under an NF case play. Batter is okay as long as he doesn't "move" or re-establish his position. I assume this would be considered moving and leave the batter open for a possible INT call. What do you think?

[GreyhoundAggie]

does he bend over the plate? The batter is entitled to the batter's box, but if he got himself out over the plate and interfered with the throw. you have BI.

 

I probably have a BI here, unless the batter managed to keep his body in the box while bent over.

[SnareDrum]

7-3-5c: (Batter shall not) Interfere with the catchers fielding or throwing by making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner.  a & b are: leaning over home plate and stepping out of the box, so there are three possibilities.

 

Always a tough judgement call. Did the batter make a movement and hinder the catcher's attempt? Yes this is a HTBT, but as you describe it, I (probably) have BI. Watch a well coached team or an MLB game, and with a runner stealing 3B the batter will usually freeze (if he doesn't swing) because they don't want to chance a BI call.

[Thunderheads]

that batter is entitled to the box but that does not exonerate him from INT ....  if he bent over, and in the act of bending over tangles w/ F2 making a play, that's INT, he's out, and R2 goes back to 2nd ....

 

As always ,.... you can throw a HTBT in there as well ....

 

EDIT: Looks like Snaredrum and I answered at the same time

[mstaylor]

Many times BI happens when a batter is trying to clear out, thinking by staying there he will get  banged. When his manager says he was trying to be good and clear. I tell them by trying to do good, they did bad. 

[JaxRolo]

In the OP I so not have int.

F2 should have stepped to the left to make the throw to 3rd.

If batter bent over and f2 made contact I don't see int

[GreyhoundAggie]

I'm a moron. Totally read the OP as R1.

 

This could be BI if he moved into F2's throwing path, but if all he did was bend over inside the batter's box, I am prolly not getting him for it.

 

Definitely a HTBT I agree.

[HeadHunterLA]

Pretty sure I'd have BI on this one, sounds fairly clear cut to me!

[Replacematt]

The box is not a safe haven.

 

HTBT.

[Richvee]

HTBT, but the way the OP is worded, I don't think I have BI. I have a hard time visualizing how bending at the waist hindered F2. If anything it should have gave F2 a better throwing lane. I picture F2 taking a step toward 3rd ,  throwing the bali and sort of falling over B2 after the throw. I don't think I'm banging B2 for that. 

[JaxRolo]

The box is not a safe haven.

HTBT.

It pretty much is. It's a catchers responsibility to Find a lane to throw

[JaxRolo]

Pretty sure I'd have BI on this one, sounds fairly clear cut to me!

Can you explain your reasoning?

[NFUA_44]

The box is not a safe haven.

HTBT.

It pretty much is. It's a catchers responsibility to Find a lane to throw

And it's the batters responsibility to not interfere.  If B1 sits still and does nothing then F2 can choose whatever lane he wants, but once he starts to make that play the additional movement or contact is what is going to get him everytime.  Just because he is in the box doesn't mean he didn't do something "more" to cause the interference.

 

It's a call that will usually be quite obvious when you see it, although coaches will want it in every circumstance.    This is why it's such a HTBT for us to discuss, we really need to see how it happened, try to get a read on intent if that's possible, and see the big picture.

 

In the OP the way I'm READING it, it appears that I have an F2 who has started to make a play, B1 makes a move drawing the contact and causes the INT.  It could easily be 180 degrees the other direction, I didn't see it.

[JaxRolo]

 

The box is not a safe haven.

HTBT.

It pretty much is. It's a catchers responsibility to Find a lane to throw

And it's the batters responsibility to not interfere.  If B1 sits still and does nothing then F2 can choose whatever lane he wants, but once he starts to make that play the additional movement or contact is what is going to get him everytime.  Just because he is in the box doesn't mean he didn't do something "more" to cause the interference.

 

It's a call that will usually be quite obvious when you see it, although coaches will want it in every circumstance.    This is why it's such a HTBT for us to discuss, we really need to see how it happened, try to get a read on intent if that's possible, and see the big picture.

 

In the OP the way I'm READING it, it appears that I have an F2 who has started to make a play, B1 makes a move drawing the contact and causes the INT.  It could easily be 180 degrees the other direction, I didn't see it.

I agree. We are speculating. The way I see it. when B1 ducked the catcher should not have had a problem throwing over him. The contact had to be on F2's follow through after the throw.

 

Again just my perspective.

 

Then again I am wrong 92.6% of the time

[noumpere]

The box is not a safe haven.

HTBT.

It pretty much is. It's a catchers responsibility to Find a lane to throw

It pretty much isn't. 

 

If it was then there wouldn't be the need for the "or make any other movement" part of the rule.

 

the box is just the starting point for the batter.  Since he cant just disappear we're going not going to let the catcher just hit him with the ball to get a cheap out, but were also going to require him to stay in the "batting position"  so the catcher can know what to do.

 

If he moves into the way, even if he's trying to get out of the way, then it's too bad but it could be interference.

 

Now, I'm having trouble seeing a duck as moving into the way but it certainly is possible

[UmpJM]

I concur with the general sentiment that this is a HTBT.

 

By ducking, the batter made himself LIABLE to a BI call - because it is clearly an "unusual movement", and making an unusual movement, even if still in the box, makes him liable.

 

But, the umpire also must judge that that movement hindered the catcher's opportunity to throw out the runner.

 

As I'm picturing it (which may very well have no relation to what actually happened) it would be unlikely that ducking would hinder the catcher, but it is certainly possible that it could.

 

JM

[Rich Ives]

 

The box is not a safe haven.

HTBT.

It pretty much is. It's a catchers responsibility to Find a lane to throw

It pretty much isn't. 

 

If it was then there wouldn't be the need for the "or make any other movement" part of the rule.

 

the box is just the starting point for the batter.  Since he cant just disappear we're going not going to let the catcher just hit him with the ball to get a cheap out, but were also going to require him to stay in the "batting position"  so the catcher can know what to do.

 

If he moves into the way, even if he's trying to get out of the way, then it's too bad but it could be interference.

 

Now, I'm having trouble seeing a duck as moving into the way but it certainly is possible

 

Read the WHOLE phrase

 

" . . making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play . . "

 

I can't imagine how merely ducking would hinder the catcher.

 

He does NOT have to stay in a "batting position"  -  he just cannot move and by doing so hinder the catcher's play

[Rich Ives]

I concur with the general sentiment that this is a HTBT.

 

By ducking, the batter made himself LIABLE to a BI call - because it is clearly an "unusual movement", and making an unusual movement, even if still in the box, makes him liable.

 

But, the umpire also must judge that that movement hindered the catcher's opportunity to throw out the runner.

 

As I'm picturing it (which may very well have no relation to what actually happened) it would be unlikely that ducking would hinder the catcher, but it is certainly possible that it could.

 

JM

 

I see pros duck frequent;y. I wouldn't call it unusual.

[noumpere]

 

 

The box is not a safe haven.

HTBT.

It pretty much is. It's a catchers responsibility to Find a lane to throw

It pretty much isn't. 

 

If it was then there wouldn't be the need for the "or make any other movement" part of the rule.

 

the box is just the starting point for the batter.  Since he cant just disappear we're going not going to let the catcher just hit him with the ball to get a cheap out, but were also going to require him to stay in the "batting position"  so the catcher can know what to do.

 

If he moves into the way, even if he's trying to get out of the way, then it's too bad but it could be interference.

 

Now, I'm having trouble seeing a duck as moving into the way but it certainly is possible

 

Read the WHOLE phrase

 

" . . making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play . . "

 

I can't imagine how merely ducking would hinder the catcher.

 

He does NOT have to stay in a "batting position"  -  he just cannot move and by doing so hinder the catcher's play

I think were saying the same thing here

[mstaylor]

I agree with noumpire and John, the movement makes him liable for BI, it does not make it automatic. This is one of those situations where we have to umpire. 

[mstaylor]

I concur with the general sentiment that this is a HTBT.

 

By ducking, the batter made himself LIABLE to a BI call - because it is clearly an "unusual movement", and making an unusual movement, even if still in the box, makes him liable.

 

But, the umpire also must judge that that movement hindered the catcher's opportunity to throw out the runner.

 

As I'm picturing it (which may very well have no relation to what actually happened) it would be unlikely that ducking would hinder the catcher, but it is certainly possible that it could.

 

JM

 

I see pros duck frequent;y. I wouldn't call it unusual.

I saw Billy Ripken banged for BI for taking a small step backwards in the box. He was still in his basic stance, stayed in the box but it was a small step backwards. Absolutely a good call. Saying pros duck means nothing, they don't squat about the rules, just listen to almost any announcer that used to play professional baseball. Bending over can absolutely put him in the throwing lane, does it automatically mean he interfered, not at all.

[Rich Ives]

 

I concur with the general sentiment that this is a HTBT.

 

By ducking, the batter made himself LIABLE to a BI call - because it is clearly an "unusual movement", and making an unusual movement, even if still in the box, makes him liable.

 

But, the umpire also must judge that that movement hindered the catcher's opportunity to throw out the runner.

 

As I'm picturing it (which may very well have no relation to what actually happened) it would be unlikely that ducking would hinder the catcher, but it is certainly possible that it could.

 

JM

 

I see pros duck frequent;y. I wouldn't call it unusual.

I saw Billy Ripken banged for BI for taking a small step backwards in the box. He was still in his basic stance, stayed in the box but it was a small step backwards. Absolutely a good call. Saying pros duck means nothing, they don't squat about the rules, just listen to almost any announcer that used to play professional baseball. Bending over can absolutely put him in the throwing lane, does it automatically mean he interfered, not at all.

 

Who said anything about a step back?

 

Who said anything about what announcers say?

 

Bending over will only put you in a throwing lane if the catcher drops to his knees to throw.

[SnareDrum]

A catcher has just under a second to receive the pitch and make a throw. Good catchers are coached that with R2, to glance at the batter's feet and get an idea of where and how to throw the ball (usually behind the batter). . They don't have time to stand there and choose the best path, and yes, I've seen many attempt the throw from a knee. The batter should be coached to freeze, since this is the only way within the rule to ensure not getting BI'd. If he moves, he takes his chances.

 

If the batter makes any movement to hinder the throw...... no, it's not automatic, but as mstaylor said... " This is one of those situations where we have to umpire."  Either the batter "hindered" the throw, or he didn't. 

[Replacematt]

The box is not a safe haven.

HTBT.

It pretty much is. It's a catchers responsibility to Find a lane to throw

 

Not if the batter's moving.

[mstaylor]

Who said anything about a step back?

I am pointing out that the box is not sacrosanct. Movement doesn't mean auto BI but it makes him liable, including bending over. 

 

Who said anything about what announcers say?

I am pointing out that because they do it in the pros means nothing. Pros don't know the rules, point being proven by announcers. 

 

Bending over will only put you in a throwing lane if the catcher drops to his knees to throw.

Not necessarily true, they can lean three different directions. 

[Aging_Arbiter]

 

Who said anything about a step back?

I am pointing out that the box is not sacrosanct. Movement doesn't mean auto BI but it makes him liable, including bending over. 

 

Who said anything about what announcers say?

I am pointing out that because they do it in the pros means nothing. Pros don't know the rules, point being proven by announcers. 

 

Bending over will only put you in a throwing lane if the catcher drops to his knees to throw.

Not necessarily true, they can lean three different directions. 

 

 

WHOA!   I just had the image of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix"