Interference or Train Wreck?

[mbrown2097]

0 on, 0 outs. 

Batter swings and misses for strike 3.

Catcher drops strike 3.

Batter on his back swing steps on the ball and knocks it away from the catcher. (Obviously accidentally.)

 

Train wreck, play on? or

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—

© He 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.

EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or

if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

 

[UmpJM]

Train wreck (minor). Live ball, play the bounce.

 

JM

[HeadHunterLA]

I'd say play on, minor train wreck.

[tldavis19]

Train wreck (minor). Live ball, play the bounce.

 

JM

+1

[semper_fi_72]

One thing to consider when determining Interference.

Was it intentional, deliberate and could any action have been taken to avoid it?

If not, it is not interference.

 

Would you call Umpires interference if you kicked the ball away trying to get out of F2s way when he tried to retrieve the ball?

[bam]

That's a train wreck only in the sense that it's awful to watch. 

[Jimurray]

7.09(a) changed this year:

 

"7.09

 

 

It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(a) After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases

they occupied at the time of the pitch.

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently

touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the

batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

 

Still umpire judgement in "clear hindrance" which I don't think this was.

[umpire_scott]

7.09(a) changed this year:

 

"7.09

 

 

It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(a) After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases

they occupied at the time of the pitch.

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently

touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the

batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

 

Still umpire judgement in "clear hindrance" which I don't think this was.

 

But nothing in that rule infers intent either.  If he kicks the ball to the backstop while running he has clearly hindered the catcher, even though it may have not been intentional.  

[mstaylor]

Anybody have a 2013 MLBUM, we need a case play. I would rule nothing unless deemed intentional. It's hard to bang the batter form the catcher screwing up. 

[BigUmpire]

CHOOO CHOOOO Bang!

[noumpere]

Anybody have a 2013 MLBUM, we need a case play. I would rule nothing unless deemed intentional. It's hard to bang the batter form the catcher screwing up. 

There is the case play or maybe its from Evans where if the ball is in the vicinity of the plate its nothing absent intent but if its farther from the plate then its something because the players are skilled enough to be able to avoid it then so we 'assume" the intent.

 

The play described is still nothing.

[ricka56]

Question, how did the ball get on the ground where B could step on/kick the ball. Didn't F2 already have a chance to field the pitch. F2 (unintentionally) put the ball in this place where B unintentionally contacted it. Unless B intentionally kicked it, this is nothing.

[mbrown2097]

Pitch hit catcher's mit, fell to ground and rolled into the batter's box where batter was in the process of finishing his slow motion back swing .  His (batter's) back foot moved into/onto the ball before he even knew that the catcher had dropped it. 

[ricka56]

Pitch hit catcher's mit, fell to ground and rolled into the batter's box where batter was in the process of finishing his slow motion back swing .  His (batter's) back foot moved into/onto the ball before he even knew that the catcher had dropped it. 

F2 had his chance to play the ball. There is no batter interference unless B did more intentionally..

[Jimurray]

 

Anybody have a 2013 MLBUM, we need a case play. I would rule nothing unless deemed intentional. It's hard to bang the batter form the catcher screwing up. 

There is the case play or maybe its from Evans where if the ball is in the vicinity of the plate its nothing absent intent but if its farther from the plate then its something because the players are skilled enough to be able to avoid it then so we 'assume" the intent.

 

The play described is still nothing.

 

 

MLBUM changed this year to accomodate the 7.09(a) change. Proximity is no longer a factor. I can't type it all now but "The location of the batter-runner is no longer relevant."