Judging Batter Interference

[umpire_scott]

Had a situation where the catcher was slightly impeded in his throw down to second by the batters swinging at an outside pitch and the force of the swing carrying him near the plate.  In my opinion it was a pretty standard swing.  He leaned and lost a little balance, but did not step across. 

 

What thought processes do you guys use in judging whether to call batters interference where it's clear their is no intent?

[mstaylor]

Intent has no part in BI. If they interfere, call it.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[umpire_scott]

Intent has no part in BI. If they interfere, call it.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

I realize that there does not need to be intent.  But depending on the step of the catcher (for instance he steps over the inside portion of the plate), a rather normal swing can produce some alteration of the catchers throw.  So I'm wondering what thought process you use to judge whether you have interference or not.

[scrounge]

 

Intent has no part in BI. If they interfere, call it.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

I realize that there does not need to be intent.  But depending on the step of the catcher (for instance he steps over the inside portion of the plate), a rather normal swing can produce some alteration of the catchers throw.  So I'm wondering what thought process you use to judge whether you have interference or not.

 

 

Then why did you condition your original question by saying it was clear there was no intent?

 

Anyways, I'd say for me, I watch to judge whether the batter materially interfered with a legitimate, proper throw. If the catcher - either intentionally trying to 'buy' a call or just going with the momentum of an inside pitch - is throwing from the batter's box, I'm going to have a VERY hard time calling the batter for BI. If the batter leans into or stumbles across the plate and completely blocks or impedes the catcher, I'm going to have a VERY easy time calling the batter for BI. In between is where the judgment comes in, but for me, I'm looking for displacement from the batters' box, abnormal or exaggerated movement, or something beyond the 'ordinary'.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

Intent has no part in BI. If they interfere, call it.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

I realize that there does not need to be intent.  But depending on the step of the catcher (for instance he steps over the inside portion of the plate), a rather normal swing can produce some alteration of the catchers throw.  So I'm wondering what thought process you use to judge whether you have interference or not.

 

 

Then why did you condition your original question by saying it was clear there was no intent?

 

Anyways, I'd say for me, I watch to judge whether the batter materially interfered with a legitimate, proper throw. If the catcher - either intentionally trying to 'buy' a call or just going with the momentum of an inside pitch - is throwing from the batter's box, I'm going to have a VERY hard time calling the batter for BI. If the batter leans into or stumbles across the plate and completely blocks or impedes the catcher, I'm going to have a VERY easy time calling the batter for BI. In between is where the judgment comes in, but for me, I'm looking for displacement from the batters' box, abnormal or exaggerated movement, or something beyond the 'ordinary'.

 

 

Because if there was intent I'm going to give less "benefit of the doubt" to the batter on that "in between" area.

[umpire_scott]

Thanks Scrounge.  That is very similar logic to what I used.  The batter was still in the box and was leaning over from the momentum of his swing.  It seemed very ordinary to me.  I don't think the catcher was trying to buy a call, he just took a very straight approach directly over the plate, and his follow through was marginally effected.  The DC complained a little and I explained that while there does not have to be intent I did not have the batter doing anything abnormal to interfere with the catcher.

[maven]

I look for 2 things: batter out of the box, and hindrance. Both are required.

If there's contact, I will rule immediately and signal safe/"that's nothing" or point/"that's interference".

It's not difficult.

maven

[johnnyg08]

You said in your OP that he slightly impeded.

Sounds like BI to me.

[noumpere]

I look for 2 things: batter out of the box, and hindrance. Both are required.

If there's contact, I will rule immediately and signal safe/"that's nothing" or point/"that's interference".

It's not difficult.

maven

The batter doesnt need to be out of the boax -- he needs to make "any other movement" and sometimes you just have to umpire to decide what that is.  You cant get a laundry list of the specific moves that are and are not allowed in every situation, despite what the FED tries to do sometimes and I'm beginning to see why.

[maven]

I look for 2 things: batter out of the box, and hindrance. Both are required. If there's contact, I will rule immediately and signal safe/"that's nothing" or point/"that's interference". It's not difficult. maven

The batter doesnt need to be out of the boax -- he needs to make "any other movement" and sometimes you just have to umpire to decide what that is. You cant get a laundry list of the specific moves that are and are not allowed in every situation, despite what the FED tries to do sometimes and I'm beginning to see why. You're right. I oversimplified.

[ERW27]

I look for 2 things: batter out of the box, and hindrance. Both are required.

If there's contact, I will rule immediately and signal safe/"that's nothing" or point/"that's interference".

It's not difficult.

maven

Stupid question. Had this happen last night. Obvious Batter interference. Right handed batter who took two steps and was straddling home plate. Catcher went to throw to second but made contact with batter as arm was cocked and ready to fire. He held on to the ball. Coach said can't have interference without a throw. I disagreed. The BI caused him not to throw. Does there need to be an attempt of a throw though?

[scrounge]

There has to be an attempt at a play, and a catcher trying to throw but stopping because there's a batter interfering and in the way is most certainly an attempt at making a play. Coach be wrong.

[noumpere]

 

Stupid question. Had this happen last night. Obvious Batter interference. Right handed batter who took two steps and was straddling home plate. Catcher went to throw to second but made contact with batter as arm was cocked and ready to fire. He held on to the ball. Coach said can't have interference without a throw. I disagreed. The BI caused him not to throw. Does there need to be an attempt of a throw though?

maven

 

You need to decide if he stopped because of the batter, or because he didn't have a grip on the ball, or because R1 was going to be safe anyway, of if the thought there was also an R3 and was trying to fake him out, or because F4 / F6 weren't covering, ....

[maven]

 

 

Stupid question. Had this happen last night. Obvious Batter interference. Right handed batter who took two steps and was straddling home plate. Catcher went to throw to second but made contact with batter as arm was cocked and ready to fire. He held on to the ball. Coach said can't have interference without a throw. I disagreed. The BI caused him not to throw. Does there need to be an attempt of a throw though?

maven

 

You need to decide if he stopped because of the batter, or because he didn't have a grip on the ball, or because R1 was going to be safe anyway, of if the thought there was also an R3 and was trying to fake him out, or because F4 / F6 weren't covering, ....

 

 

This makes it sound awfully difficult, with so much to judge.

 

Both OBR and FED define BI in terms of hindering F2's fielding OR throwing. If the batter does not want to be liable for BI, he shouldn't swing out of his shoes and fall over the plate.

 

I know at least one HS coach around here who coaches his batters to step over the plate when R1 is stealing. F2 does need to make an attempt to play, and @noumpere is right, there must be hindrance to rule INT. But borderline cases go to the defense here.

 

A throw is NOT required to rule INT, but hindrance is.