Wild Pitch - Batter INT

[zoops]

OBR.  Right handed batter, runner on 3rd.  Wild pitch kicks off the catcher towards the 3rd base dugout and ends up about 15' from home plate.  Catcher runs over and picks up the ball while R3 is coming home.  The batter stepped about a foot out of the box (about where he would be to take signs) immediately and in seeing that the catcher is going to throw home, squats down as low as he can.  The throw from the catcher hits the batter in the back.  It would have been a fairly close play at home, but almost surely safe.  

 

Rule 6.06 (c ) says that the batter is out when he interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base.  

 

The rule makes me think batter out and runners return, but some part of me thinks the batter didn't make an abnormal play (when do you ever see a batter stay in the box as a runner comes in to score on a wild pitch?) to cause the interference and that you could just call it nothing.  Probably overthinking it.  

[zoops]

Well, in looking at my J/R manual, it says that a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher is treated as an "offensive teammate" in determining if interference occurred.  J/R says that the interference must be intentional or that he "blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted or thrown ball."  It quotes rule 7.11, which says that "players, coaches, or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball."

 

I did not call interference on this play and gave the coach the explanation that nothing intentional occurred but really had no idea if I was correct and I was kind of doubting myself after the play.  Looks like I may have actually been right.  

[Replacematt]

From what you've written, I have INT. The batter knew where the ball was (as evidenced by him seeing the catcher) and didn't vacate the area that was necessary. This is really simple on the part of the batter--whichever side the catcher goes, go to the opposite one.

[UmpJM]

zoops,

 

Your call sounds fine to me.

 

The defense screwed up by making a wild pitch.

 

By your description, the batter made a "good faith" attempt to avoid hindering their play. If that's your judgment of what happened, the batter has met his obligation, the play stands.

 

The batter is not obligated to anticipate "misplays" by the defense.

 

JM

[Replacematt]

zoops,

 

Your call sounds fine to me.

 

The defense screwed up by making a wild pitch.

 

By your description, the batter made a "good faith" attempt to avoid hindering their play. If that's your judgment of what happened, the batter has met his obligation, the play stands.

 

The batter is not obligated to anticipate "misplays" by the defense.

 

JM

Ducking is not a "good faith" effort to avoid interfering.

[afaber12]

Ducking is not a "good faith" effort to avoid interfering.

I realise intent isn't required for interference, but here you've got intent to avoid interference. Do you call the batter-runner out on R1's "interference", when R1 is out by a mile and ducks to avoid the throw but is still hit? As technically correct as this call might be, you'd be essentially penalising the offence for the specific way the defence misplayed. If the ball kicks out the other side there's no problem. The batter isn't going to know where the ball went straight away. When there's the potential for a play at the plate I want him out of the way, and it sounds like that's what he was doing. If he moves in any other direction he increases the chance of interfering, at least without knowing where the ball is. Calling this interference encourages hitters to stay in the box, where they'll legally interfere. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

its one you have to see of course but if he had time to duck then he probably had time to move.  So Id lean toward the interference.

[umpire_scott]

I agree I would have called interference as described, but it definitely is HTBT.  Since a batter has a responsibility to remove themselves from the area I would judge based on how much effort they made in doing this.  If all he did was step out to where he would take signs and then duck I don't think he made enough effort.  A lot also would have to do with ability of the batter to be able to know where they should go.  In this case it should have been pretty clear that moving toward the backstop would have have been appropriate.

 

I had a play a few years ago that was somewhat similar except there was R2 not R3.  The catcher grabbed the ball with their back to third base and turned and fired all in one motion.  The throw hit the batter right in the helmet.  Coach wanted INT.  I said I had nothing because the batter moved, but had no way of judging the exact angle of the catchers throw.

[Replacematt]

 

Ducking is not a "good faith" effort to avoid interfering.

I realise intent isn't required for interference, but here you've got intent to avoid interference. Do you call the batter-runner out on R1's "interference", when R1 is out by a mile and ducks to avoid the throw but is still hit? As technically correct as this call might be, you'd be essentially penalising the offence for the specific way the defence misplayed. If the ball kicks out the other side there's no problem. The batter isn't going to know where the ball went straight away. When there's the potential for a play at the plate I want him out of the way, and it sounds like that's what he was doing. If he moves in any other direction he increases the chance of interfering, at least without knowing where the ball is. Calling this interference encourages hitters to stay in the box, where they'll legally interfere. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Wait. So penalizing him for staying where he is is going to encourage hitters to stay in the box? How?

[Replacematt]

its one you have to see of course but if he had time to duck then he probably had time to move.  So Id lean toward the interference.

 

This, in a nutshell. If he stepped out, he would have seen F1 and R3 converging, and turning towards his coach, would have seen the ball.

[zoops]

I agree that you could make a good case for or against INT.  I'm leaning against, for one reason that this play is happening very quickly - the wild pitch ricochets off the catcher, batter waves runner to come home, catcher running to get ball, pick it up and throw home.  All this in about 3 seconds.  I don't see how you can necessarily mandate that the batter run to the other side of the plate or towards the backstop, as I don't think it is his job to know exactly where this cluster of a throw is going to come from.  As umpJM said, I don't see how you penalize the batter for the defense's mistake, unless of course the batter makes absolutely no effort to avoid or intentionally gets in the way.  .  

 

 

As an aside, the coach's argument was that he was out of the batter's box, so it should be INT.  Wouldn't staying in the box pretty much make this automatic interference?

[noumpere]

I agree that you could make a good case for or against INT.  I'm leaning against, for one reason that this play is happening very quickly - the wild pitch ricochets off the catcher, batter waves runner to come home, catcher running to get ball, pick it up and throw home.  

If the runner had a chance to run 90 ' (okay maybe 75' given a lead off etc) wouldn't the batter have time to move 6 feet?

[Larry in TN]

From 2.00:

 

INTERFERENCE 
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play

 

I don't see anything in there about what he tried, or didn't try, to do.  Is there some other reference that does?

[BigUmpire]

From 2.00:

 

INTERFERENCE 

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play

 

I don't see anything in there about what he tried, or didn't try, to do.  Is there some other reference that does?

Easy. On the money. Correct.

[UmpJM]

Big & Larry,

 

See 7.08(b).

 

Once the wild pitch escapes the catcher, 6.06( c ) no longer applies.

 

Per 7.08(b), interference with a THROW must be intentional for the offense to be penalized.

 

If the umpire judges the batter made a good faith attempt to get out of the way (assuming he had time to do so), he is not liable to an interference call, even if he is unsuccessful.

 

JM

[Larry in TN]

See 7.08(b).

 

Once the wild pitch escapes the catcher, 6.06( c ) no longer applies.

 

Per 7.08(b), interference with a THROW must be intentional for the offense to be penalized.

 

7.08 applies to a runner, not the batter.

 

"7.08 Any runner is out when-"

[noumpere]

Big & Larry,

 

See 7.08(b).

 

Once the wild pitch escapes the catcher, 6.06( c ) no longer applies.

 

Per 7.08(b), interference with a THROW must be intentional for the offense to be penalized.

 

If the umpire judges the batter made a good faith attempt to get out of the way (assuming he had time to do so), he is not liable to an interference call, even if he is unsuccessful.

 

JM

I agree with this especially the judges part and remembering that just standing there and then ducking at the last minute might not be judged to making a good faith effort to get out of the way.  I forget the phrase that's used for that, but its what I meant in my earlier post too.

 

I think its willfully indifference or something like that

Edited July 26, 2013 by noumpere

[mstaylor]

Willful indifference is the term you are looking for. I think this fits here.<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[afaber12]

 

 

Ducking is not a "good faith" effort to avoid interfering.

I realise intent isn't required for interference, but here you've got intent to avoid interference. Do you call the batter-runner out on R1's "interference", when R1 is out by a mile and ducks to avoid the throw but is still hit? As technically correct as this call might be, you'd be essentially penalising the offence for the specific way the defence misplayed. If the ball kicks out the other side there's no problem. The batter isn't going to know where the ball went straight away. When there's the potential for a play at the plate I want him out of the way, and it sounds like that's what he was doing. If he moves in any other direction he increases the chance of interfering, at least without knowing where the ball is. Calling this interference encourages hitters to stay in the box, where they'll legally interfere. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Wait. So penalizing him for staying where he is is going to encourage hitters to stay in the box? How?

 

I'm assuming that - at least initially - the batter didn't know where the ball had gone. As a hitter and a catcher, there have been any number of times where this has been the case for me. I know the ball's gotten away, so there's the potential for a play at the plate, so until I know exactly where it is, I'm backing out of the box. If I move forward, I'm crossing the plate which means I'm delaying when I'm away from where the play likely will be and increasing the chance of interfering. Likewise if I move towards the pitcher or towards the backstop. The best direction is back away from the plate, because the only way I'm increasing or at least not decreasing the chance of interference is if the ball is in the direction I'm heading.

 

The batter could stay in the box, not move at all until after the play, and if the ball hits him there's no interference because 6.06c requires him to interfere by "... stepping out of the batter's box, or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base". Do you really want to encourage batters to stay in the box like statues? If the ball doesn't get too far away from the catcher and he goes for the tag of the runner himself, the batter can still block that attempt as long as he hasn't moved.

 

The batter can't evaporate into thin air. Assuming the batter's first movement is away from the plate, and that the "duck" is a proper attempt to avoid the ball's path - not just a tilt of the head to get under a low doorway with back to the ball, but actually getting down low in a squat as described in the OP, especially if there's any attempt to move to the side away from the line of the throw - I'm not going to penalise the offence for the way the defence messed up. Having said that, if I got any sense that the batter was doing the minimum to look like he was getting out of the way but wasn't doing anything, then I'll have no problem calling the interference.

[Chip]

If the catcher can move 15 feet to pick up the ball, surely the batter can move more than 1 foot to get out of the way. He only needs to see where the catcher runs to figure out how not to be on a line between the catcher and the plate. Unless it is t-ball, the batter can do better to avoid INT than what is described in the OP.

[afaber12]

There's an interesting way of interpreting Rule 6.06c that might need to be considered. Given that to be called out in this context, he must either step out of the box or make some movement to hinder the catcher's play. If he stays still in the box he can't be called out for interference. So let's pretend that after the ball bounces off the catcher, the batter takes two big steps backwards without seeing where the ball's gone and hunkers down in a squat, ducking his head to his chest. It so happens that he steps directly towards the ball. The catcher runs to the ball, picks it up and throws to the pitcher covering the plate. The ball glances off the batter's helmet. The interference has NOT been caused by the batter's movement. The ball would've hit the batter had he stayed still in the box - probably in the gluteus maximus. Unless you judge that he moved and interfered, and had he not moved he would have not interfered, I don't think the batter can be called out on Rule 6.06c. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RC@54OUTS]

So let me get this straight. This isn't a straight steal. So on a wild pitch the batter doesn't have to vacate the area. C'mon. Per the described situation I have interference. I agree to "try" not rewarding the mistake but that batter has got to get out of the way. On a side note I get pitchers trying to get between me and the plate when a throw is coming in on a play at home. And then they want the out. I guess it's like some others have said. HTBT.

[Replacematt]

There's an interesting way of interpreting Rule 6.06c that might need to be considered. Given that to be called out in this context, he must either step out of the box or make some movement to hinder the catcher's play. If he stays still in the box he can't be called out for interference.

So let's pretend that after the ball bounces off the catcher, the batter takes two big steps backwards without seeing where the ball's gone and hunkers down in a squat, ducking his head to his chest. It so happens that he steps directly towards the ball. The catcher runs to the ball, picks it up and throws to the pitcher covering the plate. The ball glances off the batter's helmet.

The interference has NOT been caused by the batter's movement. The ball would've hit the batter had he stayed still in the box - probably in the gluteus maximus.

Unless you judge that he moved and interfered, and had he not moved he would have not interfered, I don't think the batter can be called out on Rule 6.06c.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The box is not a safe haven. He can absolutely be called for interference if he stays in it.

[afaber12]

 

There's an interesting way of interpreting Rule 6.06c that might need to be considered. Given that to be called out in this context, he must either step out of the box or make some movement to hinder the catcher's play. If he stays still in the box he can't be called out for interference.

So let's pretend that after the ball bounces off the catcher, the batter takes two big steps backwards without seeing where the ball's gone and hunkers down in a squat, ducking his head to his chest. It so happens that he steps directly towards the ball. The catcher runs to the ball, picks it up and throws to the pitcher covering the plate. The ball glances off the batter's helmet.

The interference has NOT been caused by the batter's movement. The ball would've hit the batter had he stayed still in the box - probably in the gluteus maximus.

Unless you judge that he moved and interfered, and had he not moved he would have not interfered, I don't think the batter can be called out on Rule 6.06c.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The box is not a safe haven. He can absolutely be called for interference if he stays in it.

 

 

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. [Emphasis added]

 

The batter can be called out for interference if he stays in the box, but only if he moves in a way to interfere. It would likely have to be intentional, but not necessarily. Under 6.08c he can't be out if he doesn't move.

 

The other part is that no one seems to have remembered (maybe I missed the reference) that if you call the batter out for interference on a play at home, unless it was already 2 out before the play, the runner has to also be called out.

 

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(g) He attempts to score on a play in which the batter interferes with the play at home

base before two are out. With two out, the interference puts the batter out and no

score counts;

 

So on a play where the offence doesn't intentionally do anything illegal, but attempts to take advantage of a misplay by the defence, you're going to reward the defence and penalise the offence with a double play?

[zoops]

In J/R's interpretation, they say that the batter is now considered an "offensive teammate" after the wild pitch has occurred, so does rule 6.06 really even apply to this play because he is not considered a "batter?"  

 

The point about the runner being out if interference does occur on this play is a good one (unless with two outs).

 

Beyond that, I think what I am taking away from this discussion is that it could or could not be interference in the box or out of the box, it really all depends on if you judge that the batter (or whomever) intentionally interfered or made no effort not to interfere. Thanks all.