Batter Interference?

[JaxRolo]

Ok, typical situation that happens alot in youth ball...... R2 stealing on the pitch. Pitch is a little inside and B1 backs up because hes scared to get hit. F2 catches the ball and stands up, cocks his throwing arm back but makes no attempt to throw to 3B...... BI or not? I have always said no since there was no attempt to make a play and can't read the F2's mind if he was ever going to throw. Thoughts?

Not likely to call it unless there is some type of attempt.

[Jocko]

Definitely have to see it. Trust your training. Trust your instincts. Earn your money. Just umpire

[Senor Azul]

OBR rule 6.06c has nothing to do with the scenario presented in the original post. The applicable rule that mbrown2097 and his “purist†colleague are looking for is 7.11:

7.11 The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. …

PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.

MS Taylor was absolutely correct that rule 6.06c only applies to the batter during a pitch. No, it doesn’t say that in the rule book. You have to construe it. Once a pitch is past the catcher the batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is now treated as an “offensive teammate.†It isn’t just a matter of semantics—that change of status for the batter helps us to determine if interference has occurred.

Once the pitch is past the catcher in the OP the batter cannot choose to just stand there in the box (and be a blocker for his runner). He as an offensive teammate must, by rule, try to avoid the possible play at the plate. In the scenario, the batter chose to stay at the plate violating rule 7.11. The proper penalty is the runner being called out for the interference of the offensive teammate (unless there are two outs in which case the batter would be the declared third out).

[Mr Umpire]

7.11 does not apply b/c there is no throw or batted ball.  It is a passed ball and F2 already has the ball in hand.  Cannot interfere with a throw or batted ball if there is not one or attempted one if a thrown ball.  While the rule coincides closely with 7.09(d) for the same result, it does not mean the same thing.  And, once it is a passed ball and no longer in the immediate vicinity of HP, 7.09© no longer applies either.

 

The only reason I make these distinctions is for protest purposes.  While the ruling of an out is the same, explaining it for a protest is not.  If you cite the wrong rule, it stands a chance of the protest being upheld b/c the board is confused or doesn't agree the rule applies.  But, if you cite the correct one (in this case, any member of the offensive team), then you are more likely to get the protest thrown out b/c there is no question he is a member of the offensive team and the runner was called out for his actions.

[Texas Manny]

Because someone asked,

 

In the 2013 MLB Umpire Case Book, there is no casebook reference for rules, 7.08G, 7.09C or 7.09D.

 

According to the Harry Wendelstedt Rules & Interpretations book, pg 174, 9.9.2, The batter hinders a play at the plate on a runner attempting to score by stepping out of the batter's box, or making another movement inside the box,

 

Harry's Hints:

 

Hinders includes:

• Impeding the catcher in his attempt to tag a runner at the plate.
• Getting in the way of a throw from the catcher to another fielder to retire a runner at the plate.
• Hitting a throw to the plate from the pitcher after he has disengaged his pitching rubber, thinking it is a pitch.

Harry also footnotes 9.2.2. See footnote #411:

 

411: A batter is not required to vacate his batting position in order to avoid hindering a play at the plate. A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere.

 

End of resource.

 

 

By the OP's description, it does not appear to qualify as interference.

[Texas Manny]

Case Play, HW Rules & Interpretations Book, pg 242, Play 378:

 

R3, one out. 2-2 count. the next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. As R3 charges home, the catcher retrieves the ball and throws it to the pitcher covering the plate. The batter remained in the batter's box and did not make any other movement, but is accidentally hit with the throw allowing R3 to score.

 

Ruling: The umpire should signal that it's nothing when the batter is hit, and R3's run scores.

 

 

 

The case play is as specific to the OP as you can come to.

[JaxRolo]

Just doesn't sound right.

[Mr Umpire]

Case Play, HW Rules & Interpretations Book, pg 242, Play 378:

 

R3, one out. 2-2 count. the next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. As R3 charges home, the catcher retrieves the ball and throws it to the pitcher covering the plate. The batter remained in the batter's box and did not make any other movement, but is accidentally hit with the throw allowing R3 to score.

 

Ruling: The umpire should signal that it's nothing when the batter is hit, and R3's run scores.

 

 

 

The case play is as specific to the OP as you can come to.

It may be but a throw hitting the batter and the player hitting the batter are not the same thing.  Interference with a throw requires intent.  Hindering a player with the ball does not.  7.09(d) specifically does not mention anything about intent.

[Texas Manny]

 

Case Play, HW Rules & Interpretations Book, pg 242, Play 378:

 

R3, one out. 2-2 count. the next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. As R3 charges home, the catcher retrieves the ball and throws it to the pitcher covering the plate. The batter remained in the batter's box and did not make any other movement, but is accidentally hit with the throw allowing R3 to score.

 

Ruling: The umpire should signal that it's nothing when the batter is hit, and R3's run scores.

 

 

 

The case play is as specific to the OP as you can come to.

It may be but a throw hitting the batter and the player hitting the batter are not the same thing.  Interference with a throw requires intent.  Hindering a player with the ball does not.  7.09(d) specifically does not mention anything about intent.

 

Hindering is defined as:

• Impeding the catcher in his attempt to tag a runner at the plate.
• Getting in the way of a throw from the catcher to another fielder to retire a runner at the plate.
• Hitting a throw to the plate from the pitcher after he has disengaged his pitching rubber, thinking it is a pitch.

per the HW R&I book, as it applies to this situation.

 

The batter's box belongs to the batter. A batter is not required to vacate his batting position in order to avoid hindering a play at the plate. A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere.

 

According to the staff at Wendelstedt's, no interference on the play. The batter did nothing but stand in the box.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

  A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere.

 

 

If the batter had time to move and didn't, then he INTENTIONALLY stayed in the box with the intent to interfere.

 

Maybe this is just one where the experts disagree.

[Mr Umpire]

 

 

Case Play, HW Rules & Interpretations Book, pg 242, Play 378:

 

R3, one out. 2-2 count. the next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. As R3 charges home, the catcher retrieves the ball and throws it to the pitcher covering the plate. The batter remained in the batter's box and did not make any other movement, but is accidentally hit with the throw allowing R3 to score.

 

Ruling: The umpire should signal that it's nothing when the batter is hit, and R3's run scores.

 

 

 

The case play is as specific to the OP as you can come to.

It may be but a throw hitting the batter and the player hitting the batter are not the same thing.  Interference with a throw requires intent.  Hindering a player with the ball does not.  7.09(d) specifically does not mention anything about intent.

 

Hindering is defined as:

• Impeding the catcher in his attempt to tag a runner at the plate.
• Getting in the way of a throw from the catcher to another fielder to retire a runner at the plate.
• Hitting a throw to the plate from the pitcher after he has disengaged his pitching rubber, thinking it is a pitch.

per the HW R&I book, as it applies to this situation.

 

The batter's box belongs to the batter. A batter is not required to vacate his batting position in order to avoid hindering a play at the plate. A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere.

 

According to the staff at Wendelstedt's, no interference on the play. The batter did nothing but stand in the box.

 

Again, this is not one where your case play applies.  The batter is not being called out for INT.  The runner is being called out for it under 7.09(d).  This has nothing to do with a batter.  It has everything to do with a member of the offensive team.  Big difference.

 

He is no longer just the batter once the ball went past F2 and he has time to move out of the way.

[Texas Manny]

These are not my interpretations. This is straight from HW book and they are very specific and very clear.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

Case Play, HW Rules & Interpretations Book, pg 242, Play 378:

 

R3, one out. 2-2 count. the next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. As R3 charges home, the catcher retrieves the ball and throws it to the pitcher covering the plate. The batter remained in the batter's box and did not make any other movement, but is accidentally hit with the throw allowing R3 to score.

 

Ruling: The umpire should signal that it's nothing when the batter is hit, and R3's run scores.

 

 

 

The case play is as specific to the OP as you can come to.

It may be but a throw hitting the batter and the player hitting the batter are not the same thing.  Interference with a throw requires intent.  Hindering a player with the ball does not.  7.09(d) specifically does not mention anything about intent.

 

Hindering is defined as:

• Impeding the catcher in his attempt to tag a runner at the plate.
• Getting in the way of a throw from the catcher to another fielder to retire a runner at the plate.
• Hitting a throw to the plate from the pitcher after he has disengaged his pitching rubber, thinking it is a pitch.

per the HW R&I book, as it applies to this situation.

 

The batter's box belongs to the batter. A batter is not required to vacate his batting position in order to avoid hindering a play at the plate. A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere.

 

According to the staff at Wendelstedt's, no interference on the play. The batter did nothing but stand in the box.

 

Again, this is not one where your case play applies.  The batter is not being called out for INT.  The runner is being called out for it under 7.09(d).  This has nothing to do with a batter.  It has everything to do with a member of the offensive team.  Big difference.

 

He is no longer just the batter once the ball went past F2 and he has time to move out of the way.

 

Incorrect. According to the Wendelstedt Rules Manual, pg 174, footnote 412:

 

" A player becomes, and is, a batter for the purpose of this rule (6.06c, 7.08G, 7.09C) when he enters the batter's box after the previous batter's completed at-bat, and remains the batter until he completes his time at bat. Between the time of when the previous batter has completed his at bat, and when the new batter steps into the batter's box, they should be considered another offensive team member; and covered under those rules."

 

The batter, once assuming his position in the batter's box, remains the batter until he reaches base, or is put out by the defense (6.04) and does not flip flop between being a batter, and an other offensive player status  during his time at bat.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

 

  A batter who just "holds" his position in the batter's box, without making any additional movement, should not be called out for interference unless his inaction is deemed intentional to interfere.

 

 

If the batter had time to move and didn't, then he INTENTIONALLY stayed in the box with the intent to interfere.

 

Maybe this is just one where the experts disagree.

 

What you quoted is directly from the HW book. The batter's box belongs to the batter. If he stands there and does nothing, then as the umpire, you have to adjudge that the act of simply standing there in his box is deemed INTENTIONAL, and then you can call interference, but the emphasis of the interpretation as offered by HW, is that if he is just standing there, then he has a right to and interference should NOT be called. Pg 174, Footnote 411.

[mstaylor]

Manny, you will need to get further info from Hunter when you get to school. I confirmed that my original position is how it is called at the pro level. My source is is a very credible source. This is not the first time, or last time, that the experts disagree among the manuals. The problem here is none of the other manuals  address it. I certainly agree that having HW say it lends great credence to your stance. I would suggest that waiting until you get there to get clarification would be a good thing. 

[Texas Manny]

Manny, you will need to get further info from Hunter when you get to school. I confirmed that my original position is how it is called at the pro level. My source is is a very credible source. This is not the first time, or last time, that the experts disagree among the manuals. The problem here is none of the other manuals  address it. I certainly agree that having HW say it lends great credence to your stance. I would suggest that waiting until you get there to get clarification would be a good thing. 

I certainly will Mike. Again, I'm only passing through what is being written in the HW manual. I'm not interjecting.

 

I rechecked the pg 174 footnotes, which under 412 referenced SS 9.5.2 - Interference on a thrown ball, pg 186, and it does not impact a batter-at-bat, imply that a batter's position flip flops between batter/other player, depending on the situation, and none of the reference case plays (P361-365, pg 239-240) remotely come close to the play we are discussing.

 

Very interesting.

[Mr Umpire]

This is certainly a case where the "experts" don't agree.  B/c a player cannot lose their status as a member of the offensive team just b/c they are in the batter's box.  Their status just got renamed for the purposes of certain rules but their status of the offensive team never ends until the team goes on defense.

[Jocko]

@Mr Umpire - INT and OBS are judgement calls. Not subject to protest.

[Mr Umpire]

@Mr Umpire - INT and OBS are judgement calls. Not subject to protest.

It isn't about the judgment of it.  It is about what rule is being applied to make the judgment call.  That is protestable.

[Texas Manny]

Runner on 3rd.  Passed ball is retrieved by catcher and as he makes his way back to the plate to attempt to tag the advancing runner from 3rd, he runs into the right handed batter who hasn't moved from his batting position in the batter's box.  Assuming that he had a play on the runner, do you have interference. 

Mbrown2097,

 

Could you please clarify for us, when the ball got by the catcher, how far did it go from the catcher's position and which direction?

 

Thank you.

 

Manny

[JaxRolo]

You are off on this one Manny. You can read all the books but have to be able to know how to Apply it.

[mstaylor]

You are off on this one Manny. You can read all the books but have to be able to know how to Apply it.

No, that is a valid question. It makes a difference between the rule used and what the requirements are for the batter.

[mbrown2097]

 

Runner on 3rd.  Passed ball is retrieved by catcher and as he makes his way back to the plate to attempt to tag the advancing runner from 3rd, he runs into the right handed batter who hasn't moved from his batting position in the batter's box.  Assuming that he had a play on the runner, do you have interference. 

Mbrown2097,

 

Could you please clarify for us, when the ball got by the catcher, how far did it go from the catcher's position and which direction?

 

Thank you.

 

Manny

 

Hello Many,

Sorry for the slow reply.  The ball went directionally behind the right handed batter and to the backstop or nearly to the backstop. (Granted ours is not very deep).  The ball did NOT remain in the immediate plate area.  Catcher had to get up, turn around, and run for it.  Does that answer the question?

[Texas Manny]

 

 

Runner on 3rd.  Passed ball is retrieved by catcher and as he makes his way back to the plate to attempt to tag the advancing runner from 3rd, he runs into the right handed batter who hasn't moved from his batting position in the batter's box.  Assuming that he had a play on the runner, do you have interference. 

Mbrown2097,

 

Could you please clarify for us, when the ball got by the catcher, how far did it go from the catcher's position and which direction?

 

Thank you.

 

Manny

 

Hello Many,

Sorry for the slow reply.  The ball went directionally behind the right handed batter and to the backstop or nearly to the backstop. (Granted ours is not very deep).  The ball did NOT remain in the immediate plate area.  Catcher had to get up, turn around, and run for it.  Does that answer the question?

 

Yes,

 

Thank you. I will post a response shortly after I confer with the individuals I am working with on this.

 

Thanks,

 

Manny

[mbrown2097]

For purposes of the original post, let's presume that the batter had time to vacate.  I think we all agree that if he didn't have time to vacate, then he didn't have to.