Situation in scrimmage

[Guest Steve]

We've had a lengthy discussion in our Little League regarding the following situation. Hopefully this site can bring some clarity.

 

Majors (12U) game, 0-2 count, 1 out... R1, batter strikes out and the catcher drops the ball, it rolls to his right... Batter is still out with 1st occupied, and he is walking to his dugout on the 1st base side... The catcher picks up the ball and cocks the arm back to get the R1, but the batter is right in front of him and he doesn't throw. By the time the batter and catcher are clear of each other, the R1 is on 2nd. No throw is made.

 

7.09(e) seems to be the best reference for this play. "Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner should be declared out for the interference of a teammate."

 

Does the catcher simply bringing his arm back constitute a "play"? And the batter is doing what he is supposed to - walking back to his dugout. We can't expect him to disappear, can we?

 

In my research, I found this video that shows the situation I'm talking about almost to a T... I feel like the umpires and officials on site may have butchered the ruling though, especially with it changing three times.

 

 

Thanks! 

[alex7]

With the ball being dropped, you're looking at an error on the defense, so I wouldn't be in a hurry to penalize the batter walking back to his dugout.  Does your 7.09e have any further language?  In HS it says something to the effect that "merely continuing to run the bases after being put out does not constitute an interference action."  More or less it means there has to be more effort than just doing what you're supposed to do.  Maybe LL has no provision and by letter of the rule, the batter is interfering.

 

However, if I'm just umpiring the spirit of the rules, the defense screwed up there, the batter is doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing, and I don't call it.  

[clawdad]

Your situation is definitely a HTBT. There are a lot of variables to take in:

- How far to the right did the ball roll - Right near him, or 15-20 feet away?

- Where were the batter and F2 located when he cocked his arm - Near the plate, or closer to dugout?

- What was the location of R1 when the "attempt to throw" was made - 1 step from 2nd base? Halfway between 1st & 2nd? 

- Does the umpire feel that the play was actually hindered, or was it just a pump fake by F2?

 

 

This is a judgement call for the umpire. Now if F2 had a legit chance to get the runner at 2nd and attempted a throw that nailed the batter in the helmet, or air-mailed the throw into center field, the call of interference could be easier to make.  But again - it's purely a judgement call, and judgement calls are not subject to protest.

 

The video you posted was a giant cluster.  Not all the blame can go to the umpires or on-site officials, though.  From what I remember, the ultimate ruling came from LLHQ

[johnnyg08]

This isn't interference unless the retired batter did something intentional. The defense didn't do its job.

Think about it this way…how can you call interference on a batter for walking back to his dugout and reward the catcher with another out for not doing his job and catching the pitch?

[johnnyg08]

Does the catcher simply bringing his arm back constitute a "play"?

From 2012 MLBUM regarding a play or attempted play. Apply what you see below to your play and decide if F2 is making play or not.

 

 

 

[maven]

Here's the rule:
 

A batter is out for illegal action when:
(c ) 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. 6.06(c )

 
Nothing in the rule requires that F2 throw the ball for the retired batter's action to constituted INT. Nothing in the rule requires that there be a "play."

 

The rule simply says that, if F2 DOES get a throw off, and if there IS a play, then we wait to see the outcome before enforcing the penalty for INT. If he gets the runner, the BI is ignored by rule (no coach option). Otherwise, we enforce the penalty for BI.

 

That said, the batter merely walking in front of F2 while his buddy steals does not BY ITSELF constitute INT. F2 must be attempting to make a play, such that the batter's actions constitute a hindrance of his attempt. No hindrance, no INT.

 

Next point: yes, F2 dropped the pitch. The defense erred. That does not entitle the retired batter to do as he pleases, and he does not get a pass to "continue to run the bases." He is out on strike 3. He is not required to disappear, but he may not interfere with F2. If he leaves the box, he is responsible for staying out of the way.

 

In the video, I see the retired batter leave the box and walk right in front of F2 as he prepares to make a play on the runner, who is executing a delayed steal. That's interference. I don't think it's a borderline case.

 

The OP reports that his situation is almost exactly like that in the video, in which case I would support BI in the OP as well, and for the same reasons.

[clawdad]

In the OP I would still HTBT but based solely on what is written I think I would have interference.

The video is similar to the play asked about but not exactly alike. F2 in the play in question has the ball roll away from him, while F2 in the video catches it cleanly.

In the video, I support the interference call. Like I said the whole thing was a mess, and the ultimate ruling came from Williamsport.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

[Larry in TN]

RE: The video...

 

7.09--It is interference by a batter or runner when -

(e) any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner.  Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of a teammate;

 

You know it's going to be a train wreck when the rule book comes out during a game for an interference call.  There are so many different references to interference that the chances of the tournament officials finding the right one are pretty low.  This one was the fifteenth reference in the index under Interference in the 2013 LL rule book.