squeeze plays?

[redrage]

If the batter misses the pitch on a bunt attempt and catcher catches the ball and try to tag the runner stealing home but runs into the batter when going for tag. It's my understanding that if the batter don't move, interference wont be called. If batter moves, even if he is trying to get out of the way, and catcher runs into him it is interference. 13U USSSA rules. I just wanted to know what is the real rule on this.

[Replacematt]

 

 

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE.  My answers are based on what the rule IS.

 

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06. 

 

Then you're wrong.  The batter can't just "disappear" and if that failure to do so hinders the catcher that is not, in and of itself, interference.

 

Cite? I've asked for one multiple times. Black-letter says this is interference. So, show me an interp to the contrary.

[maven]

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE. My answers are based on what the rule IS.

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06.

Then you're wrong. The batter can't just "disappear" and if that failure to do so hinders the catcher that is not, in and of itself, interference.

Cite? I've asked for one multiple times. Black-letter says this is interference. So, show me an interp to the contrary.

You're wrong that black letter says it's INT. Your interp of "hinder" says it is. And your interp of that word is wrong because it requires a batter legally in the box to disappear.

I've explained why there's a separate rule beyond 6.06c for this, and it has nothing to do with a different interp of "hinder."

[afaber12]

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE. My answers are based on what the rule IS.

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06.

Then you're wrong. The batter can't just "disappear" and if that failure to do so hinders the catcher that is not, in and of itself, interference.

Cite? I've asked for one multiple times. Black-letter says this is interference. So, show me an interp to the contrary.

6.06c defines batter interference, and differentiates backswing interference. It alludes to the possibility of R3 being out, but it's not until you combine it with 7.08g/7.09c that you get when and how that would happen. They have to be taken together, not as completely distinct and separate rules.

The potential for backswing interference still exists with R3 stealing/suicide squeezing. Say its a suicide squeeze, BR misses the sign and misses the pitch when he swings for it, but hits the catcher on the backswing. You gonna call R3 out on the interference? If it's 2 out will that make a difference, because now you'd have to call BR out?

Assuming BR squares to bunt, and regardless of whether he offered at the pitch, if after he "misses" he freezes in place, he can't be ruled to have interfered with the play at home.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE. My answers are based on what the rule IS.

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06.

 

Then you're wrong. The batter can't just "disappear" and if that failure to do so hinders the catcher that is not, in and of itself, interference.

 

Cite? I've asked for one multiple times. Black-letter says this is interference. So, show me an interp to the contrary.

 

6.06c defines batter interference, 

 

 

No, it doesn't. It defines what interference is when F2 is throwing or retrieving a ball.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

Now it seems you are discussing what the rule SHOULD BE. My answers are based on what the rule IS.

No, I'm discussing what the rule is. There is no exception or distinguishing in 7.09 the way there is in 6.06.

 

Then you're wrong. The batter can't just "disappear" and if that failure to do so hinders the catcher that is not, in and of itself, interference.

 

Cite? I've asked for one multiple times. Black-letter says this is interference. So, show me an interp to the contrary.

 

You're wrong that black letter says it's INT. Your interp of "hinder" says it is. And your interp of that word is wrong because it requires a batter legally in the box to disappear.

I've explained why there's a separate rule beyond 6.06c for this, and it has nothing to do with a different interp of "hinder."

 

 

Really? I'm wrong? The rule is black and white. 6.06c has nothing to do with this, and 7.09 has nothing to do with what is stated in it.

[afaber12]

6.06c: "... or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." That part isn't referring to throwing or retrieving the ball, and required the batter to make some movement.

[Replacematt]

6.06c: "... or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." That part isn't referring to throwing or retrieving the ball, and required the batter to make some movement.

 

So, you're going to allow the pick play?

[afaber12]

6.06c: "... or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." That part isn't referring to throwing or retrieving the ball, and required the batter to make some movement.

So, you're going to allow the pick play?

I don't know what the pick play is. Or at least I don't know it by that name.

[Replacematt]

Letting the batter freeze to stay between the catcher and incoming runner, preventing a tag.

[Dash Riprock]

With a suicide squeeze, what batter do you know that can offer at the bunt and miss and still have time to clear out before the runner gets there?

 

 

Leftys.

[Chip]

This article speaks to a similar play in a 2005 MLB game. Looks like the umpire screwed up the penalty based on the description -- can't imagine an interpretation that would get them to that outcome that isn't a screw-up, even if the article labeled the call incorrectly as BI. 

 

http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050802&content_id=1155006&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=stl

[Rich Ives]

 

With a suicide squeeze, what batter do you know that can offer at the bunt and miss and still have time to clear out before the runner gets there?

 

 

Leftys.

 

 

Yeah - but they aren't in the way in the first place.

[afaber12]

Letting the batter freeze to stay between the catcher and incoming runner, preventing a tag.

The batter squares around ready to lay down a bunt before the pitch is released. From that point he either doesn't move, he moves in an attempt to hit the pitch, or he moves in an attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch. Apart from those movements above he makes no other movement. I would find it very difficult to call interference.

Now if he steps in the lead up to a swing, but instead of the normal step he steps very close to the plate and leans over the plate in a really exaggerated way, I might consider it interference, but in my mind it would have to be pretty blatant - similar to when you don't give the batter first on a HBP.

Obviously there's an element of judgement to this. But the rule requires some movement on the part of the batter for him to be at risk of an interference call. If he's a statue he can't, by rule, interfere.

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

With a suicide squeeze, what batter do you know that can offer at the bunt and miss and still have time to clear out before the runner gets there?

 

 

Leftys.

 

 

Yeah - but they aren't in the way in the first place.

 

Exactly.  That's your point.

[Replacematt]

 

Letting the batter freeze to stay between the catcher and incoming runner, preventing a tag.

The batter squares around ready to lay down a bunt before the pitch is released. From that point he either doesn't move, he moves in an attempt to hit the pitch, or he moves in an attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch. Apart from those movements above he makes no other movement. I would find it very difficult to call interference.

Now if he steps in the lead up to a swing, but instead of the normal step he steps very close to the plate and leans over the plate in a really exaggerated way, I might consider it interference, but in my mind it would have to be pretty blatant - similar to when you don't give the batter first on a HBP.

Obviously there's an element of judgement to this. But the rule requires some movement on the part of the batter for him to be at risk of an interference call. If he's a statue he can't, by rule, interfere.

 

 

So, you'll penalize the legal activity (exaggerated stance) but ignore the illegal one?

[Rich Ives]

 

6.06c: "... or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." That part isn't referring to throwing or retrieving the ball, and required the batter to make some movement.

 

So, you're going to allow the pick play?

 

 

Picks are plays. This isn't one. It's a botched bunt. No one in their right mind misses a suicide squeeze bunt on purpose to set up a pick.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

With a suicide squeeze, what batter do you know that can offer at the bunt and miss and still have time to clear out before the runner gets there?

 

 

Leftys.

 

 

Yeah - but they aren't in the way in the first place.

 

Exactly.  That's your point.

 

 

Well - the point I was trying to make is that if the (RH) batter botches the bunt he doesn't have time to get out of the way so expecting him to do so is ludicrous.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

With a suicide squeeze, what batter do you know that can offer at the bunt and miss and still have time to clear out before the runner gets there?

 

 

Leftys.

 

 

Yeah - but they aren't in the way in the first place.

 

Exactly.  That's your point.

 

 

Well - the point I was trying to make is that if the (RH) batter botches the bunt he doesn't have time to get out of the way so expecting him to do so is ludicrous.

 

 

Yet it's required on other plays, as already discussed.

 

Not penalizing this allows the offense to have set plays where the batter freezes in the path of the catcher.

[ALStripes17]

In most of these scenarios we are using to attempt to debunk each other, wouldn't the RH batter also be in the way of his own runner coming home?

[Replacematt]

In most of these scenarios we are using to attempt to debunk each other, wouldn't the RH batter also be in the way of his own runner coming home?

 

Not necessarily, but that's not important. The rules allow you to screw yourself all you want.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

 

 

With a suicide squeeze, what batter do you know that can offer at the bunt and miss and still have time to clear out before the runner gets there?

 

 

Leftys.

 

 

Yeah - but they aren't in the way in the first place.

 

Exactly.  That's your point.

 

 

Well - the point I was trying to make is that if the (RH) batter botches the bunt he doesn't have time to get out of the way so expecting him to do so is ludicrous.

 

 

Yet it's required on other plays, as already discussed.

 

Not penalizing this allows the offense to have set plays where the batter freezes in the path of the catcher.

 

 

One more time Matt - No one in their right mind misses a suicide squeeze bunt on purpose to set up a pick.

[ALStripes17]

Just pointing out a sidenote.

In a play at home, the runner would be coming to the 3B point of the plate. If the batter is not in the line between F2 and that point (assuming the runner doesn't hesitate and turn back), then how would you call INT?

[grayhawk]

Matt, you may want to take a look at this play from the WUM:

 

P359:  R3, no out, 1-1 count.  The pitcher does not see R3 stealing home and delivers a pitch to the plate.  The batter does not swing at the pitch, which is called a ball.  The catcher makes the catch and tries for a tag on R3 at the plate.  Just before the runner reaches the plate area, the batter ( a ) keeps his position in the batter's box without making a move ( b ) turns to leave the batter's box and runs into the catcher.  In both cases, the catcher cannot get to the plate to make the tag attempt.

 

Ruling:  In ( a ), the batter has done nothing wrong.  His actions have not caused the interference, and he has the right to remain in the box for the pitch.  No interference should be called.  In ( b ), his actions following the pitch caused the interference with the catcher.  It has prevented him from making a play at the plate, and interference should be called.  Since there was less than 2 outs at the time the interference occurred, R3 is declared out for the interference of the batter.  The batter remains at bat with a 2-1 count.

[Replacematt]

Matt, you may want to take a look at this play from the WUM:

 

P359:  R3, no out, 1-1 count.  The pitcher does not see R3 stealing home and delivers a pitch to the plate.  The batter does not swing at the pitch, which is called a ball.  The catcher makes the catch and tries for a tag on R3 at the plate.  Just before the runner reaches the plate area, the batter ( a ) keeps his position in the batter's box without making a move ( b ) turns to leave the batter's box and runs into the catcher.  In both cases, the catcher cannot get to the plate to make the tag attempt.

 

Ruling:  In ( a ), the batter has done nothing wrong.  His actions have not caused the interference, and he has the right to remain in the box for the pitch.  No interference should be called.  In ( b ), his actions following the pitch caused the interference with the catcher.  It has prevented him from making a play at the plate, and interference should be called.  Since there was less than 2 outs at the time the interference occurred, R3 is declared out for the interference of the batter.  The batter remains at bat with a 2-1 count.

 

That's what I've been asking for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

With a suicide squeeze, what batter do you know that can offer at the bunt and miss and still have time to clear out before the runner gets there?

 

 

Leftys.

 

 

Yeah - but they aren't in the way in the first place.

 

Exactly.  That's your point.

 

 

Well - the point I was trying to make is that if the (RH) batter botches the bunt he doesn't have time to get out of the way so expecting him to do so is ludicrous.

 

 

Yet it's required on other plays, as already discussed.

 

Not penalizing this allows the offense to have set plays where the batter freezes in the path of the catcher.

 

 

One more time Matt - No one in their right mind misses a suicide squeeze bunt on purpose to set up a pick.

 

 

Yeah, they do.

[bleacher_bum]

The catcher still (at almost 100% of the time) has access to the plate.  Even with the RH batter.