Drag Bunt/INT

[zoops]

FED rules.  LH batter attempts to drag bunt with a runner on 1st and misses.  His momentum takes him up the line and ends up about 5-10 feet up the 1B line.  Runner on first got off the bag too far and the catcher tries to pick him off first.  Throw hits the batter who is up the line.  INT, batter out?  

[grayhawk]

Batter out of the box hinders a play being made on a runner?  Sounds like INT to me.  Batter is out unless it was strike 3.

[Rich Ives]

So all I have to do is peg the runner? Doesn't int with a throw have to be intentional?

[grayhawk]

So all I have to do is peg the runner? Doesn't int with a throw have to be intentional?

For a batter?

[Rich Ives]

So all I have to do is peg the batter? CSFP GH

[grayhawk]

So all the batter has to do is act like he's drag bunting and get in the way?

[Thunderheads]

So all I have to do is peg the batter? CSFP GH

[mhoffman]

2 things.

 

1.  I would have Batter interference because it prohibited the defense a chance of an out. 

2. If he didn't duck initial to get out of the way I will be pretty sure he is now down on the ground now, ouch that just hurts thinking about it!

[Dash Riprock]

I'm with Rich Ives on this one.  The interference is with a thrown ball (not the catcher's fielding or throwing), and RLI is n/a.  I think you need intent for INT.

 

Good question @zoops.  I don't think this one is in the rules.

[grayhawk]

I'm with Rich Ives on this one. The interference is with a thrown ball (not the catcher's fielding or throwing), and RLI is n/a. I think you need intent for INT.

Good question @zoops. I don't think this one is in the rules.

How is this not a catcher's throwing? The catcher is throwing to retire a runner. It's no different than a batter swinging and ending up over home plate. BI.

[maven]

 

I'm with Rich Ives on this one. The interference is with a thrown ball (not the catcher's fielding or throwing), and RLI is n/a. I think you need intent for INT.

Good question @zoops. I don't think this one is in the rules.

How is this not a catcher's throwing? The catcher is throwing to retire a runner. It's no different than a batter swinging and ending up over home plate. BI.

 

 

I believe Dash is distinguishing between interfering with the catcher throwing and interfering with the catcher's throw.

 

One is BI, the other is not (unless intentional).

[Rich Ives]

 

I'm with Rich Ives on this one. The interference is with a thrown ball (not the catcher's fielding or throwing), and RLI is n/a. I think you need intent for INT.

Good question @zoops. I don't think this one is in the rules.

How is this not a catcher's throwing? The catcher is throwing to retire a runner. It's no different than a batter swinging and ending up over home plate. BI.

 

 

The act of the throw is complete. The catcher's play is over. He did it unhindered. The ball is now a thrown ball and intent is now required.

[Rich Ives]

2 things.

 

1.

2. If he didn't duck initial to get out of the way 

 

 

He's up the line with a 99% chance he has his back to F2.

 

And if he was still in the box he wouldn't have to duck.

[mhoffman]

2 things.

1.

2. If he didn't duck initial to get out of the way

He's up the line with a 99% chance he has his back to F2.

And if he was still in the box he wouldn't have to duck.

Missing my sarcasm, meaning most likely his getting drilled in the back which means it's going to hurt like h3ll lol....then the next process would be he would be laying on the ground.....haha

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ERW27]

Isn't this similar to RI at first for out of baseline. The catcher could just drill him if he is out of the baseline to get the out? I have BI here. He needs to get out of the way of the throw, or at least a good attempt. Him running up the line is what caused this issue so he needs to avoid the throw.

[maven]

Isn't this similar to RI at first for out of baseline. The catcher could just drill him if he is out of the baseline to get the out? I have BI here. He needs to get out of the way of the throw, or at least a good attempt. Him running up the line is what caused this issue so he needs to avoid the throw.

 

1. No, it's not similar: not a batted ball, no BR, for 2 differences.

2. No, that's not quite the RLI rule.

3. No, no rule requires runners to get out of the way of a throw.

4. No, see #3.

[grayhawk]

7-3 - A batter shall not:

 

Article 5:  Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

 

b.  Stepping out of the batter's box

 

This batter stepped out of the box and interfered with a catcher's throwing to put out R1 at first.  Nothing at all about intent here.  Nothing about the "act of the throw."  Do you contend that if a batter swings and steps over home plate, that as long as the catcher releases the throw that it has to be intentional if the throw then hits the batter?  After all, the "act" of the throw was complete.  Is there anything in the rules about how far up the line is necessary to require intent?  Remember, this is a batter, not a runner.  Intent is not required.

[Dash Riprock]

 Do you contend that if a batter swings and steps over home plate, that as long as the catcher releases the throw that it has to be intentional if the throw then hits the batter?

Not at all.  The batter has has, at the very least, limited F2's stride by stepping over the plate.  That's INT.  Not the case in the OP.

[grayhawk]

 

 Do you contend that if a batter swings and steps over home plate, that as long as the catcher releases the throw that it has to be intentional if the throw then hits the batter?

Not at all.  The batter has has, at the very least, limited F2's stride by stepping over the plate.  That's INT.  Not the case in the OP.

 

 

You're changing the scenario.  Catcher's motion, stride, etc is not hindered, but the ball which has been released from the catcher's hand hits the batter, who has stepped over the plate, in the helmet.

[Rich Ives]

So all the batter has to do is act like he's drag bunting and get in the way?

 

So how do you act like it without actually starting the attempt? If a batter is really attempting and pulls the bat back does that make it a fake attempt? Do catchers attempt a pick-off at first as a matter of course?

[soupcan]

Reading the definition of throw here is important. The throw is complete and now it is a thrown ball, which needs intent.

[Rich Ives]

7-3 - A batter shall not:

 

Article 5:  Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

 

b.  Stepping out of the batter's box

 

This batter stepped out of the box and interfered with a catcher's throwing to put out R1 at first. 

 

 

Nope. He interfered with the thrown ball. He did not interfere with the act of throwing. It's not that hard a concept.

 

And stop changing the play. This is about a drag bunt.  Only LH batters drag bunt so there's no stepping over the plate.  (RH batters push bunt).

[grayhawk]

I wasn't changing the play, I was offering a valid comparison to a play in which interference would, and should be called every time.

 

Do we agree that the player that attempted the drag bunt is a batter, and not a batter-runner or runner?  The reason I ask is because 8-4-2g only applies to runners, not batters.

[Replacematt]

Let me ask this. R1, who steals on the pitch. If the batter had missed a bunt attempt and ended up out of the box in front of home plate, would you consider it interference if the throw hit him?

[Dash Riprock]

Let me ask this. R1, who steals on the pitch. If the batter had missed a bunt attempt and ended up out of the box in front of home plate, would you consider it interference if the throw hit him?

Of course.