Interference

[Thunderheads]

I can see how Buckminster gets INT here ....but is there an actual hinderance of Castro's throw?  It seems to me he got the throw off just fine.

 

This is for discussion purposes ....

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=32694999&query=interference

[grayhawk]

Seems like backswing interference would have been the appropriate call here. No out - just send R1 back to first.

[maven]

Seems like backswing interference would have been the appropriate call here. No out - just send R1 back to first.

 

Watch the batter's back foot. If his feet don't come across the plate, the call would have been as you suggest.

[zm1283]

I think I've seen this called batter's INT before in MLB and not just backswing INT. The batter finishes his backswing and then leaves the bat back there in front of the catcher for an inordinate amount of time, thus hindering the catcher's throw. 

[Thunderheads]

I think I've seen this called batter's INT before in MLB and not just backswing INT. The batter finishes his backswing and then leaves the bat back there in front of the catcher for an inordinate amount of time, thus hindering the catcher's throw. 

......it did?  I don't see the bat hindering anything ....throw got off just fine, yes?

[maven]

 

I think I've seen this called batter's INT before in MLB and not just backswing INT. The batter finishes his backswing and then leaves the bat back there in front of the catcher for an inordinate amount of time, thus hindering the catcher's throw. 

......it did?  I don't see the bat hindering anything ....throw got off just fine, yes?

 

 

The way the penalty is structured, we want to call BI when the batter comes out of the box (or makes any other movement, etc.) and gets in the way. As you know, contact is not required, so we err on the side of judging hindrance because the batter has no right to be in F2's way.

 

The way to judge whether F2 was hindered was to see whether the runner was retired. If so, then no hindrance, and the batter can stay there.

[Thunderheads]

Here's what I mean ..........here's a still shot just as Castro releases ....everything happens AFTER this ....bat isn't touching him hear either ...

 

again .... discussion purposes. 

 

[Thunderheads]

 

 

I think I've seen this called batter's INT before in MLB and not just backswing INT. The batter finishes his backswing and then leaves the bat back there in front of the catcher for an inordinate amount of time, thus hindering the catcher's throw. 

......it did?  I don't see the bat hindering anything ....throw got off just fine, yes?

 

 

The way the penalty is structured, we want to call BI when the batter comes out of the box (or makes any other movement, etc.) and gets in the way. As you know, contact is not required, so we err on the side of judging hindrance because the batter has no right to be in F2's way.

 

The way to judge whether F2 was hindered was to see whether the runner was retired. If so, then no hindrance, and the batter can stay there.

 

That's not necessarily true ........

Meaning ...there could be no hinderance and not an out .... but I know where you're going

[maven]

Jeff, just curious: were you a catcher? It's damn hard to throw out R1 in the best circumstances, and to have a guy moving around in your lane — even if you don't bump him — is a hindrance.

[Thunderheads]

Jeff, just curious: were you a catcher? It's damn hard to throw out R1 in the best circumstances, and to have a guy moving around in your lane — even if you don't bump him — is a hindrance.

No way!  I was a middle infielder

 

I understand that contact isn't necessary.

 

Also, ... I'm not necessarily saying this call is wrong either ....but I think it's a good discussion with a good video example

[maven]

Also, ... I'm not necessarily saying this call is wrong either ....but I think it's a good discussion with a good video example

I agree with that. That's why I was trying to explain why it was called and how to call it in our games.

[Thunderheads]

 

Also, ... I'm not necessarily saying this call is wrong either ....but I think it's a good discussion with a good video example

I agree with that. That's why I was trying to explain why it was called and how to call it in our games.

 

I understand and appreciate your insight, you know that.  And, although it may appear this way, I'm not trying to argue the call on the field, ... again ...I'm trying to inspire discussion

 

So, here, ... Castro gets the throw off, and Davis is out of the box in his way just as or after he throws .... Davis is there, he shouldn't be, R1 is safe .... INT. 

 

Is that basically it?

[maven]

So, here, ... Castro gets the throw off, and Davis is out of the box in his way just as or after he throws .... Davis is there, he shouldn't be, R1 is safe .... INT. 

 

Is that basically it?

Basically, yes.

 

Ideally, you'd announce the INT prior to the BU making his call.

 

I made a BI call a couple weeks ago against a perennial state finalist, whose batter had come across the plate swinging at strike 3 (outside corner). F2 bobbled the ball, and coach wanted to know how it could be BI when there was no play and F2 didn't even have control of the ball.

 

"Coach, it's INT if the batter is out of the box and it affects F2's fielding or throwing." (I actually spoke in italics!)

 

Naturally, he didn't like the call. The batter was that team's F2, and he asked me after how he could reach that outside pitch and yet not be liable for BI. "Longer arms?" He laughed.

[siz]

It looks like Davis hinders Castro's follow through.  As a result the throw tails a little bit. Looks like INT.

[LMSANS]

This is a good discussion.  I do have an awkward view on this. I'm not disagreeing, just taking a stroll through a strange land.

If F6 held the ball, I think R1 is out.  Then there would be no interference.  While F2 was hindered, no doubt about it, that hindrance was not the determining factor in the actual result of the play.

 

I was once told umpiring is knowing the rules and common sense.

[zm1283]

 

 

I think I've seen this called batter's INT before in MLB and not just backswing INT. The batter finishes his backswing and then leaves the bat back there in front of the catcher for an inordinate amount of time, thus hindering the catcher's throw. 

......it did?  I don't see the bat hindering anything ....throw got off just fine, yes?

 

 

The way the penalty is structured, we want to call BI when the batter comes out of the box (or makes any other movement, etc.) and gets in the way. As you know, contact is not required, so we err on the side of judging hindrance because the batter has no right to be in F2's way.

 

The way to judge whether F2 was hindered was to see whether the runner was retired. If so, then no hindrance, and the batter can stay there.

 

 

 

This is a good discussion.  I do have an awkward view on this. I'm not disagreeing, just taking a stroll through a strange land.

If F6 held the ball, I think R1 is out.  Then there would be no interference.  While F2 was hindered, no doubt about it, that hindrance was not the determining factor in the actual result of the play.

 

I was once told umpiring is knowing the rules and common sense.

 

You guys do realize you can have batter's INT and the runner still be retired, right? If the batter interferes, you call the interference and wait to see if the initial throw retires the runner. If it does, ignore the INT and move on. If not, enforce the penalty.

 

You should not wait to see if R1 is safe or out before calling INT here.

[LMSANS]

 

 

 

I think I've seen this called batter's INT before in MLB and not just backswing INT. The batter finishes his backswing and then leaves the bat back there in front of the catcher for an inordinate amount of time, thus hindering the catcher's throw. 

......it did?  I don't see the bat hindering anything ....throw got off just fine, yes?

 

 

The way the penalty is structured, we want to call BI when the batter comes out of the box (or makes any other movement, etc.) and gets in the way. As you know, contact is not required, so we err on the side of judging hindrance because the batter has no right to be in F2's way.

 

The way to judge whether F2 was hindered was to see whether the runner was retired. If so, then no hindrance, and the batter can stay there.

 

 

 

This is a good discussion.  I do have an awkward view on this. I'm not disagreeing, just taking a stroll through a strange land.

If F6 held the ball, I think R1 is out.  Then there would be no interference.  While F2 was hindered, no doubt about it, that hindrance was not the determining factor in the actual result of the play.

 

I was once told umpiring is knowing the rules and common sense.

 

You guys do realize you can have batter's INT and the runner still be retired, right? If the batter interferes, you call the interference and wait to see if the initial throw retires the runner. If it does, ignore the INT and move on. If not, enforce the penalty.

 

You should not wait to see if R1 is safe or out before calling INT here.

 

I know that.  My point being, the BI did not affect the result of the play, F6 dropping the throw did.   Just one of those weird thoughts that lands occasionally.