Batter interference

[scblcommish]

We didn't get a favorable call on this and I feel the PU had every reason and responsibility to make the call. Here's the sitch. Fed rules. Two ump game. R1 - 1 out. BR swings at strike 3 and he ends up on the plate. He just missed a good pitch that was in the strike zone so why or how he ended up on the plate I have no idea. F2 comes up throwing on R1's steal attempt. There was no collision but my F2 having to adjust the timing of the throw was obvious. You couldn't have fit a piece of paper between F2 and BR. And since there was no other responsibility for the PU, I think he should have remained focused on the BR/F2 situation. So no peeking at the throwdown. I questioned why we couldn't get the third out, or at the very least return the runner to 1st. With the BR ON the plate, I really think 2 outs was called for. The situation, left as it was, 2 outs, R2, led to two 2-out runs. We came back to win by 1 but I'm still wondering why we had to do this. How do others see this?

[grayhawk]

As described, it sounds like BI but the PU must have seen it differently. Did you ask PU what he saw?

[maven]

The situation, left as it was, 2 outs, R2, led to two 2-out runs. We came back to win by 1 but I'm still wondering why we had to do this. How do others see this?

 

Probably needed to retire the next batter if you really wanted to avoid the runs and needing a come-back.

 

Judgment call. You thought it was BI, PU didn't. Not much we can help you with unless you've got video.

[noumpere]

The batter being on the plate sure makes him liable for BI, but it doesn't mean that it exists. (And, I'm not saying that it didn't exist in your sitch -- just that it's not absolute.)

 

We'd bring down the internet if every missed call by an umpire wsa put here.

[scblcommish]

As described, it sounds like BI but the PU must have seen it differently. Did you ask PU what he saw?

 

Yes I did. He did not see interference. It was fine -I was OK with the call. Ir's just that, to me, it was so obvious. For instance, if my catcher was trying to retire a stealing R2, and the batter jumped out of the box, whether he thought he was being helpful to the defense or not, he would be at risk of interfering. I realize my F2 has a responsibility to find a throwing lane, but I believe I'm also correct when I say that a retreating batter who causes him to have to adjust to another throwing lane is at risk of being called. At least that's how several helpful umps have described it to me. So I guess my question is still up in the air. If it's equally obvious that the batter moved out of the batter's box and onto the plate on an attempt to retire a stealing T1, where is the difference?

[scblcommish]

The batter being on the plate sure makes him liable for BI, but it doesn't mean that it exists. (And, I'm not saying that it didn't exist in your sitch -- just that it's not absolute.)

 

We'd bring down the internet if every missed call by an umpire wsa put here.

 

All due respect, 99% of the stuff I see here is questioning whether the right call was made. The internet still seems fine to me. Not sure why the posturing.

[ALStripes17]

The batter being on the plate sure makes him liable for BI, but it doesn't mean that it exists. (And, I'm not saying that it didn't exist in your sitch -- just that it's not absolute.)

We'd bring down the internet if every missed call by an umpire wsa put here.

All due respect, 99% of the stuff I see here is questioning whether the right call was made. The internet still seems fine to me. Not sure why the posturing.

Pretty sure 99 out of 100 topics on this forum aren't questioning umpire calls. There are plenty of good debates on rules, differences in rule sets, positioning, ethics, game management, etc.

99 is a pretty high percent

In regards to the OP, it sounds like you have an idea of what BI is and how it's penalized; however, it's a judgment call and the PU did not judge any INT. *shrug* that's baseball.

[Richvee]

 There was no collision but my F2 having to adjust the timing of the throw was obvious. 

Herein lies the judgement. Maybe the timing of F2's throw was obvious to you, after all, you've sen him throw 1000 times,  but maybe the PU thought he got the throw off clean and unhindered. Hard to comment beyond that without seeing it. 

[zoops]

This thread is going nowhere.  If the PU judges the batter to have hindered the catcher's ability to make a play, it's interference.  If he doesn't, it's not.  Pretty simple.  Very possible the PU missed it, move on.