Batter Interference

[umpire_scott]

So I'm pretty certain we got this right, but it led me to wonder why this rule exists as such.  We had R1 and R3.  Batter swings and missed as R2 is stealing 2nd.  Momentum of swing pulls batter onto the plate.  F2 comes up as if to throw to second.  Batter actually makes contact with F2.  F2 clutches and throws down to 3rd instead as R3 was looking to possibly come home.  R3 makes it back to 3rd safely. My partner (PU) calls BI and confirms ruling with me that batter is out and runners returned to previously occupied base.

 

So two questions that came to my mind:

 

1.  It's possible that defensive team had that play on to fake a throw to 2nd and then go to 3rd instead as that is a typical 1st and 3rd play.  Impossible for us to know that however so I assume that we would have to rule that F2 would have possibly thrown to 2nd had the BI not taken place.  Would you ever judge on that play that there was no intent to retire R1 and thus waive off BI?

 

2.  Why does the rule not retire the advancing runner as well?  Or am I not reading and understanding the rule?  On a DP sitch if you get interference on a defensive player you can get two outs, but on BI it indicates you just send the runners back.  So if I'm a batter and I know my runner is going to be thrown out on a steal it may benefit me to interfere.  

[noumpere]

The general rule is that whoever interferes is out.  So, that's what they apply here.

 

I doubt any batter is quick enough to process the steal, decide the runner will be out, and then interfere all before the catcher throws the ball.

[Rich Ives]

HTBT.  Read the whole play.

 

If you know the game at that level you can usually tell if the catcher aborted on his own.

 

I don't think the catcher in this play would have time to think  he couldn't get R1 so run into the batter instead - especially as he followed with a throw to 3B.

[GreyhoundAggie]

So I'm pretty certain we got this right, but it led me to wonder why this rule exists as such.  We had R1 and R3.  Batter swings and missed as R2 is stealing 2nd.  Momentum of swing pulls batter onto the plate.  F2 comes up as if to throw to second.  Batter actually makes contact with F2.  F2 clutches and throws down to 3rd instead as R3 was looking to possibly come home.  R3 makes it back to 3rd safely. My partner (PU) calls BI and confirms ruling with me that batter is out and runners returned to previously occupied base.

 

So two questions that came to my mind:

 

1.  It's possible that defensive team had that play on to fake a throw to 2nd and then go to 3rd instead as that is a typical 1st and 3rd play.  Impossible for us to know that however so I assume that we would have to rule that F2 would have possibly thrown to 2nd had the BI not taken place.  Would you ever judge on that play that there was no intent to retire R1 and thus waive off BI?

 

2.  Why does the rule not retire the advancing runner as well?  Or am I not reading and understanding the rule?  On a DP sitch if you get interference on a defensive player you can get two outs, but on BI it indicates you just send the runners back.  So if I'm a batter and I know my runner is going to be thrown out on a steal it may benefit me to interfere.  

 

You get the advancing runner if the Batter Interferes on Strike 3 and you feel that it prevented a possible DP. Otherwise you just send him back.

[maven]

You get the advancing runner if the Batter Interferes on Strike 3 and you feel that it prevented a possible DP. Otherwise you just send him back.

1. That provision applies only in FED.
2. Even in FED, I would never enforce it. If F2 was hindered, then a DP was possible and somebody is out. Otherwise, it's not BI.

Keep it simple: if the batter interferes with F2's fielding or throwing, then somebody (usually the batter) is out.

[Mad Mike]

@Maven 

 

What will you do with backswing interference in OBR? Strike only. Return runners?

[noumpere]

@Maven 

 

What will you do with backswing interference in OBR? Strike only. Return runners?

Yes -- that's the rule.  I didn't read the OP as "backswing INT" though.

[maven]

@Maven 

 

What will you do with backswing interference in OBR? Strike only. Return runners?

 

Yes, I will apply OBR's backswing INT rule to it: the ball is dead, runners return.

 

And I will also apply the OBS rule to obstruction, and other rules to other situations not mentioned in the OP.

[stl_ump]

 

So I'm pretty certain we got this right, but it led me to wonder why this rule exists as such.  We had R1 and R3.  Batter swings and missed as R2 is stealing 2nd.  Momentum of swing pulls batter onto the plate.  F2 comes up as if to throw to second.  Batter actually makes contact with F2.  F2 clutches and throws down to 3rd instead as R3 was looking to possibly come home.  R3 makes it back to 3rd safely. My partner (PU) calls BI and confirms ruling with me that batter is out and runners returned to previously occupied base.

 

So two questions that came to my mind:

 

1.  It's possible that defensive team had that play on to fake a throw to 2nd and then go to 3rd instead as that is a typical 1st and 3rd play.  Impossible for us to know that however so I assume that we would have to rule that F2 would have possibly thrown to 2nd had the BI not taken place.  Would you ever judge on that play that there was no intent to retire R1 and thus waive off BI?

 

2.  Why does the rule not retire the advancing runner as well?  Or am I not reading and understanding the rule?  On a DP sitch if you get interference on a defensive player you can get two outs, but on BI it indicates you just send the runners back.  So if I'm a batter and I know my runner is going to be thrown out on a steal it may benefit me to interfere.  

 

You get the advancing runner if the Batter Interferes on Strike 3 and you feel that it prevented a possible DP. Otherwise you just send him back.

 

 

 

 

Where is this?

[maven]

Where is this?

What, the part about calling the runner out when the interfering batter has just struck out? FED 7-3-5 PENALTY, OBR 7.09(e)

[wingman3110]

 

Where is this?

What, the part about calling the runner out when the interfering batter has just struck out? FED 7-3-5 PENALTY, OBR 7.09(e)

 

 

Somebody has to pay. In this case, the runner has to.

[umpire_scott]

It just seems that a penalty by the offense that prevents the defense from recording an out on the advancing runner should have that advancing runner put out.  I understand that the rules do not support this.  But they should IMHO.

 

Example:  Winning run is at second base.  Batter swings and misses as runner is stealing 3rd.  It clearly benefits the offensive team to have BI and save a probable out at third.  Even with the batter out and the runner returning a base hit still wins the game.

[maven]

It just seems that a penalty by the offense that prevents the defense from recording an out on the advancing runner should have that advancing runner put out.  I understand that the rules do not support this.  But they should IMHO.

 

Example:  Winning run is at second base.  Batter swings and misses as runner is stealing 3rd.  It clearly benefits the offensive team to have BI and save a probable out at third.  Even with the batter out and the runner returning a base hit still wins the game.

 

The ordinary penalty for any infraction penalizes the violator, not his teammate. The usual exception is the one where the violator is already out, so we have to get somebody else.

 

The unusual exception is R3 trying to score with less than 2 outs, and the batter interferes. We get the runner here because in the past teams tried this as a scoring tactic, hoping the umpire might miss the BI. In order to discourage the tactic, the penalty was increased.

 

In the situation you're concerned with, the penalty you're proposing is too drastic and unfairly favors the defense, IMO.

[stl_ump]

 

Where is this?

What, the part about calling the runner out when the interfering batter has just struck out? FED 7-3-5 PENALTY, OBR 7.09(e)

 

 

Thanks!

[Rich Ives]

 

 

Example:  Winning run is at second base.  Batter swings and misses as runner is stealing 3rd.  It clearly benefits the offensive team to have BI and save a probable out at third.  Even with the batter out and the runner returning a base hit still wins the game.

 

By the time the batter thinks - "Crap, Ked, better interfere" the throw is already on its way. Unless your catcher is incompetent.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

Example:  Winning run is at second base.  Batter swings and misses as runner is stealing 3rd.  It clearly benefits the offensive team to have BI and save a probable out at third.  Even with the batter out and the runner returning a base hit still wins the game.

 

By the time the batter thinks - "Crap, Ked, better interfere" the throw is already on its way. Unless your catcher is incompetent.

 

 

I understand but even without intent I think there is a legit argument to say the lead runner should be retired because that is who the defense was making a play on.  I'm not necessarily saying the batter purposely interfered, just that his action of interference could end up being of benefit to his team.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

 

Example:  Winning run is at second base.  Batter swings and misses as runner is stealing 3rd.  It clearly benefits the offensive team to have BI and save a probable out at third.  Even with the batter out and the runner returning a base hit still wins the game.

 

By the time the batter thinks - "Crap, Ked, better interfere" the throw is already on its way. Unless your catcher is incompetent.

 

 

I understand but even without intent I think there is a legit argument to say the lead runner should be retired because that is who the defense was making a play on.  I'm not necessarily saying the batter purposely interfered, just that his action of interference could end up being of benefit to his team.

 

I get your point on what you think the rule should be.  And, the rule is that way for R3.  It's just not that way for other runners.

 

You know, they are looking for a new commissioner -- you could get it and get the rule changed.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

 

 

Example:  Winning run is at second base.  Batter swings and misses as runner is stealing 3rd.  It clearly benefits the offensive team to have BI and save a probable out at third.  Even with the batter out and the runner returning a base hit still wins the game.

 

By the time the batter thinks - "Crap, Ked, better interfere" the throw is already on its way. Unless your catcher is incompetent.

 

 

I understand but even without intent I think there is a legit argument to say the lead runner should be retired because that is who the defense was making a play on.  I'm not necessarily saying the batter purposely interfered, just that his action of interference could end up being of benefit to his team.

 

I get your point on what you think the rule should be.  And, the rule is that way for R3.  It's just not that way for other runners.

 

You know, they are looking for a new commissioner -- you could get it and get the rule changed.

 

 

I'd also get interference for any runner that continues on after being put out.  If your out get the hell off the field!

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example:  Winning run is at second base.  Batter swings and misses as runner is stealing 3rd.  It clearly benefits the offensive team to have BI and save a probable out at third.  Even with the batter out and the runner returning a base hit still wins the game.

 

By the time the batter thinks - "Crap, Ked, better interfere" the throw is already on its way. Unless your catcher is incompetent.

 

 

I understand but even without intent I think there is a legit argument to say the lead runner should be retired because that is who the defense was making a play on.  I'm not necessarily saying the batter purposely interfered, just that his action of interference could end up being of benefit to his team.

 

I get your point on what you think the rule should be.  And, the rule is that way for R3.  It's just not that way for other runners.

 

You know, they are looking for a new commissioner -- you could get it and get the rule changed.

 

 

I'd also get interference for any runner that continues on after being put out.  If you're out get the hell off the field!

 

 

That's wrong too.

 

Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

[noumpere]

I think he's now explaining "rules I would change if I were King" - so by definition he can't be "wrong"

[umpire_scott]

I think he's now explaining "rules I would change if I were King" - so by definition he can't be "wrong"

yes

[DVA7130]

Here is the stich that this brings to mind. R1 R3. R1 stealing and interference called on batter, however catcher never throws until a second later when he sees R3 off base. Rundown between home, tagged out.

 

Batter out, R3 out, R1 on first?

[grayhawk]

Here is the stich that this brings to mind. R1 R3. R1 stealing and interference called on batter, however catcher never throws until a second later when he sees R3 off base. Rundown between home, tagged out.

 

Batter out, R3 out, R1 on first?

 

No, that throw to third and rundown should have never happened.  Once interference was called and the initial throw was aborted, it should be killed right there.  Batter out, return R1 to first and R3 stays at third.

[maven]

Here is the stich that this brings to mind. R1 R3. R1 stealing and interference called on batter, however catcher never throws until a second later when he sees R3 off base. Rundown between home, tagged out.

Batter out, R3 out, R1 on first?

No, that throw to third and rundown should have never happened. Once interference was called and the initial throw was aborted, it should be killed right there. Batter out, return R1 to first and R3 stays at third.

Yep. No circuses.