Interference or play on?

[bluejerred]

Sitch:  Bottom of 7th, 3-1 count, 2 outs, R1, R3.  Pitch taken for strike 2.  R3 has big lead and F2 decides to make a snap throw to F5.  The throw from F2 hits the batter in the box on the helmet and rolls into the infield.  What are your adjudications if a) the batter did not move at the time of F2's throw and b) the batter made any movement in the box during F2's throw.

 

 

[Thunderheads]

a) IF he froze I probably have nothing

 

b) HTBT ... depends on the movement

[maven]

Agree with Jeff about (a), which is nothing, play the bounce.

 

(b) is probably BI: 6.06(c ) prohibits "making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play," which this batter pretty clearly did. With 2 outs, the ball is dead and the batter is out.

[Thunderheads]

Agree with Jeff about (a), which is nothing, play the bounce.

 

(b) is probably BI: 6.06(c ) prohibits "making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play," which this batter pretty clearly did. With 2 outs, the ball is dead and the batter is out.

I understand this, and it very well could be 6.06 c ......... but I still think it's a HTBT

[umpire_scott]

 

Agree with Jeff about (a), which is nothing, play the bounce.

 

(b) is probably BI: 6.06(c ) prohibits "making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play," which this batter pretty clearly did. With 2 outs, the ball is dead and the batter is out.

I understand this, and it very well could be 6.06 c ......... but I still think it's a HTBT

 

 

I agree.  I think it is not realistic to assume the batter be a complete statue.  So the movement has to be such that I think F2 made a reasonable attempt to throw around the batter, and then the batter moved into that path.

[maven]

I agree.  I think it is not realistic to assume the batter be a complete statue.  So the movement has to be such that I think F2 made a reasonable attempt to throw around the batter, and then the batter moved into that path.

1. That's not what I said.
2. You're making up rules.

[umpire_scott]

 

I agree.  I think it is not realistic to assume the batter be a complete statue.  So the movement has to be such that I think F2 made a reasonable attempt to throw around the batter, and then the batter moved into that path.

1. That's not what I said.
2. You're making up rules.

 

 

Maven - The OP says "made any movement in the box prior to F2's throw".  Not making "any movement" would be standing still as a statue.  

 

I'm not making up rules, this is a judgement call.  Just because the batter moved I do not automatically have BI.  Therefore that is implying that F2 has some responsibility to throw around the batter.  If he does that and then the batter movement hinders him I call BI.  What am I missing here?

[noumpere]

The movement he's allowed to make is a "normal swing."  We all know it when we see it.

 

"Any other movement" puts him at risk for BI.

[bluejerred]

Add on question:  If the batter swings and his backswing interferes with F2, is the penalty different than if he moved and created interference with the throw?  Sorry to add on so early in the post.

[umpire_scott]

The movement he's allowed to make is a "normal swing."  We all know it when we see it.

 

"Any other movement" puts him at risk for BI.

  

When does the "normal swing" end?  In a typical swing the batter bends his legs and steps forward.  Let's say after the swing he simply returns to an upright position.

 

All I'm saying is that when F2 is making his throw he has to avoid the batter.  He can't just throw it at the batter and hope to get BI.  So as he makes his throw (and batter is not in his path), if at that time batter moves into his path, that is when I will generally call BI.  If batter is standing there and F2 steps towards him and batter tries to get out of the way and then the ball hit his helmet, I'm not getting BI there. So in my interpretation F2 first has to attempt to avoid the batter in the box and throw around him.  F2 has two options throw at him or avoid throwing at him.  If he makes that reasonable effort to avoid throwing it at him, and the batter movement results in the OP then I've got BI.

 

Yes any movement puts him at risk of BI.  But it does not make it BI.  

[bluejerred]

Never mind on the add on question, I just read 6.06 [c]

[afaber12]

Its HTBT because though the batter moved, that movement isn't necessarily what caused the interference. Say the batter spots that the throw is on and tucks his arms in towards his body to quickly get them out of the way, and present a narrower profile for the catcher to avoid. The catcher's throw still hits the batter in the hip (throwing from the knees). The batter moved, and he hindered the catcher's play, but the outcome of the play would have been the same had the batter not moved. Same if he ducks down but gets hit in the head instead of the torso.

 

If the movement caused the hindrance then I have interference, but only if it was because of the movement.

[Thunderheads]

Its HTBT because though the batter moved, that movement isn't necessarily what caused the interference. Say the batter spots that the throw is on and tucks his arms in towards his body to quickly get them out of the way, and present a narrower profile for the catcher to avoid. The catcher's throw still hits the batter in the hip (throwing from the knees). The batter moved, and he hindered the catcher's play, but the outcome of the play would have been the same had the batter not moved. Same if he ducks down but gets hit in the head instead of the torso.

 

If the movement caused the hindrance then I have interference, but only if it was because of the movement.

this is my point as well.

 

I understand that he's at risk for BI if he moves, ...very clear in 6.06 c, but ...........BUT ..........

 

For instance, ...let's say the movement of the batter is dropping his chin down to protect his face and the ball hits his helmet?  IS THAT movement BI?  I'd have to say no, ...but again,...HTBT

[maven]

For instance, ...let's say the movement of the batter is dropping his chin down to protect his face and the ball hits his helmet?  IS THAT movement BI?  I'd have to say no, ...but again,...HTBT

Jeff, I'd expect him to do that during the pitch, not during F2's throw. If he does it during the throw and it hinders F2, BI.

 

He's a batter, not a ducker. He's entitled to hit the pitch. Anything else puts him at risk.

[Thunderheads]

 

For instance, ...let's say the movement of the batter is dropping his chin down to protect his face and the ball hits his helmet?  IS THAT movement BI?  I'd have to say no, ...but again,...HTBT

Jeff, I'd expect him to do that during the pitch, not during F2's throw. If he does it during the throw and it hinders F2, BI.

 

He's a batter, not a ducker. He's entitled to hit the pitch. Anything else puts him at risk.

 

agreed ..........but it's a HTBT.....

I'm not calling BI if F2 throws to F5 and the batter flinches and drops his chin .... that's a movement, but probably not a hinderance.  Regardless ...... he's at risk, agreed, let's keep it there

[maven]

Sometimes guys want a way to rule this that doesn't require any judgment. Sorry, guys, you have to judge whether the additional movement hindered F2.

 

B turns his head and F2 throws it right into his gut? That's not hindrance: the throw would have hit the B if he had not been moving.

 

The rule does not prohibit additional movement (beyond a swing), it prohibits additional movement that hinders F2 fielding or throwing. Gotta rule on the hindrance.

[Rich Ives]

I'm just going to plunk the batter - something must have moving.  Free out. 

[bluejerred]

I read the rule in detail and it appears that if BI is committed, you don't necessarily kill the play right away if the defense attempts to make a play.  In this case, when would you call time and adjudicate as necessary? 

 

Also, in my situation, if BI was committed but the defense for whatever reason decided to get the guy at first going to second out, the BI would be nullified, correct?

[MidAmUmp]

Here's my take, and I'm not getting into any pissing matches like we've had recently...

 

1) The batter is entitled to the box.

2) As long as his movements are natural within the box, you have nothing.

3) He must do something intentional (raise arms, step into the catcher, etc.) within the box to have interference.

4) The defense is not required to make a play in this situation.  The offense didn't initiate a play.  R3 was simply leading off (the length of R3's lead is irrelevant), the Catcher decided to throw behind him.  The batter cannot assume a play is going to be made in this situation, so I would error on the side of giving the batter the benefit of the doubt on his movements - as opposed to a runner stealing where the batter can assume a play will be made, in which case I would error on the side of the catcher.

 

This is over simplifying the play and are not hard and fast rules.  This is how I would handle the play with common sense and fair play.

[noumpere]

I read the rule in detail and it appears that if BI is committed, you don't necessarily kill the play right away if the defense attempts to make a play.  In this case, when would you call time and adjudicate as necessary? 

 

Also, in my situation, if BI was committed but the defense for whatever reason decided to get the guy at first going to second out, the BI would be nullified, correct?

Kill it when the initial throw does not retire the runner.

 

If the initial play is to second, then that's the one that needs to be interfered with.  If F2 tried for a play at third and couldn't make it because of the BI, and THEN decides to try for the out at second -- well, that try never happens because the ball is already dead on the BI.

[bluejerred]

Thank you all for your prompt replies.  This situation was one that got me back in the book; however, looking up the black and white is one thing and knowing how to apply it in a game and explain it in an argument takes wisdom.  I feel liked I am armed and ready to tackle this situation if it comes up again.

[charliej47]

In 50+ years, I have called BI maybe 6 or 7 times.

 

The one that sticks out is:

Runner on 1st and runner on 3rd, F2 starts to throw to F5 but B3 steps and blocks the throw.  Runner on 1st is trying to steal and F2 throws him out.  I kill the play on BI but no one heard me.  After everything calmed down, I ruled BI, B3 is out and the runner goes back to 1st.

 

The DC comes out and wanted three outs.  I explained that once I have BI, the ball is dead.  The coach had a really hard time accepting the fact that he could not have 3 outs.  I explained again tht the attempt on the runner at 3rd base was unsuccessful therefore the ball became dead and the batter was out.

[bluejerred]

In 50+ years, I have called BI maybe 6 or 7 times.

 

The one that sticks out is:

Runner on 1st and runner on 3rd, F2 starts to throw to F5 but B3 steps and blocks the throw.  Runner on 1st is trying to steal and F2 throws him out.  I kill the play on BI but no one heard me.  After everything calmed down, I ruled BI, B3 is out and the runner goes back to 1st.

 

The DC comes out and wanted three outs.  I explained that once I have BI, the ball is dead.  The coach had a really hard time accepting the fact that he could not have 3 outs.  I explained again tht the attempt on the runner at 3rd base was unsuccessful therefore the ball became dead and the batter was out.

If there was less than two outs in this situation, would the runner at 3B be out or the batter?  Does it make a difference if the runner at 3rd is trying to score or if he is just leading off?

[grayhawk]

 

In 50+ years, I have called BI maybe 6 or 7 times.

 

The one that sticks out is:

Runner on 1st and runner on 3rd, F2 starts to throw to F5 but B3 steps and blocks the throw.  Runner on 1st is trying to steal and F2 throws him out.  I kill the play on BI but no one heard me.  After everything calmed down, I ruled BI, B3 is out and the runner goes back to 1st.

 

The DC comes out and wanted three outs.  I explained that once I have BI, the ball is dead.  The coach had a really hard time accepting the fact that he could not have 3 outs.  I explained again tht the attempt on the runner at 3rd base was unsuccessful therefore the ball became dead and the batter was out.

If there was less than two outs in this situation, would the runner at 3B be out or the batter?  Does it make a difference if the runner at 3rd is trying to score or if he is just leading off?

 

 

In @charliej47's play above, unless the batter struck out on the pitch, he is the one that should be out, not R3.  If R3 was stealing home and the batter interfered, then you could get R3 out if there are less than 2 outs.  If there are 2 outs, then the batter is out and the inning is over.

[bluejerred]

 

 

In 50+ years, I have called BI maybe 6 or 7 times.

 

The one that sticks out is:

Runner on 1st and runner on 3rd, F2 starts to throw to F5 but B3 steps and blocks the throw.  Runner on 1st is trying to steal and F2 throws him out.  I kill the play on BI but no one heard me.  After everything calmed down, I ruled BI, B3 is out and the runner goes back to 1st.

 

The DC comes out and wanted three outs.  I explained that once I have BI, the ball is dead.  The coach had a really hard time accepting the fact that he could not have 3 outs.  I explained again tht the attempt on the runner at 3rd base was unsuccessful therefore the ball became dead and the batter was out.

If there was less than two outs in this situation, would the runner at 3B be out or the batter?  Does it make a difference if the runner at 3rd is trying to score or if he is just leading off?

 

 

In @charliej47's play above, unless the batter struck out on the pitch, he is the one that should be out, not R3.  If R3 was stealing home and the batter interfered, then you could get R3 out if there are less than 2 outs.  If there are 2 outs, then the batter is out and the inning is over.

 

And if the batter did strike out, then committed interference, the runner closest to home is out, correct?