Interference on play at Plate

[tiger79]

Runner on 3B with no outs. Pitch is in the dirt, catcher blocks it and the ball rolls behind the batter who, in my opinion, inadvertently kicks the ball away as he backs out of the box thinking the runner may score on the PB. The ball was kicked back towards the dugout and the runner scored. What should have been the call? The run was allowed.

[Jocko]

Let there be light!

Now it sounds as if it all happened as a result of a bad pitch and batter avoiding it. I'm more inclined to rule "That's nothing" but I would definitely have to see it.

Funny thing is, we can discuss and talk and research and reread rules and mull and think for 50+ posts. But in that millisecond on the field in full speed, we are 100% convinced what we saw and how to rule. Makes me love this site even more when we can all have an at length discussion with differing opinions and there is no mud slinging or name calling.

+100 for everyone involved in this civil conversation. :cheers:

[Richvee]

Let there be light!

Now it sounds as if it all happened as a result of a bad pitch and batter avoiding it. I'm more inclined to rule "That's nothing" but I would definitely have to see it.

Funny thing is, we can discuss and talk and research and reread rules and mull and think for 50+ posts. But in that millisecond on the field in full speed, we are 100% convinced what we saw and how to rule. Makes me love this site even more when we can all have an at length discussion with differing opinions and there is no mud slinging or name calling.

+100 for everyone involved in this civil conversation.

Agree with everything. Especially how great this site is. Yeah, some day I might see a play with similarities to this thread, and you can bet your a$$ that in those few seconds I've got to make a call, thoughts of this thread will sweep through my head and have some effect on my call. 

[Magic]

Post 29 was how I originally thought the play developed. Hence the reason I asked the questions I did. And I am with all of you that this is a great resource. I am a better umpire because I am on here

[millerforrest]

Isnt the rulebook considered a set of "guidelines"? Its not going to cover every exact situation that can arise. In this case the only reason the batter was involved was because of the bad pitch by the pitcher and that the catcher made a "bad play" by not coming up with the ball. So why penalize the batter?

[Replacematt]

Isnt the rulebook considered a set of "guidelines"?

No.

Its not going to cover every exact situation that can arise. In this case the only reason the batter was involved was because of the bad pitch by the pitcher and that the catcher made a "bad play" by not coming up with the ball. So why penalize the batter?

 

If he violated a rule, he violated a rule. You can't claim a ball isn't hit if a batter ducks away from a high inside pitch and accidentally hits it, although the only reason the batter got involved is because of the bad pitch to the pitcher. In this case, if it is a situation of the batter kicking the ball as part of an action separate from one involving the pitch, he is liable for interference.

[millerforrest]

So if a pitch is way inside the batters box and the batter doesn't make any movement whatsoever to avoid being hit by it, youre not going to call the HBP even though the pitch was way inside the batters box?

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and smells like a duck......call it a duck! That is exactly the kind of nit picky thing that players/coaches/fans get upset over. Remember, perception is reality.

[Replacematt]

So if a pitch is way inside the batters box and the batter doesn't make any movement whatsoever to avoid being hit by it, youre not going to call the HBP even though the pitch was way inside the batters box?

Maybe, maybe not. Apples and oranges, anyway.