Interference Question

[Guest Rob]

Hi,

 

A pitcher throws ball four to a batter and this pitch is wild and the catcher has to block it. The ball bounces off of the catcher and up the first base line in foul territory. There is a runner on second base who breaks for third. The batter-runner who is jogging to first base steps on the ball unintentionally as the catcher is attempting to get the ball to try and throw out the runner going to third. Is this interference? Does it matter if the batter-runner acted intentional or not when he stepped on the ball? Thanks  

[Tksjewelry]

Intentional or not, it's still interference.

[maven]

What code? maven

[ElkOil]

FED 2-21-1a:

 

Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play

[clawdad]

2.21.1 SITUATION C: With two outs, B3 strikes out, but F2 drops the ball, which rebounds into B3’s base path. As B3 begins running to first, B3 accidentally kicks ball.

RULING: B3 is not guilty of interference and the ball remains live, unless in the umpire’s judgment B3 intentionally kicked the ball (8-4-1a).

 

8.4.1 SITUATION I: B1 swings and misses a pitch for strike three. The ball ricochets from F2’s mitt and rolls several feet down the first-base line in fair territory. As F2 goes for the ball, B1 accidently kicks or steps on the ball.

RULING: If, in the judgment of the umpire, B1 did not intentionally interfere, then the ball remains alive and the play stands. 

 

If these case plays aren't interference, then I don't have it in the OP either.

[johnpatrick]

This is a recent change in the OBR PBUC interpretation.  "In the vicinity of home plate" no longer exists.  If the BR interferes with the catcher's ability to field the ball it's interference, BR out, runners return. 

[NorthTexasUmp]

Unintentional, this is nothing. The Batter is doing what he is suppose to be doing. As clawdad said, unless it is judged to be intentional, this is not interference. The defense messed the play up, not the offense.

[maven]

This is a recent change in the OBR PBUC interpretation.  "In the vicinity of home plate" no longer exists.  If the BR interferes with the catcher's ability to field the ball it's interference, BR out, runners return.

 

Clearly, for FED intent matters. Accidental contact on this play is nothing: we should be sure to signal "safe" and verbalize "That's nothing!"

 

For OBR, the picture is murkier. The interp you mention applies to 7.09(a), but that rule is restricted to a 3rd strike not legally caught scenario:

 

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(a) After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch;

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

The Comment seems to be more general, but it is clearly linked to (a), which as I say seems to be restricted to a 3rd strike situation.

 

The OP is writing about an awarded base situation. Do we have any reason to think that 7.09(a) should be applied there?

 

Here's a reason NOT to think so. The "default" after a third strike is that the BR is out; he may run only if the pitch is not legally caught (and 1B unoccupied, etc.) The "default" after ball 4 is that the BR gets 1B. The rules might differentiate between the 2 cases, putting the bar higher for the BR who earned 1B, such that his accidental contact is ignored.

 

After strike 3, I'd apply 7.09(a), and rule INT if there was hindrance and regardless of intent. After ball 4, I'd apply 7.08(b), and rule INT only if there was intent to interfere and regardless of hindrance.

[clawdad]

@maven beat me to it.  Here is a screenshot from the 2014 PBUC Manual:  (I hope it shows up OK)https://www.dropbox.com/s/6cwnzu11c5og4u5/Screenshot%202015-02-10%20PBUC%20716.jpg?dl=0

[johnpatrick]

That's true, I was thinking about a dropped third strike.  This is the play from the PBUC manual that I was thinking about.  When it was taught, the point was that the status of the batter or fielder can change.  In this play he was going to 1B on an award, thus no interference.  Once the check swing appeal was upheld, he was no longer a BR and thus interference.

 

I agree.  In the OP, no interference.

 

Play 2: Runner on first base is stealing, three balls on the batter. The next pitch is a check swing that the plate umpire initially rules a ball. The batter-runner takes off for first base and in so doing interferes (out of the batter’s box) with the catcher’s throw to retire the runner attempting to reach second. Runner is safe at second. An appeal is made to the base umpire regarding the check swing, and the base umpire rules a swing. Ruling 2: Batter’s interference. Batter is declared out and runner returns to first base. Note that if this situation occurred with two strikes on the batter, then both the batter and runner are declared out.

 

[Tksjewelry]

This is a recent change in the OBR PBUC interpretation. "In the vicinity of home plate" no longer exists. If the BR interferes with the catcher's ability to field the ball it's interference, BR out, runners return.

Clearly, for FED intent matters. Accidental contact on this play is nothing: we should be sure to signal "safe" and verbalize "That's nothing!"

For OBR, the picture is murkier. The interp you mention applies to 7.09(a), but that rule is restricted to a 3rd strike not legally caught scenario:

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(a) After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch;

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

The Comment seems to be more general, but it is clearly linked to (a), which as I say seems to be restricted to a 3rd strike situation.

The OP is writing about an awarded base situation. Do we have any reason to think that 7.09(a) should be applied there?

Here's a reason NOT to think so. The "default" after a third strike is that the BR is out; he may run only if the pitch is not legally caught (and 1B unoccupied, etc.) The "default" after ball 4 is that the BR gets 1B. The rules might differentiate between the 2 cases, putting the bar higher for the BR who earned 1B, such that his accidental contact is ignored.

After strike 3, I'd apply 7.09(a), and rule INT if there was hindrance and regardless of intent. After ball 4, I'd apply 7.08(b), and rule INT only if there was intent to interfere and regardless of hindrance.

I was wrong, good to know.

@maven does the running lane matter in this scenario?

[noumpere]

 

@maven does the running lane matter in this scenario?

 

 

I'm not Maven, but the running lane only matters when the ball is being thrown to first in an attempt to retire the BR.

 

It doesn't matter when the ball is being fielded, or when it's being thrown from F3 (usually) toward home.

[UmpTTS43]

I believe this amended verbiage applies to the BR hindering the catcher not whether or not the BR makes contact with the ball. There is a difference in hindering F2 and hindering F2s ability to field the ball by unintentionally deflecting it.

[maven]

 

 

@maven does the running lane matter in this scenario?

 

 

I'm not Maven, but the running lane only matters when the ball is being thrown to first in an attempt to retire the BR.

 

It doesn't matter when the ball is being fielded, or when it's being thrown from F3 (usually) toward home.

 

 

Agree.

[Senor Azul]

There actually is an official interpretation that answers the question asked in the original post. It can be found in the 2014 edition of Carl Childress' BRD.

 

Section 289 on page 174 reads as follows:

 

Interference By: Batter-Runner w/Catch After: Dropped Fourth Ball

 

After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher's throw must be intentional for interference to be called. (Wendelstedt, 7/13.12)

 

Additionally, the BRD says that Fed and NCAA treat this situation the same as the OBR interpretation.

[Jimurray]

I believe this amended verbiage applies to the BR hindering the catcher not whether or not the BR makes contact with the ball. There is a difference in hindering F2 and hindering F2s ability to field the ball by unintentionally deflecting it.

If you are talking about the change to 7.09(a) both PBUC and MLBUM changed their interp of the batter being near home plate or "up the line"  and contacting the ball. I believe in OBR the location of the batter no longer matters if he contacts a DTK and thus hinders the catcher's fielding attempt. Saw it called that way in MLB once. 

[woodiemiller]

 

[Tksjewelry]

Intentional or not, it's still interference.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Yeah, I said that I was wrong already. Glad I read the the rest of the thread. Working kids, this will come up and now I'll get it right.

[ALStripes17]

@maven does the running lane matter in this scenario?

I'm not Maven, but the running lane only matters when the ball is being thrown to first in an attempt to retire the BR.

It doesn't matter when the ball is being fielded, or when it's being thrown from F3 (usually) toward home.

Is that completely true for FED?

The verbiage of the runner's lane rule (7-4?) makes it sound like the BR must ALWAYS be in the running lane other than 2 listed exceptions.

[maven]

Is that completely true for FED?

The verbiage of the runner's lane rule (7-4?) makes it sound like the BR must ALWAYS be in the running lane other than 2 listed exceptions.

You're thinking of 8-4-1-g:

 

The batter-runner is out when:

g. he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or

1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

You must read the entire rule. As usual with INT, no hindrance = no runner interference. But I'll give you this: the way the rule is worded, it does indeed make it sounds as if the infraction is running outside the lane rather than interfering.

 

The BR may run wherever he likes: but if he's out of the lane AND there's a throw to 1B AND he hinders the fielder fielding the throw (usually F3), THEN you'd rule INT.

 

The only difference from OBR is that in that code the throw to 1B must be a "quality" throw, that is, have a chance to retire the runner absent the hindrance. Other than that, the codes agree completely on the conditions for this infraction.

 

Coaches hate this call, by the way, and I'm not sure exactly why.

[johnnyg08]

Coaches hate this call, by the way, and I'm not sure exactly why.

Yes they do. I get a discussion every time I call it. Honestly, I simply think that many guys just simply don't call it either because they don't know the rule or aren't confident on how to apply the rule.

I have probably over 10 plays per year that would be RLI, but end up not being RLI for a number of reasons.

[Majordave]

I agree. 100% of the times I call RLI there is an explanation required. 90% there is a warning or ejection/restriction to dugout. (Usually followed by ejection.

[maven]

On the plus side, we're seeing this called more in MLB. That makes it a "real" call for players and coaches, so maybe, just maybe, we'll get a little slack...

[siz]

So on fields that have no RL marked, do you tell coaches at Ground Rules to have them run on the foul side at least?

[maven]

So on fields that have no RL marked, do you tell coaches at Ground Rules to have them run on the foul side at least?

 

No, never in a million years!

 

Coach meeting:

1. Legally equipped?

2. Lineups

3. Ground rules

4. Sportsmanship

 

Let's go. Should take no more than 60 seconds.

 

The running lane exists whether or not it's marked. If not marked, then it's my judgment whether the runner was in it. Same as any other line not marked.

[Majordave]

Agree with Maven. Never discuss rules in rule book other than ones your assigner/conference/Tourney Director requires and ground rules for the field itself.

All else I above/beyond what Maven said are not necessary and unnecessarily extend the plate meeting.