On Deck Hitter INT

[MPLSMatt]

FED rules. 1 out, R3.  Better hits a fly to center.     R3 tags.  On deck hitter jumps in front of F2 to grab the bat, which is just in front of the plate, somewhat screening F2.  Throw is late and up the 1B line, no chance to get the runner even if on deck hitter hadn't entered the field.  DHC wants runner called out for INT.  

 

I tell him that since this is not intentional INT, the INT needs to prevent a potential out, and since there was no chance to get an out here it's ignored. Pretty sure I got it right, but having a hard time finding a good case play or citation. Any help would be much appreciated. 

 

Much obliged. 

Edited June 3, 2015 by MPLSMatt

[ElkOil]

INT does not have to be intentional.  However, it does have to cause some detriment.  Per 2-21-1a, " Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."  So you have a nice umbrella statement to work with, but no harm, no foul in this instance.  The yard stick you use to measure INT isn't necessarily whether or not an out was prevented, as far as I understand, unless there's scenario that specifically states so.

But I'm usually wrong about these things, so let's see who else chimes in on this.

[Cav]

INT does not have to be intentional...

​Let's focus our "chimes" on this statement. 

[maven]

The on-deck batter has no business getting in the way of the play, even if he is only trying to help (moving the bat — might have been coached to do that). INT by a teammate need NOT be intentional: he must vacate any space needed by the defense to make a play (same in all codes).

That said, it is still true that no hindrance = no INT. If you truly believe that the defense had "no chance" to retire the runner, then there was no hindrance, and so no INT.

But man, I'm giving the defense EVERY benefit of the doubt on this one. If the defense had a chance to play on any OTHER runner and the teammate hindered THAT play, then INT is back on the table.

At the very least, I'm telling the teammate that he's at grave risk for INT by doing that.

BTW: had you ruled INT here, the ball is dead, the runner being played on is out for his teammate's INT, and the BR is awarded 1B. You can get 2 if you judge that the INT was "willful and deliberate" (OBR) or if you judge that a double play was "possible" (FED).

[MPLSMatt]

Thanks all. Maven, the runner beat the throw by a good margin, so there was no chance for the out with or without INT. I did also explain to the OTHC that if there had been a play (or at least a closer play), it would've been INT.  No other runners as it was a tag up play with only R3 - so I didn't have to worry about that.  But do you have a citation?  

DHC didn't argue that there was no real play, just argued that it should be an out as a punitive measure. At one point he said "so my players can just go run around the field whenever they want?  That's not right." I said absent a play I still won't have an out but would certainly start ejecting. 

[noumpere]

 But do you have a citation?

 

​see elkoil's post #2, especially these words: "any fielder attempting to make a play"

 

No play, no interference

[maven]

No play, no interference

​No play makes hindrance impossible, which explains why INT is impossible.

As for coach's concern about players running around wherever they want, the answer is: for any who are legally out of the dugout, sure, until they interfere.