Interference

[Jimurray]

I don't think that's the standard anybody intended.  If his right foot lands within the box and then the ball hits him, will you have a foul ball?  So, depending on the instant it hits him, it would be foul (right away), then interference (as pictured), and then foul again (after the right foot lands).

It's normal for the back foot to be off the ground at contact.  If Pujols drives this pitch into his front foot, surely we're not getting interference.

 

 

This is what they said when the rule was changed:

"Clarified rules on a ball that deflects to hit a batter or a bat while the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box and has not intended to interfere with the course of the ball.  (Rules 6.05(g) and 6.05(h)) "

I have seen it consistently called that way in MLB. I don't think anybody would get Pujols for INT but if he had started to run with one foot in the air it looks like MLB umpires will call it.

[basejester]

I have seen it consistently called that way in MLB. I don't think anybody would get Pujols for INT but if he had started to run with one foot in the air it looks like MLB umpires will call it.

I think what they're looking for is the batter running into the ball instead of the ball striking the batter.  It has nothing to do with the feet being on the ground, IMHO.

[Jimurray]

I think what they're looking for is the batter running into the ball instead of the ball striking the batter.  It has nothing to do with the feet being on the ground, IMHO.

Don't listen to the announcers:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v35127781/sdmin-schafer-attempts-bunt-out-on-interference/?query=bunt+hits+batter

http://m.mlb.com/video/v30918583/arisd-fuentes-out-after-being-hit-with-batted-ball/?query=bunt%2Bhits%2Bbatter

Edited September 11, 2015 by Jimurray

[Jimurray]

Culbreth should not be used to understand this rule:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v22102985/atlmia-minor-called-out-on-batters-interference/?query=bunt%2Bhits%2Bbatter

[basejester]

Some other cases for discussion:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v35127781/sdmin-schafer-attempts-bunt-out-on-interference/?query=interference

 

 

Edited September 11, 2015 by basejester
Jimurray beat me to it.

[Thunderheads]

Culbreth should not be used to understand this rule:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v22102985/atlmia-minor-called-out-on-batters-interference/?query=bunt%2Bhits%2Bbatter

that one is not an out

[umpstu]

The PU is pointing to the ground outside of the batter's box, so this would lead me to believe that he ruled that the foot was on the ground outside the box - certainly looked that way in real time.  Even the runner acted like he knew he was out. I know this has been discussed in other threads, but I don't think they call an out just for having a foot in the air.  In FED I believe one of their interps says that if one foot is in and one is out of the box on a play like this that it is a foul ball, which is ridiculous IMO.  I watched the video without volume as I'm at work and maybe the announcers talked about it - is this play reviewable?

I think he is pointing fair.

[Thunderheads]

Some other cases for discussion:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v376574583/clemin-almonte-out-on-batter-interference/?query=interference

http://m.mlb.com/video/v35127781/sdmin-schafer-attempts-bunt-out-on-interference/?query=interference

 

 

first one is not INT, ball never touches him...

second one ...out ..

[stkjock]

that one is not an out

It was for Culbreth  

[noumpere]

I think what they're looking for is the batter running into the ball instead of the ball striking the batter.  It has nothing to do with the feet being on the ground, IMHO.

I was just going to add this -- having thought about my previous post.  It might also be along the lines of "not immediate" or "movement associated with running to first and not with the swing" (neither of which are really good rules-book definitions, but might be the guidelines uses)

[DVA7130]

All this, "precisely where both feet are, in the air,/ground, or if it's Tuesday" nonsense practically goes out the window during a game. You will not be watching his feet, you will be watching the ball. There will be just a few moments to figure out where the batter's body looks to be and make a call.

 

If he looks in the box, foul.

If he looks out in front, call the interference. It is just umpiring in the moment.

[noumpere]

All this, "precisely where both feet are, in the air,/ground, or if it's Tuesday" nonsense practically goes out the window during a game. You will not be watching his feet, you will be watching the ball. There will be just a few moments to figure out where the batter's body looks to be and make a call.

 

If he looks in the box, foul.

If he looks out in front, call the interference. It is just umpiring in the moment.

While I agree with that, if you don't know waht to look for, you won't know what it looks like.

[umpstu]

first one is not INT, ball never touches him...

second one ...out ..

That first one sure is a tough one for the PU.