BATTER INTERFERENCE WITH CATCHER

[Guest FIRE 8104]

RUNNER ON 2ND ONLY STEALING 3RD ON PITCH, PITCH TO BATTER IS BALL 4, BATTER LEAVES BOX TO GO TO FIRST INTERFERES WITH CATCHER THROW TO 3RD. IS IT BATTER RESPONSIBILITY TO WAIT UNTIL CATCHER THROWS TO 3RD. UMPIRE CALLED BATTER OUT (DEAD BALL) AND RUNNER RETURNS TO 2ND BASE.

[ElkOil]

That sounds like the correct ruling to me. The best bet for the batter is to do nothing while in the box, then if he gets tangled up with the catcher, there's no interference. Unintentional interference is still interference.

[ricka56]

It is the former batter's (now  a runner) responsibility to not interfere. If the RHB moved forward while the catcher was trying to step forward to throw to 3B, it could be interference...dunno...had to be there.   

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, ElkOil said:

That sounds like the correct ruling to me. The best bet for the batter is to do nothing while in the box, then if he gets tangled up with the catcher, there's no interference. Unintentional interference is still interference.

"If the batter becomes a runner on ball four and the catcher's throw strikes him or his bat, the ball remains alive and in play ( provided no intentional..)" per MLBUM

[ricka56]

4 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

"If the batter becomes a runner on ball four and the catcher's throw strikes him or his bat, the ball remains alive and in play ( provided no intentional..)" per MLBUM

I think that's a better answer than mine...gonna arrow up it. 

[maven]

We need to bear in mind that the restrictions on the BATTER do not apply to the batter-runner. The BR, as a runner, is immune to INT with a thrown ball unless the hindrance is intentional.

In this case, it doesn't sound intentional, so no INT, play the bounce. (Signal "safe" and verbalize "that's nothing!" so that everyone plays on.) Same in all codes (FED: 8-4-2g, first clause).

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

"If the batter becomes a runner on ball four and the catcher's throw strikes him or his bat, the ball remains alive and in play ( provided no intentional..)" per MLBUM

In this situation the batter (now runner) broke for first, slowing down the catcher in releasing the ball and was called out, the ball did not strike the runner. Ultimately it worked out for us because the baserunner was called out at 3rd and was able to return to 2nd because of the deadball/out call. Call to me at time did not seem correct that batter/now runner on ball 4 would have to stand and wait, hence the question today.

[noumpere]

16 minutes ago, maven said:

We need to bear in mind that the restrictions on the BATTER do not apply to the batter-runner. The BR, as a runner, is immune to INT with a thrown ball unless the hindrance is intentional.

In this case, it doesn't sound intentional, so no INT, play the bounce. (Signal "safe" and verbalize "that's nothing!" so that everyone plays on.) Same in all codes (FED: 8-4-2g, first clause).

If we're going to "arrow up" posts, then this is the one on which we should do so.

[ALStripes17]

We need to bear in mind that the restrictions on the BATTER do not apply to the batter-runner. The BR, as a runner, is immune to INT with a thrown ball unless the hindrance is intentional.

In this case, it doesn't sound intentional, so no INT, play the bounce. (Signal "safe" and verbalize "that's nothing!" so that everyone plays on.) Same in all codes (FED: 8-4-2g, first clause).

For FED: If that's the case, how do we get batter INT on a strike 3? The moment strike 3 occurs, the batter becomes a runner, and the instant he becomes a runner, he becomes a retired runner...I would like to challenge your logic.

7.3.5 Situation I does not mention intentional or unintentional but I don't read intent as an issue in that case play. Batter INT can still be called even if the batter has become a BR by def'n.

Edited to correct the typo in case play cite

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[scrounge]

25 minutes ago, maven said:

We need to bear in mind that the restrictions on the BATTER do not apply to the batter-runner. The BR, as a runner, is immune to INT with a thrown ball unless the hindrance is intentional.

In this case, it doesn't sound intentional, so no INT, play the bounce. (Signal "safe" and verbalize "that's nothing!" so that everyone plays on.) Same in all codes (FED: 8-4-2g, first clause).

We do get this somewhat contradictory case, though...even though the batter has received ball four, the case book still applies rule 7.

7.3.5 SITUATION I:

With a runner on third base and one out, B3 receives ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R1. The ball contacts the bat in mid-air and is deflected into dead-ball territory.

RULING: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for the interference. (7-3-5)

[ALStripes17]

We do get this somewhat contradictory case, though...even though the batter has received ball four, the case book still applies rule 7.

7.3.5 SITUATION I:

With a runner on third base and one out, B3 receives ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R1. The ball contacts the bat in mid-air and is deflected into dead-ball territory.

RULING: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for the interference. (7-3-5)

Noticed error as you posted and edited my post to refer to Situation I.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ElkOil]

Here I go again...

 

[maven]

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

For FED: If that's the case, how do we get batter INT on a strike 3? The moment strike 3 occurs, the batter becomes a runner, and the instant he becomes a runner, he becomes a retired runner...I would like to challenge your logic.

7.3.5 Situation I does not mention intentional or unintentional but I don't read intent as an issue in that case play. Batter INT can still be called even if the batter has become a BR by def'n.

Interesting point. On strike 3, I would distinguish 2 cases.

1. Where the BR may advance on strike 3, he is a runner, and I would rule as in 7.3.5I. If he does nothing but legally advance and F2 is hindered by that attempt, play the bounce. This principle is applied in 2.21.1C, where the BR attempts to advance after a D3K and accidentally kicks the ball: no INT. (OBR is different here.)
2. Where the BR may not advance, we have a retired runner, who must attempt to avoid a fielder making a play. Failure to do so makes him liable for INT. "If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out." 8-4-2g

On ball 4: 7.3.5I makes the BR responsible for his bat. Discarding the bat is not part of taking his awarded base, so in that respect we treat him like a batter and not like a runner. In the OP, the BR is advancing in the course of taking his award, so he gets the benefit of being a runner.
 

[spiffdawg7]

4 hours ago, Guest said:

In this situation the batter (now runner) broke for first, slowing down the catcher in releasing the ball and was called out, the ball did not strike the runner. Ultimately it worked out for us because the baserunner was called out at 3rd and was able to return to 2nd because of the deadball/out call. Call to me at time did not seem correct that batter/now runner on ball 4 would have to stand and wait, hence the question today.

I agree with the others who say it should not be interference because the batter is now a runner, but the ump kicked the call a second time by not allowing the throw to third.  If he calls batter interference here it should be a delayed dead ball and the interference should be disregarded if the runner is retired on the initial throw.  

[scrounge]

IF THE BATTER MAKES ANY MOVE TO INTERFERE INSTEAD OF STANDING THERE, HE IS IN DANGER OF INTERFERING. WOULD HAVE TO SEE IT BUT THIS SOUNDS LIKE POTENTIALLY A GOOD RULING. WHY ARE WE YELLING?