Jump to content
  • 0

Batter interference when evading a HBP

Guest Jeb

Asked by Guest Jeb,

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3722 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest Jeb

Guest Jeb

Posted
Posted

Hello there!

I just witnessed a play during the Rangers vs Mariners game that confused me.  Shin Soo Choo is on 1st and attempts to steal 2nd.  Felix Hernandez' pitch to Prince Fielder is WAY low and inside causing Fielder to hop backwards quickly so as to not get hit by the pitch.  His sudden backwards hop causes him to compensate by bending over forward and his momentum carries him out of the batters box and he ends up being in the way of the catcher who was trying to throw Choo out.  The umpire called Fielder out for interference and Choo was sent back to 1st. 

My question is, if the pitcher throws an errant ball, shouldn't the batter have the right to evade by any means necessary?  Does the umpire have any leeway to use judgement in this situation and not call interference?  Seems like Choo should be sent back to first, but Fielder should live to see another pitch in my opinion.  Any insight or opinions are appreciated!

 

  • Answers 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Popular Posts

maven
maven

The chance that this play will prompt a review of the rule is approximately zero.

Richvee
Richvee

http://m.mlb.com/video/v572457783/seatex-fielder-called-out-on-batter-interference/?c_id=mlb  

udbrky
udbrky

Now if it was the last out of a perfect game and a no-brainer, on the other hand ....

15 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

If the batter leaves the box or makes any move that hinders the throw/attempted throw from F2, it's BI. There's no provision for unintentional INT. That said, on the the play you refer to, I think that call could have gone either way. Prince looked like he cleared F2 before F2 even stated to throw. Judgement call all the way, and Jim Joyce's judgement is much better than mine.

  • 0
noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Guest Jeb said:

 Does the umpire have any leeway to use judgement in this situation and not call interference?  Seems like Choo should be sent back to first, but Fielder should live to see another pitch in my opinion.  Any insight or opinions are appreciated!

I didn't see the play, but, yes, there's judgment involved.  The "solution" you propose is not allowed by rule*.  Either it's INT and the penalty is enforced, or it's not INT and the play stands.

 

* -- it's not allowed by THIS rule.  It is similar to the "backswing interference" rule.

  • 0
Guest Jeb

Guest Jeb

Posted
Posted

Hi Rich,

Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply.  I think there should be some provision where an umpire can use their judgement in a case like this.  You could argue that the pitcher initiated the interference by throwing a pitch that a batter had to try and evade and that the runner should be called safe and the batter lives to see another pitch.  That being said, I'd be okay with a rule that allowed for umpire to use his/her own judgement and the runner is sent back to first and the batter isn't penalized for having to bail out.

I'll call Obama. ;) 

  • 0
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Guest Jeb said:

Hi Rich,

Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply.  I think there should be some provision where an umpire can use their judgement in a case like this.  You could argue that the pitcher initiated the interference by throwing a pitch that a batter had to try and evade and that the runner should be called safe and the batter lives to see another pitch.  That being said, I'd be okay with a rule that allowed for umpire to use his/her own judgement and the runner is sent back to first and the batter isn't penalized for having to bail out.

I'll call Obama. ;) 

I understand what you're saying, but that's not the rule. It's batter's out, runner returns, or judge the catcher was not hindered, play on.

Please don't call Obama....he'll probably just make it worse.  (sorry..couldn't resist) :angel4:

  • 0
ElkOil

ElkOil

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Guest Jeb said:

Hello there!

I just witnessed a play during the Rangers vs Mariners game that confused me.  Shin Soo Choo is on 1st and attempts to steal 2nd.  Felix Hernandez' pitch to Prince Fielder is WAY low and inside causing Fielder to hop backwards quickly so as to not get hit by the pitch.  His sudden backwards hop causes him to compensate by bending over forward and his momentum carries him out of the batters box and he ends up being in the way of the catcher who was trying to throw Choo out.  The umpire called Fielder out for interference and Choo was sent back to 1st. 

My question is, if the pitcher throws an errant ball, shouldn't the batter have the right to evade by any means necessary?  Does the umpire have any leeway to use judgement in this situation and not call interference?  Seems like Choo should be sent back to first, but Fielder should live to see another pitch in my opinion.  Any insight or opinions are appreciated!

 

Just remember that although the batter has to make an attempt to avoid the pitch, it doesn't mean he can't be hit by it. The batter has to control himself so as to not interfere with the catcher. Opening this up too much to umpire judgement invites wildly different opinions, which may ultimately do more harm than good, depending on the game situation and the criticality of making the call or not.

  • 0
Out&UglyToo

Out&UglyToo

Posted
Posted

Thank you for the video clip, Rich. That was very unfortunate for the Texas club. Shin Soo Choo had that base stolen free and clean. Fielder was out of the way before the throw. It may well have been ruled NOT interference. The catcher had ZERO chance of throwing the runner out.

Definitely a candidate play to cause a review of the rule.

  • 0
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

I doubt we see a rule review, and like I said earlier, I can see a case for no INT here, but I defer to the judgement of Mr.Joyce, who had a little better feel for the play than I.

  • 0
udbrky

udbrky

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Richvee said:

I doubt we see a rule review, and like I said earlier, I can see a case for no INT here, but I defer to the judgement of Mr.Joyce, who had a little better feel for the play than I.

Now if it was the last out of a perfect game and a no-brainer, on the other hand .... :)

  • Like 1
  • 0
noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, maven said:

The chance that this play will prompt a review of the rule is approximately zero.

I don't think it's even that high.

 

We can disagree on the judgment (did the pitch cause the batter to go that way, or did the batter choose to go that way), but the rule itself is fine.

 Share
Go to question listing
×
×
  • Create New...